The headline says it all: "Clive Palmer takes media potshot at Rupert Murdoch with rival publication plan." News challenge Reported in The Age newspaper from Melbourne, the story has a couple of notable points for analysts and critics of the News organization(s).
Clive Palmer is a very wealthy, idiosyncratic mining magnate from the state of Queensland. He gained his wealth from early claims to massive coal fields in that state, which matured with investments from Chinese sources who liked an uninterrupted stream of coal for their growing economy. (He is the guy who is building the Titanic 2. Only in Queensland?!).
Palmer launched his own political party, The Palmer United Party (PUP) in 2013, on the back of a sordid history of anti-Labor Australian nationalists, taking over the United Australia Party.http://palmerunited.com/about-the-uap/ Of course, being a client state - first of England and more recently of the US - there is a role for a healthy nationalist perspective that seeks to preserve national wealth and identity in and for the country and its citizens. This should be more pertinent than it is, given that Australia is an island continent, where it should have been able to develop a unique political economy... but that died out with World War 1.
Indeed, the oeuvre of cultural studies is informed by the idea that ideology (core values) is located in the way people live their lives. Ideology needs to be identified and where necessary contested: that is cultural studies defining characteristic. For example, we don't all live in Los Angeles nor should we imagine ourselves only as west coast Americans.
The nationalist argument is a long and complex one. For example, Lenin's opinions are still debated. Lenin and nationalism-culture questions In the contemporary scene, the nationalist matter sits awkwardly against questions about globalization.
Meanwhile Clive Palmer has announced that he is setting up a newspaper or a news site that seeks to challenge Rupert Murdoch's The Australian newspaper. This paper is influential - a long-time maker and destroyed of politicians and progressive reform in Australia, as well as an active leader in climate denialism opinion ans pseudo-science.
Its coverage of Palmer and PUP is directly critical to the point of vitriolic. Palmer's response has been to increasingly face opponents like The Australian head-on.
Here's the thing: Palmer and PUP, both as politician and political party are funded by Clive Palmer himself, a mining magnate, who wants positive news about himself and the party. As well as Clive Palmer in the House of Representatives since November 2013, PUP has since June 2014 had three senators in the Australian Senate holding the balance of power. They reject the negative stories, along with the portrayal of the political challenge they have made to the established order of Australian political life. So start a newspaper!
Here is my first point: it you want to enter public life and have massive wealth, should you start your own vanity publication? When is it propaganda?
Here is the point that caught my eye from The Age report. Palmer has asked journalists to report on their work and the editorial decision making at The Australian newspaper, anonymously if necessary.
This is invited whistleblowerdom. Such an approach to journalism marks a significant twist in the Murdoch and News world, perhaps even in the history of Australian journalism. PUP indeed!
Monday, August 18, 2014
Friday, August 8, 2014
Social media, antisemitism, EU, Internet
Disturbing reports on antisemitism in The Guardian. antisemitism in EU
There are indicators reported in the article that reflect the relationship between difficult social conditions and Jews as a target. Truly horrible historical tremors here as the article points out echos of the 1930's.
However, the anti-semitic incidents should not be essentialized to the detriment of a broader analysis about inequality and prejudice against all minorities in the EU - Roma, Turks, Africans... what a mess.
My primary interest in this blog is in the role and impact of social media on attitudes and cultural life. In Uprising, I discussed how "ideological grooming" produces limited perspectives for users of the Internet by reducing a variety of counter-opinions. In the book I discussed how this grooming had enhanced jihadism. That helps explain how jihadists, now in the dozens, annihilate themselves by blowing themselves up and others alongside them.
I have discussed this in the light of the rise of fundamentalism more generally - fundamentalism among Christians, Jews, Tea Party members in the US for example - where one opinion is everything.
Liberalism - tolerance for others - can no longer be assumed.
In Uprising I theorized that the emergence of this singular perspective leads to proletarianization.
Here, unregulated speech circulating through media on the Internet generates values and ideas that are unmediated by Enlightenment values. Social advancement is no longer about European Enlightenment: universal ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity (to take the French perspective). Social advancement in the fundamentalist system is now about a deep commitment to a narrow set of interests that are repeated over and over again through the Internet. Social advancement is seen as the realization of a community that is isolated from "the world," from evil and secularism, yet connected.
