|
atreides: i understand pretty well what the commercial nature of the "free" american press results in. i expect i know more about it, and in more detail, that you do in fact. i say this in part because your comments above blur television journalism entirely into entertainment, and then proceeds to toss off some glib remarks about the "venomous anti-conservative majority" in hollywood---which is a non-sequitor.
so you know, i have no use for conservatism at all.
but even with that, the way the populist right has pitched the construction of an apparatus of sustained rightwing infotainment as if it balances some largely phantom "liberal bias" amongst news outlets in general is absurd. it's nothing more than a projection which functioned---when it did---to legitimate the construction of an entirely ideological conservative counter-reality, complete with media feedback loops, that enabled a kind of dissociative politics to legitimate itself. if you start from that position, you aren't talking about critical reading of the written press, or critical interpretation of visual media at all.
and it doesn't even represent all forms of conservatism. i know alot of folk who are quite conservative who are entirely capable of critical approaches to most information--but none of them have any use for this type of populist conservatism and it's pseudo-critical view of all forms of information except those which are pitched in a way that makes them feel better. which is what faux news, the washington times, etc. were set up to do for folk, seemingly, like yourself.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|