From: Ecgwulf <ecgwulf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:28:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Style gettting in the way of clear reporting
Message-ID: <199607091740.RAA02157@mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

To: tcmay@got.net, cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Tue Jul 09 10:37:11 1996
In a reply to James A. Donald, Tim May wrote:
> . . . You are probably right that journalism is becoming more florid as 
> "amateurs" flood the market. However, I don't quite buy the
> concentration argument, as things were pretty concentrated in the 
> Hearst era, and the explosion of magazines in the past few decades has 
> not been as concentrated.

I wonder what golden age of journalism these guys have in mind. Journalism 
is garbage and it always has been. After all, it is what connects you with 
your culture. It's a dirty job.

> I still think of "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Economist," two of
> my favorites, as being _careful_ in their reporting (careful is 
> different from unbiased). But my main focus in this thread was on the 
> _styles_, and this I think is more explained by faddishness.

A couple of more fully fascist rags would be hard to find. Misinformation, 
disinformation and total lack of substance -- it's all style. The L.A. 
Times is a close runner-up with its one hundred year history of self 
interest, red-baiting of organized labor and political "enemies" broken 
only by a few periods of acting as a propaganda mill and inspiring a few 
race riots. Take a look at the masthead of, say, a 1943 edition.
> Yes, and many of the newsletters we're seeing--as many are cc:ed or
> forwarded to our list--are the kissing cousins of "zines." Same faux
> style, same emphasis on "flash" over substance.

Does 'faux style' mean 'fucked style'? If so, then kissing is appropriate.

There are multiple issues of relevance:
1. The coding and decoding of messages in apparent plaintext.
2. Assumptions about the authenticity of sources and motives in message 
creation.
3. The separation of form and content in written language which I suggest 
cannot be separated.
4. The apparent political center of gravity of message subscribers. Let's 
say, this mailing list for instance.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850

iQB1AwUBMeKYyj/g5HTtoLA5AQFBNQMA3F/njYiTvcRCkqrLqnD0Tqa3RIQoozYl
LtNc82V+8Wkl1b2dgXFas4SjuNoSeB/hq1UwdgJz97GIOH3VvEMeYayFVHnD1IKi
/W+7lVIJ+62bypryoTP+eQH7hVARztLB
=Gnrt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----