Does anyone think that there is a place in the media treatment of this war
for a 'real' to be found? Not in a Baudrillard 'is the war real?' but can we
find a way to try and work out for ourselves what we think?
Is there a sense in which our opinions on the war are dictated to not by the
'actual facts' of the war but our reaction to *our view* of its media
representation?
e.g. - Bush says we must go to war. Most intelligent Americans distrust
Bush. Thus what Bush says is worng and must be challenged as reactionary
neo-colonialism. Thus whatever we see represented about the War (evidence,
coverage from Iraq) becomes all but irrelevant (Hans Blix rubbishing Colin
Powell's evidence in the UN Security Council).
(This is supposition not statement of fact)
Thus all representation becomes propaganda because we know our governments
lie to us.
As a young person in Britain who voted Labour I see my relationship to the
Labour Government differently than if I was in America with George Bush as
my President. Because TOny Blair makes himself different from Bush. He is a
better politician, rhetorician and publicist. Thus I want to believe him
when he says war is moral. But I still dont want war - but I do want to see
the people of Iraq free.
If we disbelieve all we hear and see, we will probably be anti-war. If we
take it for granted that its true then we will follow Bush and Blair all the
way to Baghdad. How much of our opinions are subjective interpretations not
only of the meanings of discourses, but ultimately of the validity of
representative discourses to be seen as proper discourses that should be
listened to?
Can we escape the net of representation that our politicians and
broadcasters throw up around us, or was it always like this and I just
didn't notice? Am i looking for a zero point of mediation that cannot be
found?
|