|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Un-Embed the Media |
Current rating: 0 |
by Amy Goodman and David Goodman
(No verified email address) |
07 Apr 2005
|
Editorials profess to being shocked - shocked! - by the government's covert propaganda campaign in which, as The New York Times revealed March 13, at least 20 federal agencies have spent $250 million creating and sending fake news segments to local TV stations.
But the media have only themselves to blame for most people - including TV news managers - not being able to distinguish journalism from propaganda. The line between news and propaganda was trampled not only by the public relations agencies hired by the government but also by reporters in the deserts of Iraq. |
Recent revelations that the Bush administration has been fabricating news stories, secretly hiring journalists to write puff pieces and credentialing fake reporters at White House news conferences has infuriated the news media.
Editorials profess to being shocked - shocked! - by the government's covert propaganda campaign in which, as The New York Times revealed March 13, at least 20 federal agencies have spent $250 million creating and sending fake news segments to local TV stations.
But the media have only themselves to blame for most people - including TV news managers - not being able to distinguish journalism from propaganda. The line between news and propaganda was trampled not only by the public relations agencies hired by the government but also by reporters in the deserts of Iraq.
The Pentagon deployed a weapon more powerful than any bomb: the U.S. media. Embedded journalists were transformed into efficient conduits of Pentagon spin. Before and during the invasion of Iraq, the networks conveniently provided the flag-draped backdrop for fawning reports from the field.
As if literally adopting the Pentagon's propagandistic slogan - "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - for their coverage weren't enough, the networks bombarded viewers with an unending parade of generals and colonels paid to offer on-air analysis. It gave new meaning to the term "general news."
If we had state-run media in the United States, how would it be any different?
The media have a responsibility to show the true face of war. But many corporate journalists, so accustomed by now to trading truth for access (the "access of evil"), can no longer grasp what's missing from their coverage. As CBS' Jim Axelrod, who was embedded with - we would say in bed with - the 3rd Infantry Division, gushed: "This will sound like I've drunk the Kool-Aid, but I found embedding to be an extremely positive experience. ... We got great stories and they got very positive coverage."
It should come as no surprise that the Bush administration, having found the media so helpful and compliant with their coverage of the Iraq war, would seek to orchestrate similarly uncritical coverage of other issues that they hold dear.
TV viewers nationwide have watched and heard about how the "top-notch work force" of the often-criticized Transportation Security Administration has led "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history," how President Bush's controversial Medicare plan will offer "new benefits, more choices, more opportunities," how the United States is "putting needy women back in business" in Afghanistan, and how Army prison guards, accused of torturing and murdering inmates in Iraq and Afghanistan, "treat prisoners strictly, but fairly."
Such crude government-supplied propaganda would be laughable were it not being passed off as news on America's TV stations. Even sadder, nothing about the sycophantic reports seems out of the ordinary.
The first casualty of this taxpayer-financed misinformation campaign is the truth.
Mr. Bush must have been delighted to learn from a March 16 Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believed Iraq provided direct support to al-Qaida.
Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid but because they are good media consumers. The explosive effect of this propaganda is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand.
It's time for the American media to un-embed themselves from the U.S. government. We need media that are fiercely independent, that ask the hard questions and hold those in power accountable. Only then will government propaganda be seen for what it is and citizens be able to make choices informed by reality, not self-serving misinformation. Anything less is a disservice to the servicemen and women of this country and a disservice to a democratic society.
Amy Goodman, host of the radio and TV news show Democracy Now!, and David Goodman, a contributing writer for Mother Jones, are authors of The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, just published in paperback by Hyperion. Amy is currently on a 50-city 'Un-Embed the Media Tour' to mark the release of the book.
© 2005 Baltimore Sun
http://www.baltimoresun.com |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
|
I am disappointed to learn that there is such a close connection between the tour and the book. I listen to Democracy Now on a regular basis, and Ms. Good frequently mentions the un-embed tour, the cities and dates, etc. But to my knowledge she has never mentioned that connected with the tour is a standard "book tour" promoting sales of a book, which will presumably accrue to the authors. Disappointing indeed. |
|
Reading a Book |
by like duh
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
If you're so disappointed, need I remind you of that great socialistic insititution called the library?