Back to the EU and antisemitism.
The article includes this comment from Yonathan Arfi Crif, vice-president of Crif, an umbrella group for France's Jewish organizations:
There are indicators reported in the article that reflect the relationship between difficult social conditions and Jews as a target. Truly horrible historical tremors here as the article points out echos of the 1930's.
However, the anti-semitic incidents should not be essentialized to the detriment of a broader analysis about inequality and prejudice against all minorities in the EU - Roma, Turks, Africans... what a mess.
My primary interest in this blog is in the role and impact of social media on attitudes and cultural life. In Uprising, I discussed how "ideological grooming" produces limited perspectives for users of the Internet by reducing a variety of counter-opinions. In the book I discussed how this grooming had enhanced jihadism. That helps explain how jihadists, now in the dozens, annihilate themselves by blowing themselves up and others alongside them.
I have discussed this in the light of the rise of fundamentalism more generally - fundamentalism among Christians, Jews, Tea Party members in the US for example - where one opinion is everything.
Liberalism - tolerance for others - can no longer be assumed.
In Uprising I theorized that the emergence of this singular perspective leads to proletarianization.
Here, unregulated speech circulating through media on the Internet generates values and ideas that are unmediated by Enlightenment values. Social advancement is no longer about European Enlightenment: universal ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity (to take the French perspective). Social advancement in the fundamentalist system is now about a deep commitment to a narrow set of interests that are repeated over and over again through the Internet. Social advancement is seen as the realization of a community that is isolated from "the world," from evil and secularism, yet connected.
Back to the EU and antisemitism.
The article includes this comment from Yonathan Arfi Crif, vice-president of Crif, an umbrella group for France's Jewish organizations:
Almost every observer pointed to the unparalleled power of unfiltered social media to inflame and to mobilise. A stream of shocking images and Twitter hashtags, including #HitlerWasRight, amount, Arfi said, almost to indoctrination. "The logical conclusion, in fact, is radicalisation: on social media people self-select what they see, and what they see can be pure, unchecked propaganda. They may never be confronted with opinions that are not their own.".
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
The jihad, public policy, public opinion nexus - effects theory
Jihadist use of the Internet is producing a reaction and that reaction is changing the Internet. Those changes are increasingly public policy ones that are announced or discussed in public.
This is different to the ones that have been in private play through government security agencies for many years. In the US and the west, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden's release of National Security Authority (NSA) files indicated an advanced history of secrecy, typical of spy agencies for generations. The exception now is that the nature of spying on domestic populations in western democracies may be altogether at a different register thanks to the Internet.
Events that signify the way jihad is changing public policy settings are important indicators of change. Equally important are shifts in public opinion that make it possible for governments to change public policy. Combined, these two forces are maxims if you will, of public policy making: establish a public opinion shift and change policies accordingly. Every student of Institutional Economics understands this principle, as well as the principle of institution building and sustenance, as a central tenant of ideological considerations in society. (For more on Institutional Economics the initating document is John Commons, "Institutional Economics," 1936. Commons article link)
Two news items draw attention to the public opinion policy nexus and the Internet in the context of jihad.
1. "India Shaken by Case of Moslem Men Missing in Iraq" in the New York Times. India and Moslems
Here is part of the story:
The report cites Indian authorities expressing concern about this connection between the Internet and jihad.
Below is a public example of a national policy response to the recruitment of jihadists.
2. Australia announced that it will be monitoring nationals who become jihadi fighters and then return home.
The Guardian headline and subhead summarized the approach by the Prime Minister: "Tony Abbott plans extension to terrorism laws amid jihadi fears. Abbott government wants more power to ban organisations, permit arrests without a warrant and cancel passports."
Here is the strong public policy response. The change to public policy is influenced by the ill-defined relationship between public opinion and media reports. This is the way culture changes. We need concentrated research and critique on this nexus. And we need it not from the dominant American position of "rights" to free speech and rights generally, but from an appreciation of the increasingly granulated mix of media, Internet, government and public policy.
In media studies the relationship between media and behavior is known as effects theory. It is somewhat controversial as the influence of media is difficult to measure. However, jihadi activism due to the Internet is making effects theory clearer, as the nexus of cloudy relationships between media and behavior makes way for conclusions that point to clear cause and effect. Call it technological determinism if you will.
