davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Tue Jul 22 11:59:17 MDT 2003
NO -- you condescending %#*!..I was saying that *IF* the media
was about reporting news and exposing stories they could expose
just as much dirt on the ruling class without waiting for the story to
happen. I realize that the media doesn't operate like that. But, I
was nevertheless responding to Mark's suggestion (at least the
way I interpreted it) that reporting news is some mechanical
process in which journalists always wait for the controversial story
to happen rather than expose a controversy in the making.
Are you dense or something or are just looking for attention?
From: "Jose G. Perez" <jgperez at netzero.net>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Subject: RE: Lesser-evilism
Date sent: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:55:42 -0400
Send reply to: marxism at lists.panix.com
> David. There's no point to a pissing match. You think bourgeois
> journalism is doing a terrible job. I just wanted to point out, one
> would only say that if they were under the illusion that there is any
> traditional bourgeois journalism left in the corporate media.
> "Journalists" have no control, zero, zip, over the contents of
> the corporate media. They have qualitatively less so *today* than they
> did a couple of years ago, when they had no control whatsoever.
> That's right, re-read the sentence. Two years ago they had no
> control. TODAY they have less than that. *Qualitatively* less than that.
> Less than zero.
> "War is peace..."
> "We have always been at war with Oceania..."
> "U.S. military combat casualties since the war in Iraq ended..."
> Put Marxmail aside for a few days. Read Orwell. The latest
> headline news from next week's edition of the corporate media are all
> there. And have been for half a century.
More information about the Marxism