Nobody is forcing you to buy a book. And the last time I checked, people still charge for transportation, hotels, and meals when you're on the road, so it's rather silly and trite to expect someone to tour on any subject without some basic efforts at fundraising. We can be sure that what Amy says is not secretly sponsored by any of that $250 miilion in slush fund payments from the White House, unlike with what is said by many consevative commentators and what is on such stations as WCIA.
In other words, your comment sounds more like a troll than something of consequence. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
It has nothing to do with the White House or anything else. It's that I am disappointed that someone whose integrity I have relied on is not being forthcoming about the fact that she is on a book promotion tour. Why is it that whenever someone has a concern about a progressive's actions, that person is automatically -- reflexively -- denounced as a troll? Are progressives supposed to be immune from criticism?
Let me say it again: I have heard Ms. Goodman promote the un-embed tour numerous times, without ever mentioning her book. It's just not forthcoming, and that has zero connection with any other issue. |
|
Maybe the Message Is More Important than Selling Books |
by like duh
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
Why is it that trolls always seem to think that are immune from the laws of logic when they get called on their vague and logically inconsistent complaints?
Maybe the point is that what she really wants to get out is the message. If you're offended by the fact that a well-known author happens to sell books when they are touring with an important message, I can just imagine your discomfort if she decided to bill this as Amy's Big Book Sale. When she happens to give a talk while on it, you'd next be whining that she is "propagandizing" those who come to buy her book.
Besides, people who attend such talks always EXPECT to have the opportunity to buy books, etc. It sounds to me like you have not only never attended a talk by a progressive author, you've never had the intellectual curiosity to attend a talk by an author of ANY political persuasion.
They ALL sell books at their appearances. Get over it.
People who deal in ideas are intimately connected to the publishing and sale of books. You have yet to articulate anything except disppointment with Amy, without any substantive basis to be disappointed about. Maybe that is why I think you're a troll. |
|
GASP!!?!?! |
by trolling back the troll
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
I just realized that they even sell _books_ at the IMC!
I'm am certain "Disappointed" must be absolutely shocked about that!
Just how progressive is selling books? That literally makes you a...a...a _Capitalist_!!!
I never realized that selling books was so anti-freedom, but thanks for letting me know about your anally-located standard that we should judge the left by, "Disappointed," you've really made me see the light!
I think it is about time that no books are permitted to be sold anywhere, unless you swear on a stack of bibles that you're a hard-core, forest-destroying, irrepentant capitalist! It is simply not fair to conservatives that anyone on the left ever to be permitted to sell anything!
To permit progressives to sell books could lead one to believe that capitalism really isn't necessary, after all.
;>) |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
Read my comments. I make no statement about whether it is right to sell books. What I am saying is that if you're using airtime supported by donations -- including mine! -- to promote a book tour, you should say so.
Why do you have to be insulting? Why the hostility? I am commenting on someone's actions, asking a legitimate question that is important to me.
My point here -- try to listen, now -- is that integrity is not a relative term, and no one has a permanent lock on it. I judge people by their actions, not their comments, and not on their philosophy -- political or otherwise.
So if you want to engage in a discussion about my original point, let's stick to the issue of whether Ms. Goodman has an obligation to her listeners and supporters to be forthcoming about the fact that she will be selling her book -- i.e. profiting -- on her un-embed tour. Indeed, I think it is logical that the tour would not be taking place unless that were the case. And I would also be interested to know if her publisher is paying for some or all of the tour. |
|
Now It's Clear and You're Making No Sense |
by like duh
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
>Disappointed wrote:
"What I am saying is that if you're using airtime supported by donations -- including mine! -- to promote a book tour, you should say so."
If she had said _anything_ about the book, then that would have been promoting a book tour. Then you would have a complaint that she ACTUALLY was promoting the book. In fact, that is likely the reason why she did NOT mention the book, because doing so would have been considered promoting the book.
You're trying to make a mountain out of a grain of sand.
What you're asserting makes no sense if you really don't want Amy to promote the book on the air. You're basically saying her silence indicts her, which is about as McCarthyite a thing I can think of.
I stand by my earlier assessment of your lack of exposure to the basic facts of life -- authors typically have their books for sale at public appearances and there is nothing remarkable about this at all, despite your pathetic whining about it -- or, more likely -- youre just here trolling. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
My basic exposure to the facts of life. Hmmm . . .