This is different to the ones that have been in private play through government security agencies for many years. In the US and the west, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden's release of National Security Authority (NSA) files indicated an advanced history of secrecy, typical of spy agencies for generations. The exception now is that the nature of spying on domestic populations in western democracies may be altogether at a different register thanks to the Internet.
Events that signify the way jihad is changing public policy settings are important indicators of change. Equally important are shifts in public opinion that make it possible for governments to change public policy. Combined, these two forces are maxims if you will, of public policy making: establish a public opinion shift and change policies accordingly. Every student of Institutional Economics understands this principle, as well as the principle of institution building and sustenance, as a central tenant of ideological considerations in society. (For more on Institutional Economics the initating document is John Commons, "Institutional Economics," 1936. Commons article link)
Two news items draw attention to the public opinion policy nexus and the Internet in the context of jihad.
1. "India Shaken by Case of Moslem Men Missing in Iraq" in the New York Times. India and Moslems
Here is part of the story:
Four young men from this city on the outskirts of Mumbai — well-educated children of a rising middle class — disappeared from their homes with no warning in late May, leaving behind a note about fighting to defend Islam. Investigators traced them to Mosul and have said they were recruited over the Internet by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — a process that, while relatively well-known in the West, has not been documented in India.
Mumbai is the technology and call centre capital of India... The connection with the computer network adds to the discussion about unintended consequences of the Internet. Government's believe technology is a solution to development. Public policies reflect that perspective, and rightly so. But in the layers of Mumbai's technology activity is a layer of jihadist recruitment.
That the young men appear to have joined ISIS, the foundation for the Islamic Caliphate is pretty dramatic. Three of the four are qualified engineers, according to the New York Times report - which is incredible because in this case, the Internet jihad nexus appeals to highly educated people. As engineers, they can make a significant contribution to ISIS and the organization of the Caliphate using new technology.
The report cites Indian authorities expressing concern about this connection between the Internet and jihad.
“This came as a shock to all of us, this incident,” said Deven Bharti, a senior official in the Mumbai police department. “Trying to join the global war, it is quite a new thing.”
Below is a public example of a national policy response to the recruitment of jihadists.
2. Australia announced that it will be monitoring nationals who become jihadi fighters and then return home.
The Guardian headline and subhead summarized the approach by the Prime Minister: "Tony Abbott plans extension to terrorism laws amid jihadi fears. Abbott government wants more power to ban organisations, permit arrests without a warrant and cancel passports."
Here is the strong public policy response. The change to public policy is influenced by the ill-defined relationship between public opinion and media reports. This is the way culture changes. We need concentrated research and critique on this nexus. And we need it not from the dominant American position of "rights" to free speech and rights generally, but from an appreciation of the increasingly granulated mix of media, Internet, government and public policy.
In media studies the relationship between media and behavior is known as effects theory. It is somewhat controversial as the influence of media is difficult to measure. However, jihadi activism due to the Internet is making effects theory clearer, as the nexus of cloudy relationships between media and behavior makes way for conclusions that point to clear cause and effect. Call it technological determinism if you will.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Back to analog: The end of the Internet = typewriter redux
A couple of years ago I published the following article:
“Killing the Thing You Love: Predator
Drones, Wilful Neglect and the End of the Internet,” International Journal
of Knowledge, Technology and Society, Vol 8, Issue 1: 153-166.
At that time, armed drones were new and marked a deeply disturbing trend in the use of Internet technologies. The drones were using the telecommunication infrastructure that had been created by the US Government and then privatized. With the US military in charge, the drones were annihilating opponents of the US and innocent civilians. To me this amounted to abuse of the infrastructure, as well as an abuse of legal systems. The law in most places does not allow for summary executions without a judicial procedure. Drones killed with the movement of a joystick and the push of a button by unnamed military personnel safe on US soil.
To me, drones marked the end of the Internet - at least as it had been imagined.
