links for 2009-02-10
See standalone and/or comment....
Bill Moyers asks: "Why will Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! never show up on 'Meet The Press?'" (watch video)
Originally from Democracy Now! Blog

In this week’s Bill Moyers Journal, Moyers talks with prominent bloggers Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald on the role of the establishment media in the dysfunctional political system.

He asks the question, “Why will Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! never show up on ‘Meet The Press’?”

Watch Video

BILL MOYERS: I think you wrote on your blog that Dave Brody from the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson’s outfit, will one Sunday show up on “Meet the Press.” But an Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” will never show up on “Meet the Press.” What’s behind that phenomenon?

JAY ROSEN: I think part of the reason is that if Amy Goodman came on “Meet the Press,” she would say all sorts of things that not only challenge the people on the program, but challenge what they have been saying over the years. Would go back, in a sense, discredit the narrative that’s been building up for a long time. And even though it’s maybe not wholly conscious, the idea that there’s a kind of building narrative that is more or less accurate, that we kind of tell you what’s going on in Washington, is a common assumption in the press. And people who would completely shatter that, don’t.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think that’s exactly right. It’s all about the content of views. Rush Limbaugh can depict himself as being this insurgent outsider. But he supported the wars of the last eight years. He supported the tax policies that Ronald Reagan essentially instituted as conventional wisdom, that we need to lower taxes, reduce government spending. All of the conventional clichés that the media airs frequently, and doesn’t need much time in order to explain, are ones that Rush Limbaugh and the furthest fringes of the right essentially embrace.

And so, to include them into our discussion is not very disruptive at all, whereas if you had people on from the left who were advocating things like the United States’ responsibility for its unpopularity in the world, the fact that we wage wars and bomb other countries and invade and occupy other countries far more than any nation on the planet.

To include somebody like that would not only threaten the vested interests of everybody who’s participating in these conversations, it would disrupt the entire narrative, as Jay said it would. Almost sound foreign, as though these views are un-serious views, don’t belong in mainstream, serious shows. Because these views are never heard. They’re stigmatized, they’re demonized as being things that don’t really deserve a platform. And so, you can’t include advocates of these views in these shows.

JAY ROSEN: You know what’s really striking to me about this, is Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Colin Powell, when he retired from the government, he said that the people in power: Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld especially, were, in his view, radicals. That the radicals were the people actually running the government.

And this idea that the people in power were kind of outside the sphere of normal government, never made its way into the establishment press at all. The idea that Wilkerson could have been right, that the real radicals were running the federal government, never really penetrated their narrative at all.

BILL MOYERS: How do you explain the fact that so many in the press, pundits and others as well, were saying Obama has to be bipartisan?

JAY ROSEN: I think that the ideology of the press is not so much liberal or conservative. They think themselves the keepers of realism, of savviness. I think the real religion of the American press is savviness. And in their view, it isn’t savvy to say you’re going to mobilize the anger and frustration of the American people and bring that power to Washington to change it.

That’s not how politics works. The way politics works is you say things like that to get elected, and then, once you’re in, you make your accommodations, you show that you want to hew to the center. You demonstrate that you’re bipartisan. You pick people who are familiar.

And it’s those eternal laws of politics that journalists feel they know better than us. And they expect politics to kind of run down these rails that they’ve laid down, because then we have to turn to them for the inside story. And this is what they want to continue.

See standalone and/or comment....
Trivial Crisis (1)
Originally from Amazing Facts...and Beyond! by KEVIN H

See standalone and/or comment....
The Infantile Appeal of the Organic
Originally from sit down man, you're a bloody tragedy by owen hatherley



The things that drain you off and drive you off the hinge, part 842. I am not, as very assiduous clickers-on of my hyperlinks will be aware, a well man. Food is a particularly difficult thing for me. I'm torn between an extreme laziness about cooking, leading to the temptations of the Hong Kong Garden and the famous Mr Fast Fry, and a medically-based avoidance of anything that will make me even worse. The combination of these two with a liking for the comforting, enveloping smell, taste and general atmosphere of food exceptionally greasy can become a major problem. If I could, I would no doubt subsist on roast dinners, suet dumplings, crispy seaweed and sausages in batter, and before my early 20s I could. As things are, whenever out of doors and in need of a meal, the only sensible choice is usually Japanese food, which is both lacking in gastroenterologically aggressive spices and is half way palatable, although often prohibitively expensive. However, in torrential rain today I swallowed my pride and momentarily, the chip on my shoulder, and entered Planet Organic, on Torrington Place.