I am 63 years old, have raised four children through good times and bad, had a successful small business for over 30 years, and contribute my time and money to a variety of community causes.
Who in the hell do you think you are to lecture me about "exposure to the facts of life?" |
|
Facts 'o Life |
by like duh
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
When public personalities go on tour, they typically sell books they may have authored.
I know this simple fact is something you are having a hard time getting your mind around, but try it anyway.
Your overwrought moralizing about Amy Goodman's career would simply be laughable, if it was not so transparently clear that you're a troll.
But just to give you one more chance to prove you're not, name for us some of the people that you politically support.
OK, I give up waiting...
But I am quite certain that anyone you could name -- Democrat, Republican, Green, Black Panther, Communist, Know-Nothing (hmm, maybe that is YOUR party?), preachers, Ollie North, rock and movie stars, journalists (hey, Amy's a journalist, too, but she's the ONLY one that upsets "Disappointed"), whatever -- all these public personalities typically sell books when they tour.
What I think everyone wants to know is why you are selectively zeroing in on Amy Goodman as the main moral offender in your tiny universe?
That's just weird.
Or you're a troll.
Or you're weird, even for a troll. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
The politicians I support are none of your business. My beliefs are none of your business. My philosophy, friends, ins-and-outs, preferences, addictions, neuroses, and aches-and-pains are none of your business. I am not constrained to defend myself on a personal basis in order to voice and opinion. My original comment was legitimate, calmly stated, and of interest and importance to me.
So fuck you. |
|
Eeeeccchhh! |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
Wow, the troll was getting his clock cleaned, then he just blew up....
Man, troll guts --- everywhere! What a mess. |
|
A Small Mess |
by like duh
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
Well, yeah, he really did implode like the Wicked Witch of the West when I threw water on him.
Fortunately, trolls have very little in the way of guts. More like a firefly smashing into your windshield. A brief flash of light and you hope you're not out of bug juice. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
My story. Born in 1942. Father left for the South Pacific before I was born. Died April 1944. Never met him.
Drafted in July 1967. 3rd Infantry Regiment, 87th Airborne. Da Nang. Pleiku. An Loc. Hue. Tet. Check out Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" to learn some of your history -- Stanley got it mostly right.
Saw my brothers wasted into tiny pieces of shit. One day picked up an injured rabbit and got my thumb, index finger and half my middle finger (the one I would otherwise be using now to flip you off) when the APM slipped into its viscera popped on me.
Came home. Joined V V A W. Held the line on the Mall with Kovacs. My brother.
Then did my penance with six years in the Peace Corps -- two years in Gabon, four years in Malawi. Taught science and health classes. Saw the vanguard of AIDS even though nobody at the time knew what it was. Over those four years in Malawi probably came into contract with 1200 kids, virutally all of whom are now dead.
Came home and made a life for myself. Have woken up every night for 35 years in a cold sweat. PSTD. Drug addiction. Panic attacks. But I hacked it, assholes. Married, had kids, started a small business. Persevered. Hacked it. Still alive. Fuck you.
So don't talk me about "guts everywhere." You don't have the slightest inkling what that means. And you don't have the slightest inkling what it means to HAVE guts. I saw my brothers' guts. I saw my students die.
Whatever objections you might have to my views, I've earned them.
What have YOU earned? What have YOU sacrificed for your politics? Have you ONCE put your ass on the line for something you believe in? I'm not talking about a picket line on North Prospect, you bourgeois creatures of radical-chic comfort. AWARE -- make me laugh. Make me cry at your delusions.
Get off your ass and get out there. The Third World is waiting for you. Live with the starving, the wasted, the diseased, without electricity, or clean drinking water. In a land where there truly are zero civil liberties. Where the army comes in during the night and "recruits" the 14 year-olds you had in your classroom the day before.
Or shut the fuck up. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) shimer.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
Disappointed, I don't know why these folks went off on you. I hope that you keep reading and posting, but I would understand if you didn't. It seems utterly daft to me to drive off a sympathetic reader (Christ, how many people have even heard of Democracy Now, much less are regular listeners), but there you go. Perhaps, Disappointed, you might introduce a needed note of polite but vigorous heterodoxy.