My ruminations were accurate, prophetic perhaps. My analysis we have witnessed the end of the Internet has now achieved confirmation status with the news that the German Government and apparently the Russian Government are using typewriters for communicating securely. Why? Because the National Security Administration sees and hacks everything, as do other nations' security agencies. (This is at the planning stage in Germany). Typewriter redux marks the material end point of the Internet, if the report from The Guardian is to be believed. end of the internet v 2
The forcefulness of securitization by national powers large and small has led to this. The full scale global circulation of information is at an end. With the Internet, it was hoped that knowledge would be freer and more spirited in the way it offered resources for human betterment. By that I do not mean that human beings would realise their potential with more consumption. Unfortunately, consumption seems to be the handmaiden of securitization: buy more stuff while experiencing more security.
Or to put it another way: the end result is Internet pleasure generating more consumption which offers more granulated information to security agencies: both commercial and public.
Typewriters are back. All those ones sitting on bookshelves behind writers being interviewed on television will need to be dusted off, carbon ribbons found, machine oil purchased and off we go - clak-clak-claketty-clak.
With drones and securitization, is there any hope for the Internet?
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Rolf Harris, Rupert Murdoch face regulation plus culture shift
Critical analysis is important because it explains how established social and economic practices can be overthrown.
In my experience at least, academics and intellectuals do not spend enough time thinking about how to change the rules in order to shift the boundaries that separate legally tolerated behaviour from unlawful thuggery. If they do engage in research on this topic, we tend to see precious little progress on moving against illegality. There may be some changes afoot in identifying and acting against previously tolerated activities.
The last couple of years have seen subtle changes playing out in relation to two Australians living abroad that could throw some light on the way shifts in the application of law within legal structures are changing and thus change the game.
The two people in question are Rolf Harris and Rupert Murdoch. As pillars of establishment media they have been thrown into the spotlight. In Harris's case he was found to be engaged in criminal sexual activity against children. In Murdoch's case, Andy Coulson, former editor of the no longer operating tabloid newspaper News of the World was engaged in criminal phone hacking. He was employed by Mr Murdoch's company, as were a number of others who have admitted to similar wrong doing or are still awaiting trial.
There are a couple of lines of inquiry to tease out here.
First the Australians (I am also one). Consider the following questions:
Are Australians in the media inclined to practice criminal behaviour?
Are Australians likely to dismiss regulation in favour self-interest?
It is possible to draw the conclusion that the Harris and Murdoch guilty verdicts are merely a matter of timing.
Another conclusion could be that Australians achieve recognition and global success by refusing to accept limits on behaviour placed by regulations in their new "home" countries. By breaking the rules, or just going about their business to gain international success, Australians break or break through, drawing on their Crocodile Dundee libertarian cultural default along the way.
Recall the 1986 film of the same name and the favored scene of "That's not a knife. That's a knife!" Croc This scene is instructive for the way the knife wielding Dundee wins the girl for his bravado, his macho charisma and his rough charm. These ear characteristics for which the unregulated individual is well regarded, and like Harris and Murdoch, these free spirits are two Australian risk takers, who win over the Americans and the English with their unpolished behaviour, their brazen charm and their accents.
Or consider the US advertisement for Outback Steakhouse: "No Rules. Just Right."
A more interesting philosophical question is this: is there wilful ignorance at work?
(I would not eat at a restaurant that was not regulated, if that meant the food was poorly prepared. The connotation for me in this restaurant's pitch is that regulation of the entire operation, including hygiene, is something they reject. It's the end of the libertarian line. GO AND WASH YOUR HANDS!)
Some critics will add that this ignorance is further mobilized as Australia is swamped with celebrity worship, uncritical consumerism and obsessive interest in all things American that appears to be solely about the economic good life and anti-regulation.
Australian media organizations feed this beast. They share with many others around the world the need for lists to fill up that otherwise white space on the magazine page. The list of Trusted People included Rolf Harris on the Readers Digest list of 100 Most Trusted People, which means name recognition for celebrity. Trusted People - Australia
Is the culture changing? Have rugged individuals like Harris and Murdoch or their organizations been brought to justice outside Australia? If so what does this say about public and private attitudes to particular types of previously tolerated behavior? Or behaviour that has been made public.
