Originally posted by: CLite
Hrm well, RichardE's post annoyed me so I had to respond to that before reading the article. Now after reading the article I see the author's only citation is:
"a report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been "a cosmopolitan city"."
So a grand total of three words were cited (this includes 'a'), and the citation is from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Thanks for linking a psuedo-blog.
*edit* oh Jesus craig you linked a gold mine of looney articles. This guy is a NUT:
He hates mother Teresa:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/motherteresa.html
The corporate press loves the KKK (because the KKK are pro-capitalism LOL LOL):
http://www.michaelparenti.org/KozyWithKlan.html
Oh man, this site is going to provide some fun reading when I got time, bookmarked, thanks again craig!
That's really weak criticism of this article. He's a major left-wing author for many years, and this is a 'commentary', not a book. Commentaries do't commonly use 'citations'.
The one he used for the Chronicle was not as you imply some proof that his info was baseless with only three words credited; rather, it was simply a stylistic choice he made that when he ventured into a somewhat subjective area, the nature of Afghanistan's culture at the time under the left government, an area he's especially vulnerable to charges of that 'just being his opinion, and biased because he's a leftist', he chose to mention the opinion cited in that article as well summarizing the culture.
That doesn't porove anything wrong with him or his article. Most of the article is simply filled with verifiable facts you can confirm. If you want citations, read his books.
As for the broader criticism - some may be legitimate - as I said repeatedly now, I think the useful far outweighs the questionable.
You cite his article on the KKK and the media - how accurate is *your* commentary? Not very.
First, his article was more broadly on the media's coverage of right-wing figures and groups compared to left-wing figures and groups, not only the KKK< which was just an example, in contrast to your statement that it was the entire theme of the article. Second, had he said what you claimed, I'd agree with you - but he didn't. Instead, his point seemed to me to well and accurately capture the bias in the media, and why - not claiming it was 'intentional'.
That's the point with cultural bias - you may not recognize it even when it's pointed out. You think today's opinions on equal black rights and the criticisms of past racism would have been heard very well by people a century ago, that they'd have said "wow now that you mention it, you're right'. Of course not.
He doesn't say there's some pro-KKK conspicary in the media; he points out how the media *thinks* it's being fair in its coverage, but how the effect of their practices is to help the right-wing figures and groups. I happen to think he's hit on a right-on, important point about our 'political culture', that our coverage tends to have a gray area on the edge that gives credibitlity to people by including them, because they aren't banished to the 'too far out to be covered' realm.
When's the last time you saw a race issue covered in the mainstream media where 'one side' given coverage for their iew to be heard and considered was the 'pro-racist' side?
That 'side' has been 'deemed unacceptable' with both the right and left denouncing it, so it's not heard, even though people vaguely suspect it exists.
Similarly, the 'socialist' view, for example, is virtually never heard, similarly banished as 'outside the realm of legitimate discussion'.
But in contrast to the treatment of racism, take the coverage of anti-gay religious leaders; they are given more respectful coverage of their views as 'one side of the issue'.
People who want to deny equal marital rights to gays are given more credibility, while people who would want to deny equal marital rights to blacks are not given coverage.
His point is simply to note the effect that the 'assumptions' in media coverage that divide these issues can be wrong.
Look for the claim the media "loves" the KKK - which you falsely accuse him of, as you are guilty of the inaccuracy you accuse him of, and you don't find it.
Rather, you find him pointing out how the game is played, how there is a 'range' of acceptable views for public debate defind by the fringes, so that when the media covers a group like the KKK and other far-right gorups and figures, even critically, it makes 'lesser' right-wing figures like George. W. Bush (or Reagan) seem 'moderate' and 'well within the range of discussion'; contrast Reagan's coverage later to his coverage in his 1976 run, when he was widely discussed as a 'radical right-winger too far out for national office'.
Similarly, it was in no cmall part the real leftists of the 30's who gave FDR 'cover' that he was the 'moderate' as he implemented massive new program less than the leftists wanted.
That's Parenti's point, and he's right on. In contrast to your claim of the media 'loving the KKK", here's how his article concludes:
Of course, the media do not see it that way. They believe they just go out and get the story. Were they to join in the battle against racism, they would, by their view, be guilty of ?advocacy journalism.? So instead of exposing hate groups the press gives exposure .to. hate groups. It?s called ?objectivity.?
The media "believe they just go out and get the story". They believe that - nothing about their 'loving the KKK', about their intentionally furthering right-wing interests.
He points out that they have the effect of helping the right with the assumptions they make, the choices who gets coverage, not the intent.
Yes, he does suggest that the corporatists who run the media are less threatened by the right-wing groups because they're not a threat to 'free market capitalism', but he doesn't come close to any suggestion that the reporters go out thinking 'let's be soft on the right-wing groups today', rather he's discussing how the 'assumptions' who gets what kind of coverage are influenced.
He's right on as well about the excesses of the use of 'objectivity' causing the media at times to cover discredited views in ways that give them more credibility.
And theyr'e selective about it, in no small part it seems due to a vaguely defined set of assumptions ranging from personal views to the marketplace democgraphics to a 'herd mentality' where the media tends to say the same thing the rest of the media said and perpetuate its assumptions - which is why you see Reagan as 'right-wing nut' one moment and 'conservative statesman' the next, Al Gore as 'compulsive liar' one minute and 'champion for the planet' the next.
His larger theme points out the way the coverage has long been 'leaning right', and cites several examples you don't refute.
You should consider his points and rebute them if you can - your post shows a gross lack of reading comprehension as you misrepresent his statements in your 'summary'.
As far as Mother Theresa - is this your first exposure to the 'other side of the story'? As another poster noted, Christopher Histchens and others have long made those points.
My first reaction sounded a bit like yours - 'there goes Hitchens looking for the 'man bites dog' angle to grab coverage, while he cynically attacks an innocent woman', but as it turns out, there is a lot to the 'rest of the story' that has led many to view the previous coverage of Mother Theresa to be a media creation that resulted in her name becoming the words used to exemplify the height of 'public service', as in 'she's no Mother Theresa, she takes a salary for her work'. Again, you did not actually disporve any of his points.
