Re: [microsound] use of WMD in the past

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As someone who's been writing on foreign policy and problematics of media
for a few years, I'm not sure what you mean by "bias."

If you mean sources that are considered to be mainstream media, than one
must realise that such sources also have their "bias." In fact, they have
more than "bias"--they have direct economic ties to advertising, military,
and government while many of the below sources have no such ties.

The problem of "bias" is often one only raised by said mainstream media as a
tactic of fear and to assert their own authenticity and authority. CNN is
"the news to trust," etc, while the rest have "bias." This has become a more
prevalent tactic as alternate news sources on the Net gain precendence
through direct reporting--from Indymedia to Blogs to cellphones emailing
webcam pics of denied atrocities that reveal the situation is a little more
complex than the black/white dichotomies (evil/good) perpetuated by Bush's
speechwriters and echoed without comment by the mainstream US press.

Personally I've never found "bias" to be the problem. The problem for me is
control, spin, censure, and omission alongside the manufacture of a limited,
television attention-span. I've done enough work for the CBC that I can say
this problem also affects Canadian media. "Don't talk for too long or get
too complicated," says often The Producer, "you'll lose the audience." It's
disappointing that this low level of education and ability to listen is
accepted throughout North America. The human race, over the past X thousand
years, has declined in its ability to listen to argument. In other words, to
listen to each other. We witness this constantly in the houses of
representation in all "democracies" as well as at the UN. We recently
learnt, for example, that "diplomacy" only means agreeing with US (foreign)
policy. 

Spin, however, can come across on all sides as a rather overt ideological
apparatus, be it the techno-weapons death-fetishism of CNN and its overt and
recognised censure agreements with the US military to the screaming
proletarians of various bloggers to unmonitored Indymedia posts and so on.

This, however, should be obvious if you've got a brain. What should be
considered more carefully and as weighty in the search for assembling the
apparatus of truth production in media are simple published and known
information intents--tendencies that build facts--alongside known economic
links and advertising pressures. And, one should not forget recorded
testimony--ie, the work of investigative journalism. Don't forget Watergate,
JFK, Rodney King, Nicaragua, Panama, the Falklands, Iran-Contra, Agent
Orange in Vietnam, Kent State, the McCarthy Hearings, the Red Scare, Reefer
Madness, DDT Is Good For You... how quickly the public memory is erased.

If you are looking for well-argued sources,

http://www.zmag.org

contains some of the most thoroughly argued work, including Chomsky. Chomsky
is perhaps the best source to read re: your request, as he extensively
quotes the US media (the NY Time, Washinton Post, CNN, centre-right Foreign
Policy journals and published Intelligence documents) to build what is a
rather obvious understanding of world policy that completely undermines US
Foreign Policy.

His "bias" is only evident when he argues that
1. violence is sometimes necessary
2. another world is possible, and that
3. this other world would optimally be guided by syndicalist structurations

However, this is the first century (well, the 20th as well) that we have
called well thought out, researched political argument "bias." These are
Chomsky's conclusions, and should not be taken lightly. He is not in the
employ of any foreign power, advertising agency, or corporation. He speaks
not from a Marxist position of advocating revolution or of raising the
proletariat. His arguments are careful and, if one cares to do the research,
never misquote sources nor obfuscate his citations.

This does not mean I agree with his political conclusions or his "bias"--the
way I see it--against European intellectual criticism. However, his analysis
is indisputable and provides a clear picture of US Foreign Policy. Where you
go with his analysis is up to you.

If you don't want to read Chomsky, then may I simply suggest picking up Tom
Clancy. He simply writes fiction about all the same things. And that's why
he's an advisor to the CIA, and why the CIA is currently both embarrassed
over the misuse of their intelligence reports and manufacture of forged
documents as UN powerpoint props as well as scared shitless--for they know
damn well, and have published intelligence papers saying this loud and
clear, that attacking Iraq will only increase terrorist reprisal and raise
further protest and anger against the US worldwide.

And this is what we are seeing. _That_ cannot be disputed.

If I were a US citizen, I would be very angry at my Gov't for putting me in
such personal danger. That's a crime.

May I also recommend simply subscribing to http://www.nettime.org -- this is
a very informative list dedicated to net.criticism and world politics,
primarily populated by writers, academics, artists, net.artists, and people
who take the time to both read and write carefully responses to the list
that are taken rather seriously. It's also a fantastic filter of alternative
media.

best,

tobias c. van Veen

> hey Tim, I found what you posted interesting.  can you provide some less
> obviously biased sources to backup your opinions?  you dont have to, since
> it is your opinion, but I would appreciate it.
> 
> thanks
> 
> -Joe

tobias c. van Veen -----------
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org
http://www.thisistheonlyart.com
------------- tobias@xxxxxxxxx
---McGill Communications------
ICQ: 18766209 | AOL: thesaibot

------------------------------