Under the headline "Rolf Harris's pantomime act should never have fooled us," Suzanne Moore
writing in The Guardian suggested that there was one individual who mobilized action against Harris, the UK director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer. Moore comments
"It was against a backdrop of a different Crown Prosecution Service, not some nebulous atmospheric change in the ..." writes Moore. The second part of that sentence is not in line with this blog post, while the first part suggests that there are too many officials working in regulatory organizations who do too little to defend the public interest by bringing charges.
Sometimes good things happen:
This week, after 10 years of pretending their was nothing wrong with their cars, General Motors in the US accepted Ken Feinberg's arrangements for multi-billion dollar settlements to families whose members were killed as a result of GM's behavior. Payment result from Feinberg
Similarly, BNP Paribas bank has agreed to pay an $8.9 billion fine to the US Department of Justice. PNB Paribas No criminal charges were brought in this or other cases against banks making transactions for banned governments, such as Iran.
Harris and Murdoch are receiving penalties. Banks and auto manufacturers are being caught and brought to justice in not nearly enough numbers, but in numbers that suggest regulators are making some small headway.
Not an atmospheric change? Let's hope Suzanne Moore is wrong. Criticism please!
In my experience at least, academics and intellectuals do not spend enough time thinking about how to change the rules in order to shift the boundaries that separate legally tolerated behaviour from unlawful thuggery. If they do engage in research on this topic, we tend to see precious little progress on moving against illegality. There may be some changes afoot in identifying and acting against previously tolerated activities.
The last couple of years have seen subtle changes playing out in relation to two Australians living abroad that could throw some light on the way shifts in the application of law within legal structures are changing and thus change the game.
The two people in question are Rolf Harris and Rupert Murdoch. As pillars of establishment media they have been thrown into the spotlight. In Harris's case he was found to be engaged in criminal sexual activity against children. In Murdoch's case, Andy Coulson, former editor of the no longer operating tabloid newspaper News of the World was engaged in criminal phone hacking. He was employed by Mr Murdoch's company, as were a number of others who have admitted to similar wrong doing or are still awaiting trial.
There are a couple of lines of inquiry to tease out here.
- One has to do with the fact that both of the people in question are Australian expatriates.
- Another has to do with their behaviour.
- A third has to do with the confluence of actions by the UK government and its regulators to suddenly bring them to public scrutiny and charge them or people in their organizations with crimes.
- The fourth line of inquiry has to do with what Australian men (in this case) believe is acceptable behaviour.
- A fifth line of inquiry is whether these cases signal a much needed shift in tolerance for illegal behaviour generally.
First the Australians (I am also one). Consider the following questions:
Are Australians in the media inclined to practice criminal behaviour?
Are Australians likely to dismiss regulation in favour self-interest?
It is possible to draw the conclusion that the Harris and Murdoch guilty verdicts are merely a matter of timing.
Another conclusion could be that Australians achieve recognition and global success by refusing to accept limits on behaviour placed by regulations in their new "home" countries. By breaking the rules, or just going about their business to gain international success, Australians break or break through, drawing on their Crocodile Dundee libertarian cultural default along the way.
Recall the 1986 film of the same name and the favored scene of "That's not a knife. That's a knife!" Croc This scene is instructive for the way the knife wielding Dundee wins the girl for his bravado, his macho charisma and his rough charm. These ear characteristics for which the unregulated individual is well regarded, and like Harris and Murdoch, these free spirits are two Australian risk takers, who win over the Americans and the English with their unpolished behaviour, their brazen charm and their accents.
Or consider the US advertisement for Outback Steakhouse: "No Rules. Just Right."
A more interesting philosophical question is this: is there wilful ignorance at work?
(I would not eat at a restaurant that was not regulated, if that meant the food was poorly prepared. The connotation for me in this restaurant's pitch is that regulation of the entire operation, including hygiene, is something they reject. It's the end of the libertarian line. GO AND WASH YOUR HANDS!)
Some critics will add that this ignorance is further mobilized as Australia is swamped with celebrity worship, uncritical consumerism and obsessive interest in all things American that appears to be solely about the economic good life and anti-regulation.
Australian media organizations feed this beast. They share with many others around the world the need for lists to fill up that otherwise white space on the magazine page. The list of Trusted People included Rolf Harris on the Readers Digest list of 100 Most Trusted People, which means name recognition for celebrity. Trusted People - Australia
Is the culture changing? Have rugged individuals like Harris and Murdoch or their organizations been brought to justice outside Australia? If so what does this say about public and private attitudes to particular types of previously tolerated behavior? Or behaviour that has been made public.