To be frank, I see very little that's of interest on these wires anymore, and nothing that resembles journalism, just press releases, notices of meetings, links and manifestos. All good in their way, but then it's not really alternative media, just a messageboard for lefties. I check in occasionally because I worked on this project for a little while and I'm curious to see how it's getting on. Not very well, it seems. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Apr 2005
|
Michael,
I appreciate your thoughts. The truth of the matter is that I was genuinely disappointed that Amy Goodman didn't mention that she was on a book promotion tour. I mean, who can you trust?
I am a regular listener of DN, I am a financial supporter of WEFT. And when I offered an opinoin that, as you ably put it, suggested a heterodoxy, I was attacked.
And I also sadly agree that the site has lost its verve and power to inform and provoke. I find it demoralizing that the users are falling into the same traps the site was originally crafted to combat: the creation of a theology, an orthodoxy if you will. There are now sacred cows. Amy Goodman is above reproach, and to question anything about her is a sin against the church of the progressive.
Progressives are SUPPOSED to be troublemakers. We're SUPPOSED to challenge the most cherished assumptions. We're SUPPOSED to be skeptical.
As I read back through the thread, I look in vain for anything I might have said that would be considered "unprogressive," other than having the audacity to question whether one of our leading lights might -- just might -- be acting and speaking in a way that is less than fully open and honest.
To reflexively attack someone who asks such a question is to begin down the slippery slope of the cult of personality. We have ample historical models of such a phenomenon to cause serious doubt about our ability to remain free.
Thanks again. |
|
Abounding Contradictions in "Disappointed's" Tall Tale |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Apr 2005
|
Well, if "Disappointed" is so concerned about the after-effects of his ostensible service in a previous war, is a Vietnam Veteran's Against the War member, and has been a regular listener to Amy Goodman, it's rather incongurous that his supposed naievity about the fact that public personalities frequently sell their books when they are on tour is the source of any of his concerns. Shouldn't he want to keep a new generation of America's youth from going through the same thing he claims to have gone through? One would think so, but he offers no explanation at all for this logical disconnect between what he claims to be and the views he espouses.
And "Disappointed" is having a rather Jack Ryan moment when he mentions his Army service and that "Full Metal Jacket" will tell us about his own experience -- FMJ is about the _Marines_, not the Army, operating in I Corps. "Semper Phi," Jack.
Then go ahead and try to Google 3rd Infantry Regiment, 87th Airborne. Nothing, nothing at all comes up. Then try variations on that search. Add in Vietnam as a search term. Nada on anything for that combination of units to do with Vietnam. "Disappointed" is another fake vet that I'm sure real vets would find despicable -- if he wasn't so anonymous.
Which brings into focus the long history of trolling posts on UC IMC. As a regular IMC reader and occasional contributor, I've put up with Jack Ryan and his trolling "Band of (Fake) Brothers" until they were rightfully booted. Then this "group" (most likely only Jack himself) transformed itself into a constantly rotating set of vague screen names, all pretending to be liberals that are "disappointed" -- coincidentally enough -- with various aspects of the left -- nationally and locally. "Disappointed" fits this group to a T, which is probably why he got called out on his trolling.
"Disappointed" offered a vague condemnation of Amy Goodman that made no sense. Then when he was challenged to substantiate the source of his faux-anxiety, he claims it's because she happens to sell books at her public appearances amd that somehow NOT mentioning books is a way to PROMOTE those same books. Yes, the left has to be pure as the driven snow to fit "Disappointed's" (and any of the rest of these troll's) oddly myopic and highly selective morality. But each of them just discovered this today and, by god, UC IMC is the first place they could think of to reveal their angst.
Get real, it's BS -- pure, uttter, and repetitive BS.
If "Disappointed" has been so upset about protests on North Prospect, it really does not make sense that he is either a VVAW member or a long time listener to Amy Goodman, or he wouldn't be coming up with lines like "bourgeois creatures of radical-chic comfort. AWARE -- make me laugh. Make me cry at your delusions."
BTW, I _have_ been to the Third World and put my ass on the line against US sponsored contras in Nicaragua, among other risky behavior that goes with my politics. I've also repeatedly risked my life and job by speaking out against conservative BS right here at home. And I'm willing to risk "Disappointed's" censure for attending an AWARE protest or two.
