tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post5526972419153952818..comments2023-12-20T04:18:41.617-06:00Comments on The Hunting of the Snark: Lies Depend On SecrecySusan of Texashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-4451630998243601862010-12-02T16:43:20.438-06:002010-12-02T16:43:20.438-06:00Chomsky and Herman laid out the servile nature of ...Chomsky and Herman laid out the servile nature of the media decades ago in "Manufacturing Consent" with plenty of documentation. Yet most pundits ignore the argument or pretend that it was just an opinion piece by a couple of crazy hippies.fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522672049371678717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-83836325011052608372010-12-01T17:05:05.664-06:002010-12-01T17:05:05.664-06:00I can't tell you how many conversations I'...I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with people about some action by the government that ended with some permutation of the statement that, "The government has more information than you, the people in charge have access to secret information, and so they must know what they are doing." It is straightforwardly authoritarian, but what I've argued about Wikileaks is that the two seemingly divergent criticisms that 1. there is nothing really shocking in the leaks and 2. the disclosure of secrets (even if we already knew much of them) is devastating are not actually divergent. Because what the disclosures are revealing is that the government does not, in fact, have some secret stash of inside information that explains why they can seemingly act like self-interested psycopaths. In this vein, the less shocking and more mundane the disclosures, the more they undermine the government's authority by attacking the underlying faith in their superior wisdom and knowledge.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02924326177370725150noreply@blogger.com