Propaganda is where you find it
Mar. 3rd, 2008 12:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenSomething brilliant that my film professor said recently? "Don't be cynics. Be skeptics."
It's really simple: question everything, but don't assume anything is a lie automatically. He gave an example of this with the recent article The New York Times wrote up about John McCain and his possibly compromising relationship with a female lobbyist. What matters in that story? Who would have leaked it? Who benefitted from it? The story itself isn't the issue when you're fighting a war for popularity. What matters? The story seemed hasty, unfinished, making the NYT seem as though they were attacking McCain unfairly and rushing to judgment. It made them seem like the liberal-leaning paper most right-wing folks think they are. Suddenly, all those very hesitant extremists on the right were in it for McCain, the man they scoffed at as being too moderate (sin of sins!), or worse, a closet liberal (yeah, right; look at his track record on reproductive rights, and talk to me with that same bullshit again). Now there's more support for McCain and the Republican factions falling into line. So, who benefitted, really? And who would leak something like that? (If you need a clue, try to remember that McCain has snapped up Karl Rove, and he is a man of some genius when it comes to being an underhanded douchebag.)
I loved that. It was one of those lightbulb moments. And you can see it happening on both sides of the campaign. (Whoever thinks that Barack Obama didn't score similar points with his constituents after that "muslim dress" photograph surfaced isn't thinking.)
And now I see it everywhere. Supposedly, The Washington Post announced that it was trying to court female readership (can't find a direct link, so I won't say for sure they said anything like). Then they went and hosted this infuriating piece of anti-woman (forget feminists for a sec--this pieces JUST HATES WOMEN) garbage. Stupid play on their part!
Or is it really genius? This piece? IS EVERYWHERE. While it doesn't necessarily show them in the best light, perhaps--one would question the casual sexism of a place that thinks an article devoted solely to berating women is worthy of publishing--it did get their name out there. And I bet it's done them dynamite traffic over the past week. Almost every blog, including personal ones on LJ, has linked to it screaming for the heads of the editors who gave this bullshit a pass. When things got too hot, The WaPo said it was satire. More screaming. They hosted a chat session with the author, who proved herself to be a moron first class and a misogynist and a racist, hateful human being. (Highlights of that illuminating shit-session.).
And last but not least, they've invited a noted feminist author to come and rebut the article with one of her own. (For those who assume feminism is all about hating men, this article should be quite the shock. Because, surprise! She doesn't take the low road like the previous author and just go, "But men are stupid, too!" In fact, the author of the women-are-stupid-let's-throw-rocks-at-them original piece said in her session that very thing. It raises the question why she felt it necessary to single out women, or, if she didn't intend to, why she didn't inform us that her hatred manifesto was part of an on-going series.)
Do you still think The WaPo is full of idiots and misogynists? Maybe. Are you still going back to their paper? You bet your ass you are. That's pretty clever. (The fuckers.)
It's really simple: question everything, but don't assume anything is a lie automatically. He gave an example of this with the recent article The New York Times wrote up about John McCain and his possibly compromising relationship with a female lobbyist. What matters in that story? Who would have leaked it? Who benefitted from it? The story itself isn't the issue when you're fighting a war for popularity. What matters? The story seemed hasty, unfinished, making the NYT seem as though they were attacking McCain unfairly and rushing to judgment. It made them seem like the liberal-leaning paper most right-wing folks think they are. Suddenly, all those very hesitant extremists on the right were in it for McCain, the man they scoffed at as being too moderate (sin of sins!), or worse, a closet liberal (yeah, right; look at his track record on reproductive rights, and talk to me with that same bullshit again). Now there's more support for McCain and the Republican factions falling into line. So, who benefitted, really? And who would leak something like that? (If you need a clue, try to remember that McCain has snapped up Karl Rove, and he is a man of some genius when it comes to being an underhanded douchebag.)
I loved that. It was one of those lightbulb moments. And you can see it happening on both sides of the campaign. (Whoever thinks that Barack Obama didn't score similar points with his constituents after that "muslim dress" photograph surfaced isn't thinking.)
And now I see it everywhere. Supposedly, The Washington Post announced that it was trying to court female readership (can't find a direct link, so I won't say for sure they said anything like). Then they went and hosted this infuriating piece of anti-woman (forget feminists for a sec--this pieces JUST HATES WOMEN) garbage. Stupid play on their part!
Or is it really genius? This piece? IS EVERYWHERE. While it doesn't necessarily show them in the best light, perhaps--one would question the casual sexism of a place that thinks an article devoted solely to berating women is worthy of publishing--it did get their name out there. And I bet it's done them dynamite traffic over the past week. Almost every blog, including personal ones on LJ, has linked to it screaming for the heads of the editors who gave this bullshit a pass. When things got too hot, The WaPo said it was satire. More screaming. They hosted a chat session with the author, who proved herself to be a moron first class and a misogynist and a racist, hateful human being. (Highlights of that illuminating shit-session.).
And last but not least, they've invited a noted feminist author to come and rebut the article with one of her own. (For those who assume feminism is all about hating men, this article should be quite the shock. Because, surprise! She doesn't take the low road like the previous author and just go, "But men are stupid, too!" In fact, the author of the women-are-stupid-let's-throw-rocks-at-them original piece said in her session that very thing. It raises the question why she felt it necessary to single out women, or, if she didn't intend to, why she didn't inform us that her hatred manifesto was part of an on-going series.)
Do you still think The WaPo is full of idiots and misogynists? Maybe. Are you still going back to their paper? You bet your ass you are. That's pretty clever. (The fuckers.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-08 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-09 01:32 am (UTC)Sure, there are real-world problems when prejudice is widespread, but for that to be relevant to the issue at hand, you kind of have to believe Allen changed any minds over to her point of view with that column. Instead, she made such a clown of herself that she probably ended up making as good a case against prejudice as the creators of South Park do with their depictions of it.
If you really, really want to believe that it wasn't just a boneheaded decision on the part of the editors, you can believe that that was their plan all along if you like. Along with selling papers, which is not at odds with either feminism or misogyny.