Now, as we know, the middle classes tend to have a fairly high estimate of their own usefulness to society at large, and by association of their intelligence and generally mature outlook on life, politics and food, as opposed to the fried chicken or Findus-munching underclasses. Look, for instance, at the interviewees in this feature on 'chav-free holidays' (ta to Bat for the link). So the supremely middle class phenomenon of organic, gluten-free, wheat-free, dairy-free food would, one might imagine, be a matter-of-fact milieu of straightforward, non-patronising food choices, where ingredients are listed without recourse to flashy marketing etc. Quite apart from the fact that when going to these places I tend to arrogantly and embarrassedly assume I'm the only person ill enough to actually need to eat this sort of guff, as opposed to doing it out of perverse consumerism, I thought I'd examine the labels and packaging of the items in question. The Impostume has already done this with great skill on the ideology of the Living Salad and the 'Innocent' smoothies, but I might go one step further, onto the list of ingredients and other extraneous matter. My packaged and pasteurised Organic, Gluten-Free Brownie, purchased out of grim necessity, lists a variety of things, from emulsifier, lemon juice (lemon juice! Good god, that's like pouring hydrochloric acid down there!), soya lecithin, 'golden syrup, and love'. I do not look for love in my gluten-free brownie. Similarly, the water I purchased, which turned out to be 'Carpe Diem Botanic Water', full of everything from quince to galangal, lists among its ingredients the grammatically interesting 'fruit-sweetness from pear', and additionally informs us that 'the Ancient Greeks were already studying the effects of herbs and plants'. Indeed they were.



It's an easy target to mock the vaguely spiritual or pseudoscientific approach often used by such consumer items, given their distant heritage in new age, which no doubt originates distantly in a politics, albeit a wrong-headed one. Rather, it's the infantilism of these objects that is most irksome of all. This is food aimed at a desperate people, in need of soothing babytalk from its packaged foodstuffs lest its hard-faced, 60-hour-week, underpaid, insecure, un-unionised world would collapse into thousands of tiny pieces. In a sense this is little different from my own liking for warm, stodgy food that fills a dissimilar but equally gaping void, but done with rather more dissimulation. What is more infuriating, especially given that surely a fair few of the purchasers of these perishables could be as ill, if not more, than myself (though I suspect we're outnumbered by those suffering from the disease profiled in Todd Haynes' Safe), is the confirmation of Philip Marlow's thesis that as soon as you suffer from deficiencies in your body, the world assumes you're similarly deficient in mind. Could we have a health food with sachlichkeit, I wonder? A way of not eating shit that didn't go alongside cutesy labels, contempt for the lower orders and the delusion that shopping choices can become moral? Perhaps the kitchens of the world's social centres and anarcho or autonomist enclaves could lead the way here, pioneering a straightforward, no-bullshit approach to feeding the masses (or in my case the gastrically afflicted)? The kind of food one might imagine being (but probably wasn't) made in a Constructivist communal neighbourhood kitchen, perhaps?
See standalone and/or comment....
Axl vs. Frank: More time doesn't mean a better product
Originally from Signal vs. Noise by Matt

Commonly held notion: “The longer I work on this, the better it will be.” Maybe up to a point. But after a while — and it might be just a short while — you’re being overly fussy.

There’s an optimal release point for anything you make. That’s when you should get it out there. After that, you’re just fiddling for the sake of fiddling. And you might even make it worse. Sometimes what you make will be just fine if it’s released after three months — but add another six months (or longer) and it turns into a jumbled, complex mess.

Case in point: “Chinese Democracy,” the Guns N’ Roses album that Axl Rose worked on for over a decade, going through at least three recording studios and four producers. Everyone knew that it wasn’t getting better with more time. In fact, it became a running joke in the music industry. It was just a sandbox for a control freak who couldn’t let go.

Frank Sinatra, on the other hand, was known as “one take Frank.” He’d walk into the studio, sing a song live with a full band, turn around, and walk out. Quincy Jones produced Sinatra and described recording an album with him:

He came in at 2 p.m., and in less than two hours we had rehearsed, had keys and routines on ten songs…Frank is one take, that’s it. If the band’s not in shape, he leaves them behind…he came in at 7, and at 8:20, baby, we went home. None of that three month stuff.

U2 singer Bono always respected Sinatra for that approach too:

It’s all about the moment, a fresh canvas and never overworking the paint. I wonder what [Sinatra] would have thought of the time it’s taken me and my bandmates to finish albums, he with his famous impatience for directors, producers — anyone, really — fussing about. I’m sure he’s right. Fully inhabiting the moment during that tiny dot of time after you’ve pressed “record” is what makes it eternal.

frankSinatra’s one take style produced classics. Axl’s dithering produced a pile of mush. We can all learn something from that. It’s easy to fall into a trap of nitpicking over things that don’t really matter. Instead, focus on the essence of what you’re doing. Press record, get it done, and get it out there. (And that’s even more true if what you’re creating is something you’ll get to improve upon after it’s released.)

See standalone and/or comment....