You're a troll, "Disappointed," probably the same troll that has troubled this site for years now. You have nothing new to offer, except your latest fable of why you've popped up with a new name. For that you deserve, and will get, no respect. |
|
"Liberal" Credibility |
by like duh
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Apr 2005
|
It is apparent that the troll understands nothing about the left or he wouldn't be repeatedly trying to use the "liberal" label to give himself credibility here. Most people who use this site consider themselves radicals of some sort -- merely reforming this rotten system is unlikely to help much, so anyone who keeps claiming to be merely a "liberal" of whatever stripe is already undermining any claim to understand what motivates Indymedia or those who tend use it.
That aside, how many _real_ liberals are so dismissive of demonstrating, donating, or doing anything other than sucking up to Bush's war? None that I know, except maybe Tod Satterthwaite and he's looking for a job right now. Most real liberals these days, especially those that know history -- even when they disagree with some of the things radicals do -- know how important radicals are to opening up the political space that has been dominated in this country by the right ever since the new deal. The McCarthy era was a harsh lesson in problematic backdraft for liberals of how participating in red-baiting undermines everything to the left of Ike.
The type of Cold War liberals that show up here repeatedly, always with a vague and heretofore unknown screen name, on Indymedia are a rarity now in real life, so the fact that they are behind so many of the new names that flare up briefly here asserting such views is statistically improbable. "They" are overwhelmingly fakes, just like "Disappointed."
Thanks for the research into "Disappointed" and his dubious claims, Dose of Reality. I can now see what was only my hunch about what was going on originally has proven to be even more accurate than I first assumed. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) shimer.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Apr 2005
|
Which brings into focus the long history of trolling posts on UC IMC. As a regular IMC reader and occasional contributor, I've put up with Jack Ryan and his trolling "Band of (Fake) Brothers" until they were rightfully booted. Then this "group" (most likely only Jack himself) transformed itself into a constantly rotating set of vague screen names, all pretending to be liberals that are "disappointed" -- coincidentally enough -- with various aspects of the left -- nationally and locally. "Disappointed" fits this group to a T, which is probably why he got called out on his trolling.
This has been an ongoing justification for attacking commenters and I am absolutely sick of it. Do you have any objective proof of this, for example, that the comments all originate from a common IP? I do not find your arguments based on common style and subject matter compelling. Jack Ryan's staccato, ad hominem style does not resemble what Disappointed has written in this thread at all.
I know ML and am willing to trust that when he takes action against a commenter, he is backing up his contentions with thorough documentation and asking for the proper working group's approval of his actions. His handling of the Bobby Meade saga showed patience, thoroughness and respect for due process far exceeding that shown by most IMCs while Meade was flooding the network with millenial nonsense. ML's work stands in sharp contrast to the aggressive, macho, shoot from the hip attitude exhibited by "Dose of Reality", et. al., who feel it their solemn duty to clear out all those who they categorize as trolls. The way to fight speech with which you disagree is to speak to it, not try and stifle it.
I've moved pretty far away from the IMC's politics and ethos since I left C-U. I've grown to dislike the idea of "committed" journalism, as Sartre termed it. But I am still broadly sympathetic with the mission to open up new venues for public discourse. The newswire exhibits none of that possibility for fruitful dissemination of news and discussion of its implications - making a media outlet which ran both ways - that it once held. It's become like any other Internet board, full of people shouting without listening. That saddens me. This is a tempest in a teacup, no doubt. What I'm sad about is that the newswire has become so inconsequential, the province of a inward-looking circle of people growing ever smaller. It was said of the early days that journalists at WILL and the News-Gazette paid attention to the IMC, recognizing that it was finding new stories they were not aware of. I can't imagine why they'd waste their time reading the site today.
One more thing: when Clint, Zach and the other techies implemented dadaIMC, one of the enhancements that it offered over the previous server was the capability to verify the identity of posters. This feature has been deactivated, I see. While there are certainly circumstances in which anonymous posting is the right thing for a contributor, the layer of insulation it offers seems to heighten the antagonism because it protects people from the consequences of what they say. When I write something on these boards, I put my name and email on it. The culture of the newswire might improve if this was the norm, rather than the exception. |
|
Actually, The Critics Are Pretty Accurate |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Apr 2005
|
Good hearing from you, Michael.
