Hi Doug
I'd agree with you about the nuances, it's rather a feature of e-mail
discussion lists that such things tend to be dropped by the proverbial
wayside, even if one writes long and studied posts, rather than quickfire
reactions (which is what I tend to do) the format doesn't seem to lend
itself to the thoughtfulness of the essay, I always think of e-mail as being
rather 'verbal' in character, not quite as haphazard as everyday speech, but
not far from there.
As for Mr Murdoch, originally Australian, now a US citizen, the man who made
the British tabloids what they are today, friend of Tony Blair, I always
remember how the Daily Mirror, then the unchallenged tabloid leader in
Britain, was trying to up its contents and gently educate its readership,
when along came Rupert with his 'Sun' and reduced everything to his own
common denominator. Of course, all the Americans who inhabit the LSE would
approve of this, good market strategy.
Because in their view everything is money.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Barbour" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: opinion
> David, your comment re: 'The American cultural myth of national innocence
> seems to be its problem, the bad things belonged in the Old World, not the
> New. Whereas the reality is far from the case.'
>
> is especialy interesting in the context of a wonderfully witty & wise
> editorial by Lewis Lapham in the July (I think) Harper's, which harped,
one
> might say, on exactly that point, in its rather blistering attack on the
> republican right taking ever more power even then under Dubya's
> administration. of course, if he wrote that now (& if anyone read
Harper's)
> it would be at the very least sacrilege, perhaps something worse. Alas,
> yet, yet, & I think you are being too harsh, the people who don't agree
> wholeheartedly are there, & some are even speaking up, a bit. As well, in
> an age of globalization, some of the worst supporters of this right wing,
> if we must, attitude are from elsewhere anyway, say Rupert Murdoch, fro
> example.
>
> 'They' seem to have most of the power right now, & moreover, it's very
hard
> to be heard against the general opinion -- so all one can do is say things
> anyway, perhaps in rather small arenas, & hope that eventually things will
> affect enough people that they will will to change. In Canada, at least,
> the media do present a fairly balanced vie: we know because we see on TV
> how many Afghani civilians have been killed & wounded in the bombing; if
> you can only get US TV, you just don't see that, & therefore have a much
> ahrder time knowing that it's all that bad.
>
> Which is to say that I'n generally agreeing with you, but feel that all
the
> nuances, many of which I don't know about, need to be taken into
account...
>
> Doug
>
> Douglas Barbour
> Department of English
> University of Alberta
> Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
> (h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
>
> I can always
> go back to
> fertilization,
> kimonos, wrap-
> arounds and
> diatribes.
> Lorine Niedecker
>
|