on USA and foreigners...:
1- last night there was a PBS (public broadcasting service) TV special,
Frontline documentary on Mohammed (sp) Atta. the Hamburg architecture
student. oddly, so much of the story focussed on the immigrant architecture
student, his work being 'best-ever' at the academy. and then the surprise
when the dreams turned into a cold abstraction (said: islamic fundamentalism
and terrorist doings), and how he 'was different', so to speak. if
anyone happens
to get the www.pbs.org website and find the transcript, it was just aired last
night or so. amazing story, especially the architectural angle, ...
2- what keeps looping in my mind, besides being disoriented from the horizon,
is that there seems to be an asymmetry to the American (non) focus on the
external world. one, i think this is a fair assessment, and two, i think it is
an impossible expectation given statistic and probability and,
sanity, even....
---> there are 200 or so countries in the world
the U.S.A. is probably discussed in foreign news in 100% of those countries
---> there is one USA which is top-of-the-heap, in some ways, and the 'others'
if the USA were to do accurate foreign coverage of events outside US borders,
they have not 3 or 5 or 10 countries (say in Europe on a daily news
night, as a
a guess), but several dozens of complicated relations which are more than a
non-staged 'newsbyte', unless 'news=disaster' or spectacle.
it is the asymmetric aspect of US-Foreign_Policy_Countries where the idea
of covering all of these aspects would be not very possible, giving the State
Dept. cardiac arrest over the o.k., not okay'ing of newsbytes for general
consumption, all with geopol implications.
i do wish there was better world coverage, more balanced debates (or, open
debates at all, for that matter)... and i imagine many countries can
cover alot
of news and relations in other countries, maybe even 10-15 in relation to any
given country. but in actuality, for the USA, it is a bit different,
as it has to
deal with nearly 100% of the countries (minus Cuba, of course), and is in a
power-relationship with most of them, what kind 'we' are not told. we just
are not told anything. that way, all bases are covered in the
plausible deniability
aspect. it seems unlikley that the US _can actually be 'fair' in its
coverage. it
is like asking for poverty to be equalized or money socialized.
isn't happening.
and news, like capital, is power brokering. what is in the US news is power-
news. in some form of exchange. as horrific as that may be. volcanos, or
warning messages from allies who are supporting the rise of totalitarians
and fascists. semiotics is not dead in america. spectacles are not needed, as
the signs, see, say, and do everything. all one has to do is catch a wave and
hange on. else, get eaten by the sharks in the cesspool of a
culture's detritus.
1- last night there was a PBS (public broadcasting service) TV special,
Frontline documentary on Mohammed (sp) Atta. the Hamburg architecture
student. oddly, so much of the story focussed on the immigrant architecture
student, his work being 'best-ever' at the academy. and then the surprise
when the dreams turned into a cold abstraction (said: islamic fundamentalism
and terrorist doings), and how he 'was different', so to speak. if
anyone happens
to get the www.pbs.org website and find the transcript, it was just aired last
night or so. amazing story, especially the architectural angle, ...
2- what keeps looping in my mind, besides being disoriented from the horizon,
is that there seems to be an asymmetry to the American (non) focus on the
external world. one, i think this is a fair assessment, and two, i think it is
an impossible expectation given statistic and probability and,
sanity, even....
---> there are 200 or so countries in the world
the U.S.A. is probably discussed in foreign news in 100% of those countries
---> there is one USA which is top-of-the-heap, in some ways, and the 'others'
if the USA were to do accurate foreign coverage of events outside US borders,
they have not 3 or 5 or 10 countries (say in Europe on a daily news
night, as a
a guess), but several dozens of complicated relations which are more than a
non-staged 'newsbyte', unless 'news=disaster' or spectacle.
it is the asymmetric aspect of US-Foreign_Policy_Countries where the idea
of covering all of these aspects would be not very possible, giving the State
Dept. cardiac arrest over the o.k., not okay'ing of newsbytes for general
consumption, all with geopol implications.
i do wish there was better world coverage, more balanced debates (or, open
debates at all, for that matter)... and i imagine many countries can
cover alot
of news and relations in other countries, maybe even 10-15 in relation to any
given country. but in actuality, for the USA, it is a bit different,
as it has to
deal with nearly 100% of the countries (minus Cuba, of course), and is in a
power-relationship with most of them, what kind 'we' are not told. we just
are not told anything. that way, all bases are covered in the
plausible deniability
aspect. it seems unlikley that the US _can actually be 'fair' in its
coverage. it
is like asking for poverty to be equalized or money socialized.
isn't happening.
and news, like capital, is power brokering. what is in the US news is power-
news. in some form of exchange. as horrific as that may be. volcanos, or
warning messages from allies who are supporting the rise of totalitarians
and fascists. semiotics is not dead in america. spectacles are not needed, as
the signs, see, say, and do everything. all one has to do is catch a wave and
hange on. else, get eaten by the sharks in the cesspool of a
culture's detritus.