 |
 |
Not that abstract, Chris. You might find Hans Magnus Enzenberger's comments on Stern in his book of essays _Mediocrities and Delusions_ interesting (apart from anything else, he's always a pleasure to read). He makes the same comment about media proprietors being more savvy about media theory than the students protesting against it. Best Alison >Martin and list > >Yes, the question you are asking is what I am also asking myself. To be >honest I don't fully understand the mechanics of how this is happening. It is >more that gut feeling which hits you and raises your suspicions and to do a >rigorous analysis I would have to access a media monitor service and get all >the footage and clippings. Since this was a discussion list I didn't want to >pull punches with qualifiers like I suspect, also. > >The scapegoating stuff is fairly clear. On the front cover of yesterday's >_Telegraph_, a Murdoch tabloid, was a graphic of 21 blanked out faces with >the headline something like: 21 arsonists who set Sydney ablaze. It is fairly >clear that these 21 mainly teenagers are being blamed for all the fires yet I >know already that some of these so-called arsonists were caught attempting to >light a fire and did not light the major fires. The fire in the northern >suburbs of Sydney may have been deliberately lit but the fire to the south of >the Blue Mountains appears to be caused by lightening strikes, also. It will >take forensic testing to be more certain and even then this is not always >conclusive. Forensic science can be wrong, often inconclusive or open to >legal challenge and is easy to tamper with. > >The type of media analysis, critique and theory I am using is not interested >in arguing a point of truth and trying to disprove the coverage, although >this may arise as a serious concern. Nor is it interested in in the >individual person or people being portrayed. I think this may be what Candice >is referring to with the sort of simplistic critique of media events which >relies on a sort of judgment of truth and which Chomsky falls into the trap >of doing. What I am doing is in general looking at the relation of forces and >the real effects and outcomes. > >Ummm... sorry, I know what I just said is very abstract. Perhaps one way in >is a particular type of practical use of Foucault's discourse analysis. To >understand how this works, I should say that Foucault entered academic >thinking in Australia through the radical gay liberation movement which was >led by various members of revolutionary marxist organisations and university >academics and students so Foucault more or less got re-read in a historical >materialist way. In this street based thinking and discussion which also >infected academic thinking theory became not a way of understanding or >interpreting the world but as a useful tool in changing the world. This has >had an impact on the type of media criticism which is taught in the >Communication degree at the University of Technology, Sydney and the >University of Western Sydney, two of Australia's leading communication >schools. so when I say a relation of forces I am not talking about >relativism, either. Into this gets thrown anything else that is useful such >as Deleuzian philosophy, science system theories like cybernetic systems >and so forth. It is a type of critical method and analysis that works not >only in literary theory, but also scientific discourse. it may sound eclectic >but it is a rigorous synthesis which in the simplest terms makes theory a >tool of analysis and critique. (To be fair to Chomsky, he was one of the >people who inspired this approach I take through one of his graduate students >at Harvard, Noel Sanders, who then came to Australia and began developing >these ideas through his readings Foucault, Deleuze and many, many other >theorists and then taught this to students at UTS. Noel was working on a book >on horrendous gay murders in Wollongong, so I must chase it up and see if it >has been published.) > >So to go back to the scapegoat, I am not using it in terms of an actual >person but more in the sense of a trope. But not trope as in a metaphor or >figure of speech but the older usage, from the ancient Greek, as a turning >away or diversion which then occupies a position on the margins. Through the >social operation of ageism teenagers are marginalised in this sense and then >become set up as rhetorical scapegoats in a signifying system. The other >thing I should say is because this is occurring in some sort of cybernetic >communication system you never really know what will happen but can only >modulate the various outcomes in what would be complex feedback loops. >Anyone who has ever had to make an editorial decision in publishing should be >able to relate this in the sense that you never really know what is going to >be the outcome of your decision. But you can modulate what does happen and if >lucky, through publicity and so forth perhaps end up with a best seller. > >As for tracing the actual mechanisms that then make the government complicit >in this incitement of teenagers to light these fires that would be quite a >research project involving a team effort including psychologists, statistical >analysis, and so forth. But having worked in the field and having several >contacts with the government (as any journalist would have, of course) I just >get a very strong feeling this is happening although I need to stress they >may not be conscious that they are actually doing this and may be quite >shocked to hear this. > >If you want to know more about cybernetic criminology I think the following >web-site is useful: >http://www.tryoung.com > > >I don't feel I have done a good job of answering your question, but hope this >at least helps. > >best, Chris Jones. > > >[PS It is not a good idea to assume the editors and proprietors of the >_Telegraph_ and other Murdoch tabloids as just stupid idiots. Lachlan Murdoch >is very smart and knows his media theory and how to use it. He obviously got >a lot out of Yale and got me thinking. I have to admire him.] > > > >On Thursday 03 January 2002 22:40, you wrote: >> That was a very powerful & illuminating mail, Chris, its local precision >> made me understand better than before the way modern governments >> orchestrate *events & manipulate, engineer as you put it, people's >> (re-)actions. But I don't quite understand yet the factual logic of >> <The kids are doing what the >> social engineering of the government is inciting, in effect. In the final >> analysis the Carr Labor Government as good as lit those fires but then that >> is the beauty of cybernetic social engineering. You can always deny >> responsibility and blame a scapegoat.> >> A scapegoat is usually innocent of the crime for which s/he is ostensibly >> punished, in this case not. I don't quite grasp how those kids are innocent >> of lighting the fires, even if social engineering predisposed them to do it >> ~ but how did it do that? I am genuinely unclear about this. I do >> understand that their guilt is less than that of a venal & >> self-aggrandising power structure using it (their guilt) to divert >> attention from the real exploitative crime(s) & the cui bono aspect of the >> situation, pacifying critical social unease & creating a fake consensus. >> Perhaps you could clarify that point. >> Martin -- Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/