|
roachboy,
I don't want to distract you from goading ART into a discussion he seems reticent to participate in after originating it.
However, I would argue, though like ART I am hesitant to continue it at much length, that the Chomsky model tieing ownership to content is the only possible solution. Economic motivations, in my mind are the true motivations behind all the "isms" of history.
Those with the ability to shape opinion do so in order to guard their wealth. To assume otherwise is to give credence to other motivations, such as good/evil. I truly think things are much simpler than any grand sweeps of ideology, and the "follow the money" rule works pretty much without fail. I would be interested to hear what in your opinion besides economic factors could be responsible for content.
To answer both of you in regards to generalizations. I apologize if my use of terms was unclear, though I actually see a semantic criticism as generally not worth responding to, other than to clarify.
"Power-elite", may be be a "loaded" term, but in my usage I don't think its too unclear. Basicaly, those individuals and organizations able and willing to draw upon their inherent advantages in our society to mantain and extend those advanatges. Which, broadly defined is all of us, however in terms of the mass media it is quite obviously the news-makers, presenters, and advertisers who all have a vested interest in what we the people read and see. Thus, while I, or you may act out of self motivation, the power-elite, are those with the economic or relationship capital to actually exert influence.
As for true left, I don't veew this as a loaded term at all, but if you require a definition: I refer to myself, for example. Within the accepted boundries of ideological debate in this country a very centrist (I would say center-right) mindset has been set up (acheived?) the opposition position to the right.
I don't feel the Democratic party, or the op-ed page of the New York Times represents a progressive, left ideology. Critics of the Democratic party, and of the media, from the left, would thus be identifiable within this example as 'true left'.
You could certainly argue that this is still just a lable, and that anyone left of me could also claim to be true-left. My leftwing ideology, not "left enough" However, this is unnecessary as I dont claim the title as an honorific, just as a means of seperating myself (and those whose views I appreciate and agree with) from those other organizations and individuals who have been annointed as left or liberal, and yet fail to represent my interests (or those of the greater good-if I may make a value judgement).
|