Saturday, March 26, 2016

In Which the NYTimes Proves its Idiocy

And now, with the specter of the Brussels Attacks hanging heavy over the land, we have the innocence of idiots in the form of wanting the days of pre 9-11 [1]. This is a comment coming from the readership of the NYTimes, and one wants to think it as a joke if not an attempt to rile up anyone with an inkling of history or who has stayed informed of the current events, but this is what we're stuck with—in terms of a canvas of people on which to try for a better world.

Of course, this is the NYTimes, which also has an article about how there isn't enough international focus on victims of terror attacks in other places around the world (read non-white places) [2]. Again, one has to admire the temerity (is it a joke?) of this article/video in that NYTimes after the aftermath of the Paris and Brussels attacks ran a myriad of human interest stories. You know, to tug at the heart strings. No such stories are ever run for those in the countries with darkies. [3]

Fair enough—minimal nigger or sand-nigger human-interest stories allowed—but at least be up front about it. And when it is allowed, it is only done when aligned with our geo-political interests. Yes, yes, not an original view, this manufacturing of consent, but one would hope they were less obvious about it. This threatens to become as silly as Soviet era or Baghdadi Bob kinds of propaganda. 

Nevertheless, what the NYTimes tries its hardest to never do is a human interest story on victims of State terror, especially our own. Note how this plays into the public's—even the self-proclaimed literate ones who read NYTimes—perception of being under attack. Or even, as I heard in my last place of work after the Paris attacks "what did they ever do to them?" [4] But to those who are reacting to much worse than what these attacks ever add up to, they will never get human interest stories in the NYTimes, and if they do, never to a level that's even remotely equal. 

End rant. I will say again, that this book perfectly speaks to this phenomenon, just read that first page. What are your thoughts? On that note, here are some good points from Glenn Greenwald.

[1] This odd world view, in which all was fine before 9-11 is as narrow as they come. A little less inane than the one on the right section of our citizenry (you know, the one that has America always under attack from darkies of all stripes), but it's still childish. Also childish is the view that sees how we came together after 9-11 as some great moment, instead of a moment where many people decided to take advantage of that blank check written by the American people and take them for all they were worth.

[2] Among the dumber and more ruthless (in terms of trying to make hay out of this situation) of us, this "expansion" of the terror problem is a means by which we can spread state terror. 

[3] And if they are, it's with a better accounting of context—geo-politically and historically.

[4] Again, I don't know if this is temerity, this forced innocence of the world, or naivety. It does only allow for a specific narrative, doesn't it? Europe stands as a place of purity, the place with trains which we love to visit, and the barbarians are at the gate. 

Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please comment to add to the discussion. Be kind. But let the democratic ideal lead you. And no spamming!