Under the headline "Rolf Harris's pantomime act should never have fooled us," Suzanne Moore
writing in The Guardian suggested that there was one individual who mobilized action against Harris, the UK director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer. Moore comments
"It was against a backdrop of a different Crown Prosecution Service, not some nebulous atmospheric change in the ..." writes Moore. The second part of that sentence is not in line with this blog post, while the first part suggests that there are too many officials working in regulatory organizations who do too little to defend the public interest by bringing charges.
Sometimes good things happen:
This week, after 10 years of pretending their was nothing wrong with their cars, General Motors in the US accepted Ken Feinberg's arrangements for multi-billion dollar settlements to families whose members were killed as a result of GM's behavior. Payment result from Feinberg
Similarly, BNP Paribas bank has agreed to pay an $8.9 billion fine to the US Department of Justice. PNB Paribas No criminal charges were brought in this or other cases against banks making transactions for banned governments, such as Iran.
Harris and Murdoch are receiving penalties. Banks and auto manufacturers are being caught and brought to justice in not nearly enough numbers, but in numbers that suggest regulators are making some small headway.
Not an atmospheric change? Let's hope Suzanne Moore is wrong. Criticism please!
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Rupert Murdoch under scrutiny
As the UK phone hacking case draws to a close in the Old Bailey courtrooms, the story takes another direction that suggests more grist for the media studies mill.
In this twist, the news on 25 June 2014, that Scotland Yard had postponed interviewing Mr Murdoch but would follow up soon with an interview, suggests a change in the power landscape. Police to Interview Murdoch
The English establishment has generally tolerated News Corporation and its offshoots because he could be considered as sometimes helpful to their interests and often good for business. He supported most if not all British war excursions - most prominently the violent Malvinas / Falkland Islands interaction with Argentina - and was the maker of Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, and as always, his enterprises made money.
The English establishment will put up with a lot of disturbance as long as their supremacy at the top of the local social order is not challenged. Phone hacking could even be tolerated as something akin to sport. As I have noted here previously, for media students (and the citizenry) the story was about the emergence of new media and the absence of regulations that were written to reflect the networked society.
While libertarians may defend the freedom of the Internet, resisting regulation as "government intrusion," their anti-statist approach rings hollow and would ring loud and clear if they were the ones to be surveilled, have their privacy invaded and selves mangled through the press.
When the UK police caught up with the phone hacking behaviour of journalists and editors at News of the World and Sun, Murdoch and his son James apologized in public at the Levenson Inquiry. "The most humble day of my life," said Murdoch senior.
The news that Murdoch may be interviewed by British police suggests that a new avenue of scrutiny has opened up, that is interviewing the owners and managers of media organizations. If this continues, the UK regulatory system may finally be maturing into a regulator of substance. Perhaps no longer will the English political establishment give the appearance of being either willing supplicants to News International or to being bullied by the Australian-American.
If Murdoch senior is interviewed - an event whose content is unlikely to yield anything of substance - it will at least enliven debate about media and the abuse by owners of their power over public opinion.
In this twist, the news on 25 June 2014, that Scotland Yard had postponed interviewing Mr Murdoch but would follow up soon with an interview, suggests a change in the power landscape. Police to Interview Murdoch
The English establishment has generally tolerated News Corporation and its offshoots because he could be considered as sometimes helpful to their interests and often good for business. He supported most if not all British war excursions - most prominently the violent Malvinas / Falkland Islands interaction with Argentina - and was the maker of Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, and as always, his enterprises made money.
The English establishment will put up with a lot of disturbance as long as their supremacy at the top of the local social order is not challenged. Phone hacking could even be tolerated as something akin to sport. As I have noted here previously, for media students (and the citizenry) the story was about the emergence of new media and the absence of regulations that were written to reflect the networked society.
While libertarians may defend the freedom of the Internet, resisting regulation as "government intrusion," their anti-statist approach rings hollow and would ring loud and clear if they were the ones to be surveilled, have their privacy invaded and selves mangled through the press.