I've been staying out of this because the peeps seem to be doing a good job of noting what has become an easily identifiable pattern of behavior. I will confirm that "Disappointed" is on shaky ground here and the obvious discrepancies in his story are really the least of it. They are just sizing up what they know others are thinking already.
The statistical probability comment was particularly apt, because some things are highly unlikely to be so regularly repeated to simply happen by chance. We actually are probably far more familiar with his habitual behaviors than he is and this self-ignorance gets him into trouble nearly every time. There has actually been quite a bit of discussion about this problem in the past six months since "Jack" was banned, but it primarily occurs off the website and off the Web email list due to some fairly conclusive proof that "Jack" was reading what was publicly available there.
I really don't want to add anything in particular to what previous commenters have said. Why give away too much about sources and methods? But when users of the website are noting patterns that make what is going on overwhelmingly obvious, the troll really should get a clue that his habits are giving him away even to regular users, let alone editors. While the system is not perfect, it works effectively in largely eliminating this person's trolling, while providing for the slim chance of any errors being promptly corrected.
I will say that we still don't utilize IP logging, except in exceptional circumstances. We can deal effectively with such anonymous trolling without this aid and have been doing so for several years now. In fact, due to this particular troll's habit of occassionally sending followup trolling emails to users of the website and editors, we actually have identified him and are considering our options. We have inside contacts with one of the organizations that he uses to provide some of his internet access and will use our leverage there when we feel it is appropriate. He will likely very much regret the impact this will have on his career if we are eventually forced to deal with the matter in this way.
While going to a model that requires registration of users would solve the problem, it would also not be in concert with Indymedia principles, which require the capability to anonymously post. However, there are some options with that which we may explore if it ever gets to be a problem beyond the couple of persistent trolls.
I would tend to disagree that the other media are utilizing IMC less than previously. If anything, they are using it more for news tips and insights into stories they can no longer safely ignore and are forced to address because they no longer hold the near monopoly on news they previously did. The IMC is a resource and the community uses its media in different ways. The most newsworthy stories tend to be the Features and they don't come along everyday, but we always welcome more Local news.
The troll comes here because he thinks it's an easy target, although it no longer is for him. One thing he seems to be trying to prove is what I call "the slamming door" effect. That is why he has switched to making it seem like there's always someone new , really only a new screen name, who asserts they're a "liberal" of some very indeterminate type, then begins trolling around, getting in a huff and then leaving muttering various impercations about the mean-spirited treatment on IMC, and letting the the "door slam loudly" behind him. Interestingly enough, when these supposedly various characters are offered a chance to follow-up on their complaints, they invariably make promises about meetings that they'll attend about or send faked emails complaining, and basically proceed to troll some more under a new name almost immediately. It's pathetically weak as a disguise and "Disappointed" is most likely a pretty good fit to this same old, same old.
Despite the mistaken impression that the troll is trying to create, the IMC's growth puts a lie to there being some mysterious mass of unknown people tuning the IMC out. New people are always joining and we've got some very exciting projects on the front burner like WRFU, as well as nurturing groups like C-U Books to Prisoners and Food not Bombs, and some other ones we're not quite ready to go public with on the backburner, to accomodate the growth at the IMC.
Remember that the IMC website is now just a small part of the media that the IMC is creating, even though it is the only one that is susceptible to anonymous trolling. The Public i, the IMC Radio News on WEFT, the Video group's regular offerings on cable television, and the production help that we offer to such groups as VEYA are where much of the IMC's effort is going these days. Soon, Radio Free Urbana will be on the air, adding to our capabilities to help people BECOME the media. And all those sources of IMC media are completely troll-free. People can just click on the link at the top of the page that says Volunteer. It's gots links to our email lists, where you can find out more about everything going on at the IMC. And when we say volunteer, we also mean volunteer to learn new skills or for the chance to make media your way, although if you want to help other people do those things, that's certainly welcome, too.
The troll's remaining occassional presence here is symbolic of his impotence and the time he wastes is his own. It takes just a second or so to deal with when it happens. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Disappointed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Apr 2005
|
" . . . due to this particular troll's habit of occassionally sending followup trolling emails to users of the website and editors, we actually have identified him and are considering our options. We have inside contacts with one of the organizations that he uses to provide some of his internet access and will use our leverage there when we feel it is appropriate. He will likely very much regret the impact this will have on his career if we are eventually forced to deal with the matter in this way."
