Phil Graham on Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:30:08 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Wark, Criticism, Democracy |
Georgie or Daisy or whatever your name is, Whatever gave you the idea that Wark is "one of the *few* Australian intellectuals" who has the "audacity" to talk about media in the media? What complete and utter rot! First, it takes no audacity to regurgitate an orthodoxy in an orthodox medium. Second, I won't list *all* of the many people I know of who talk about media in the media, but I'll name a few who do actually have an influence on real-world outcomes in the media: Glynn Davis, Jennifer Craik, Stuart Cunningham, Graeme Turner, Alan Luke, Jim Gee, Alan Lankshear, John Quiggin, John Wanna, Philip Adams, the list goes on, and it includes many journalists too, all of whom may be considered "intellectual", if you must use that term. But all you are doing in your use of the word "intellectual" is displaying your own ignorance, which most probably the source of your anti-intellectualism. As for your gutless slur on my own activities: Yes. I have presented at a postgrad colloquium on Marxist theory. Yes. I've published in "obscure" academic journals, as well as more influential ones. I've also been in the media industries for over 20 years and have been published in many Australian papers. I've also been called to and given evidence at Senate hearings on international policy, and I'm actively involved in several policy arenas that you wouldn't even have heard of, but which are influential nonetheless. You are an anti-intellectual bigot, at least as far as I can see, and thus evidence of a disturbing trend. Perhaps you think I shouldn't waste my time trying to influence academics. After all, academics have no influence in matters of policy, right? Wrong. As for your statement that "big decisions" are made in the media, that is also complete and ignorant rot. The big decisions are merely announced in the print and broadcast media. Very rarely is debate conducted in the media about really big decisions, like for instance the GST, GATT, NAFTA, the MAI, bilateral and multilateral treaties of all kinds - policy directions on biotechnology, trade, tariffs, foreign affairs, media regulation, privatisation - all of these are set behind closed doors or made in fora outside the countries that they will affect. That is not an extremist or paranoid statement, merely a matter of fact and experience. Once made by vested interests, decisions are then merely "sold" in traditional media. The only dissent allowed is narrowed to the terms set by a larger agenda, and even then, limited by editorial process to trivial commentary or affirmation. Mass media do not lend themselves to being fora for debate. They're good for raising issues and good for obscuring them. That is a fact that has been well documented since radio broadcasting emerged, and well before that too, since large newspaper conglomerates emerged as a result of the telegraph's impact on that industry. Get it straight: mass media are instruments of propaganda owned by vested interests - nothing else, at least very rarely. And, if you think I said that the Third Way was inconsequential, look again. Read my message carefully. I said exactly the opposite. It's dangerous. In fact you missed the subtlety of my comment about Third Way rhetoric. I have nbo doubt that it will find the content it so sadly lacks, and that's what scares me. When people like Wark start bullying people and diminishing their right to criticism, saying that criticism is useless, the Third Way trajectory becomes quite clear. It's the same trajectory it's always been on. Also, I wouldn't waste my time on mailing lists if I didn't think that they influenced and affected people: educators, business people, journalists, policy makers - they are all on mailing lists these days, or perhaps you think that what is written here matters not a whit, and that what you say yourself doesn't matter. Wrong again. Phil Graham # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net