When the UK police caught up with the phone hacking behaviour of journalists and editors at News of the World and Sun, Murdoch and his son James apologized in public at the Levenson Inquiry. "The most humble day of my life," said Murdoch senior.
The news that Murdoch may be interviewed by British police suggests that a new avenue of scrutiny has opened up, that is interviewing the owners and managers of media organizations. If this continues, the UK regulatory system may finally be maturing into a regulator of substance. Perhaps no longer will the English political establishment give the appearance of being either willing supplicants to News International or to being bullied by the Australian-American.
If Murdoch senior is interviewed - an event whose content is unlikely to yield anything of substance - it will at least enliven debate about media and the abuse by owners of their power over public opinion.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Slavoj Zizek on Ukraine: musings on culture and the Internet
Slovinian academic, Slavoj Zizek published a typically brilliant piece of work in the London Review of Books about the crisis in Ukraine. "Barbarism with a Human Face," 8 May, 2014. LRB
Everyone can read it and rejoice in the historical knowledge Zizek brings to the discussion: especially the history of Lenin versus Stalin. More importantly, the analysis offers a picture of the drivers of the current situation, where the expansion of Russia into Ukraine is, according to Zizek, following a crypto-Stalinist model of a unified Russia ("Socialism in one country revisited," perhaps?).
Zizek offers a mountain of evidence about the Leninist program of cultural independence for the regions that Stalin undid. Unfortunately, Zizek forgets the messy domain of culture.
Sure it may be preferable for Ukraine to be connected with progressive, liberal (that is "tolerant") Europe, rather than conservative, illiberal Slavic life. Every emancipated person still enjoying the benefits of the Enlightenment movement celebrates the wonders of human dignity against the eastern methods of culture, says this line of argument. (And one with which I agree). That hardly resolves the culture question, which is about a counter hegemonic move by many people in the Ukraine to align themselves with Russia because that is the culture with which they feel comfortable. Surely, a Leninist like Zizek should support such a claim?
Add to the cloudy cultural mix the way the Internet generates "ideological grooming," and it is no surprise that political positions in conflicts like Ukraine and many others around the world harden in seconds, like lead poured out of a furnace. The theory is that the singularity of voices on the Internet consolidates opinion, especially when only one opinion is read or watched over and over. Thus culture becomes ideology by any other name - values are elaborated, reinforced, Balkanised in anti-liberal ways.
Consequently, the news that the Russian Government has launched an Internet register for users, suggests that the uprisings in Ukraine have an Internet component.Russia Quietly Tightens Reins on Web with Bloggers Law
The report by the New York Times May 7, was about censorship of the web.
"The idea that the Internet was at best controlled anarchy and beyond any one nation’s control is fading globally amid determined attempts by more and more governments to tame the web. If innovations like Twitter were hailed as recently as the Arab uprisings as the new public square, governments like those in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and now Russia are making it clear that they can deploy their tanks on virtual squares, too."
There is strong American bias in this report - that is, the implicit claim that free speech in America can be applied universally. There is nothing wrong with this Enlightenment approach, except that it is given a preferential treatment in the discussion, as if everyone knows and supports free speech, as an abstract objective, regardless of how it collides with political realities. This default position, is part of the cultural calculation as well.
As it turns out, the New York Times article is about censorship, which in the countries mentioned, is not about what Americans imagine to be free speech, but the more challenging matter, anti-government activity organized through the Internet. This is the case in China, which has a remarkably liberal policy to on-line media and communication, just as long as it is not political.
Consider a counter US example: Americans organizing anti-American activities which are considered terrorist acts-in-planning, have been blown to smithereens by drones. Those people have been blown up because other people working in institutions of the US Government read their emails and listen to their speeches verbally attacking the US. This surveillance leads to maximum use of deadly force by the US Government, without judicial due process - "extrajudicial killing." It has even been discussed in relation to the use of drones on American soil against Americans! Rand Paul debatesThis link between surveillance of digital communication and killing has been a controversial matter now for several years and presents an approach that is not in accordance with the popular US belief that everyone has speech rights. Congressional debate
Russia has a tradition - contrary to many Western approaches - that government can be authoritarian in its practices. From the Tsars to Stalin to President Putin. This is Russian culture. It is not Enlightenment culture, as preached or practised in the west, but something quite different. (This is why Zizek quotes Lenin on the vast amount of "spadework" needed to bring Russia into Western Europe.)