Now there's a true color shining through, ML. As I'm sure you are aware, I am not JR -- you have several trolls. Each, I presume, has a personal motive for trolling your site. Mine is to seek out and tweak hypocrisy, and you have provided me, with the above comment, with the jackpot.
Let's see: trolling is annoying, but it's not a crime. If being annoying were a crime there would be more people in prison than on the street. So what we have here is a person you simply don't like. And you have used cyber technology to triangulate in on that person, have identified the "organizations" used to access the web, are talking with your "contacts" there, and considering you options. One of which appears to be outing the troll to his organization and thereby damaging his career.
Who needs Alberto Gonzales when a plain old citizen like yourself can violate privacy, conspire to damage someone, and take vindictive action againt him because you find him annoying?
This is the last you'll hear from this particular troll. I've learned everything I wanted to know.
Peace. |
|
Thanks for Confirming the Suspicions |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Apr 2005
|
"Disappointed/Jack Ryan",
Sure, there's more than one troll here. The other one is, however, as distinct from you in his behavior as you and your multiple personalities are from the mass of legitimate posters here.
Trolling may not be a crime, but it frequently is considered an abuse of resources, depending on whose system you're using. But we're not just talking about trolling here. We are talking about faked identities, misrepresentation, the flooding of posts on our website (I removed a series of these probably associated with you during some of your posting on Friday), and more. All of which is rather hypocritical behavior for someone who claims to be concerned about hypocrisy.
I suppose you would have the reader believe that you figured our troll problem out by simply being here a couple of days last week. That's not plausible, unless your were the sole source all along.
You, the "new guy," claim the same thing the troll has claimed multiple times -- "I am not JR -- you have several trolls." Let's see, where have I heard that before? Every time you get busted here.
You sure know a whole lot about the site, even though you've once again taken on the persona of the innocent newcomer. Your problem is you read too much Tom Clancy, whose work is just as predictable as yours.
It's a lot like a play that one has seen before. The characters are all the same, even if the actor inside the costume (the name of the poster) changes. You need a new script.
Finally, don't wag your finger of hypocrisy at me. You could choose a new identity at any time and discuss your politics without your past being an issue. And I have told you that before. But the whole point in your trolling under different names is inevitably to reveal that it's just the same old story, rewarmed. Yawnnnn.
You've made your choice to abuse the site and you're paying the consequences of that -- keep it up and the consequences certainly have the potential of expanding, which will be at the time and place of our choosing. I would suggest that your best move is to walk away and not add to the case we can make any time now. Continue to push the envelope and you may find yourself more than simply frustrated that you can't trot the latest permutation of "Jack" out whenever you want. That will be much harder to do if you get a large chunk of your internet access at certain times of the day pulled. And there's nothing "cyber" about our methods, although we retain that option to use such means, if needed. Your own words indict you, reading the mail from your clumsy mistakes added to the case, and now we're just biding our time.
Your problem is that you're so invested in the character of "Jack Ryan" here that you can NOT change into something new. You're exposing nothing except your own hubris, which brings you down every time. There is help for such obsessions. You should seek it out before it problematizes your life. One thing is certain -- behavior that is self-destructive, which this potentially is, IS obsessive and pathological. If you make the choice of continuing, then it is an indictment of your inability to resist it, rather than our choice to resist it by taking appropriate measures to deal with it. Blame your self, not us, when the crows come home to roost.
It's most likely true that we've heard the last of this particular troll identity, but not the last of this troll. But I would be happy if you finally stick to your actual words - that you're moving on after making what your feel is your "point" - instead of what you really mean, which is that you're probably thinking of a new name to hide behind right now. |
|
Re: Un-Embed the Media |
by Budding Journalist
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2005
|
ML:
Jack Ryan has been posting since last 2-3 years. Is Disappointed really Jack Ryan? We ought to not call names to one poster for postings of another poster.
Let's not blow this out of propotion. IMC is known for openess. Let's keep that way. JR was last seen posting in Madison IMC. Your constant deletion of his messages forced him to go away.
BJ |
|