Would it be possible to say that US Government surveillance of citizens is Puritan culture revisited, an approach that predates Enlightenment?
The relationship between Zizek's Leninist history, the Russian Internet register and US approaches to free speech are to be found in the messy stuff of culture, to which there are few clear answers except the need for tolerance of many cultures. But that hardly helps anything.
Everyone can read it and rejoice in the historical knowledge Zizek brings to the discussion: especially the history of Lenin versus Stalin. More importantly, the analysis offers a picture of the drivers of the current situation, where the expansion of Russia into Ukraine is, according to Zizek, following a crypto-Stalinist model of a unified Russia ("Socialism in one country revisited," perhaps?).
Zizek offers a mountain of evidence about the Leninist program of cultural independence for the regions that Stalin undid. Unfortunately, Zizek forgets the messy domain of culture.
Sure it may be preferable for Ukraine to be connected with progressive, liberal (that is "tolerant") Europe, rather than conservative, illiberal Slavic life. Every emancipated person still enjoying the benefits of the Enlightenment movement celebrates the wonders of human dignity against the eastern methods of culture, says this line of argument. (And one with which I agree). That hardly resolves the culture question, which is about a counter hegemonic move by many people in the Ukraine to align themselves with Russia because that is the culture with which they feel comfortable. Surely, a Leninist like Zizek should support such a claim?
Add to the cloudy cultural mix the way the Internet generates "ideological grooming," and it is no surprise that political positions in conflicts like Ukraine and many others around the world harden in seconds, like lead poured out of a furnace. The theory is that the singularity of voices on the Internet consolidates opinion, especially when only one opinion is read or watched over and over. Thus culture becomes ideology by any other name - values are elaborated, reinforced, Balkanised in anti-liberal ways.
Consequently, the news that the Russian Government has launched an Internet register for users, suggests that the uprisings in Ukraine have an Internet component.Russia Quietly Tightens Reins on Web with Bloggers Law
The report by the New York Times May 7, was about censorship of the web.
"The idea that the Internet was at best controlled anarchy and beyond any one nation’s control is fading globally amid determined attempts by more and more governments to tame the web. If innovations like Twitter were hailed as recently as the Arab uprisings as the new public square, governments like those in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and now Russia are making it clear that they can deploy their tanks on virtual squares, too."
There is strong American bias in this report - that is, the implicit claim that free speech in America can be applied universally. There is nothing wrong with this Enlightenment approach, except that it is given a preferential treatment in the discussion, as if everyone knows and supports free speech, as an abstract objective, regardless of how it collides with political realities. This default position, is part of the cultural calculation as well.
As it turns out, the New York Times article is about censorship, which in the countries mentioned, is not about what Americans imagine to be free speech, but the more challenging matter, anti-government activity organized through the Internet. This is the case in China, which has a remarkably liberal policy to on-line media and communication, just as long as it is not political.
Consider a counter US example: Americans organizing anti-American activities which are considered terrorist acts-in-planning, have been blown to smithereens by drones. Those people have been blown up because other people working in institutions of the US Government read their emails and listen to their speeches verbally attacking the US. This surveillance leads to maximum use of deadly force by the US Government, without judicial due process - "extrajudicial killing." It has even been discussed in relation to the use of drones on American soil against Americans! Rand Paul debatesThis link between surveillance of digital communication and killing has been a controversial matter now for several years and presents an approach that is not in accordance with the popular US belief that everyone has speech rights. Congressional debate
Russia has a tradition - contrary to many Western approaches - that government can be authoritarian in its practices. From the Tsars to Stalin to President Putin. This is Russian culture. It is not Enlightenment culture, as preached or practised in the west, but something quite different. (This is why Zizek quotes Lenin on the vast amount of "spadework" needed to bring Russia into Western Europe.)
Would it be possible to say that US Government surveillance of citizens is Puritan culture revisited, an approach that predates Enlightenment?
The relationship between Zizek's Leninist history, the Russian Internet register and US approaches to free speech are to be found in the messy stuff of culture, to which there are few clear answers except the need for tolerance of many cultures. But that hardly helps anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)