I was just drinking a coffee this morning, and it came to me that I posted something about 'definitely not' .. at the end of a post here last night. I thought that was a bit of an odd ending. Just to clarify I was comparing people I had arrived at, found, through having a sense of someone's record, record on previous wars etc (I'm talking here more about geopolitical type stuff), or someone that I give a weight to their views, I listen to, read, because one of these people I already know has recommended, shared their work.. I would then start to read, judge it, and see what they are saying (This type of thing, at some times in my life I would avoid, as I suppose it takes time, it isn't 'easy', .. at some times though I enjoy to a degree, attempting to understand different sides, what is going on, compared to what is being served up to the masses), comparing this to say what is in a national newspaper, with an editor etc ..
I understand why the majority of people would sit down at 6pm and have their 'news' packaged, given to them (I suppose now there is more 'rolling news cycles' which changes things.. how they have to report, the money, advertising, etc .. sorry I don't want to type another long message.. haha.. I just wanted to clarify how I finished the last reply there). I could give examples, over the years, wars.. the same people who lie about every war, keep on in the next war, (I was about to get onto something else..).
Just this point though, the 'legitimacy' — I don't see as something that is given to someone if they appear in a certain newspaper, compared to an investigative journalist who's stories newspapers these days wouldn't print. How the wider population judge it though, that's .. well I suppose what you are touching on in your essays, article there. These days it's easier to find independent journalists than it was years ago, but the 'mainstream' has adjusted, more 'propaganda'. .
Anyway, it's a topic that a lot could be said/wrote about, I was just coming here to briefly clarify that last remark (I am slightly hungover, and had only had first sip or two of first coffee, hopefully the gist of what I mean is there).
__
Edit.. just to add (I had one cup of coffee, in the midst of painting some kind of scene..)
.. I am glad to type this out here as I feel like it's more likely if someone did come across this and read this, they are more likely to have a sense of what I am trying to say. They may be more inclined to read a few lines, rather that see one aspect, and label the person in simplified way. You mentioned it in your essay on here, the attacks when you posted a link to the article on facebook .. In a way I suppose there is a 'mainstream' of social media. I only briefly went on facebook over a decade ago, so I don't know what goes on there, but I hear certain geopolitical views blocked, supressed .. all the time under the guise of 'protecting' people from 'misinformation' 'disinformation' .. I know this is another subject, without going into that ... the point that I think you made regarding twitter, is why I tend to not post any of my views of this type of thing on there (well it's partly because this account I have here, this name, I moved over from Bob Dylan forums of various guises, initially more with feet in a kind of early days 'weird twitter', posts of verse, art, photography, with the odd Bob Dylan post .. I saw 'twitter' as just a little place that I can place stuff here and there, maybe some people will find it .. )
I don't 'use' twitter as they likely want people to, I never go on the 'feed' and see what it is showing me, there a few accounts on there (I'm talking more about if I go on there to look for something in relation to an event in the world, political, or whatever), these accounts will likely have links to websites, there articles, substack posts, youtube interviews (if they haven't removed their video).. my point is that I'm using it as another tool .. this is different to me logging in, and posting for example
"I think the US, UK are throwing fuel on the fire, by sending billions of pounds, a billions of pounds worth of weapons to Ukraine .. these people in charge don't actually care about Ukrainians, they are 'fighting to the last Ukrainian' as a way to try and bring Russia down"
..(I would have to cut it short, not explain what led to the view, the background, context, what led to the invasion, the 'other side of the story, other aspects), that would lead to followers or people seeing it replying, 'Russian misinformation', 'Putin talking point' , and the short little clips of text leads to all this back and forth arguments, attacks, labels, - I think you were referring to this. For example maybe a right wing politician has said something similar to the point that you make, people might see this and label a person as 'right wing fascist' ..' etc. this is kind of exchange the likes of twitter and modern day 'culture' I suppose encourages in different ways. My point is that these places can be used in different ways, and also new places and ways of people finding out more, weighing up all the aspects, not having some kind of 'guardian of the truth' that doesn't allow certain views in public that stray from the 'accepted narrative' (often linked to government, big corporations, corporate media), because if people are only 'allowed' to see one side of the story.. then it isn't really a 'democracy' that they are in. Anyway, thank you for posting your post here, and a place here for such a rambling reply to be posted.
A really interesting piece. I find it hard to reply succinctly after reading many lines, and many different aspects coming to mind as I read through. I liked your article from two years ago. Okay, just on truth.. maybe this isn't exactly referring to your piece, but in general feel like censorship has been getting worse over the last few years, masquerading as 'keeping people safe from disinformation' .. the BBC over here in the UK have a 'disinformation' wing. Essentially it means anything that doesn't go along with the prevailing orthodoxy. My view of the 'media' as it is today, has developed over the decades, since I was about 25 (until then, without really considering the details, I knew I wanted nothing to do with the politicians, political parties of the day.. Labour, Blair, Iraq war.. Conservatives.. Thatcher before that.. I was studying physics, interested in science, and then at the same time realised I was more interested in other aspects that weren't science, there seemed so many other roads opening up, music, literature, films.. the idea taking note of what politicians, newspapers talking about politics where saying. I paid no attention to it (although part of the reason for this, was like I say, I knew at a glance that Blair Labour, no better than tories .. (had a brief understanding of history, the Labour party over here, historically from the working class.. I didn't get any sense from my family about this though, another story).. the US politics there seems a difference.. the 'left' - 'right' .. over there, seems to have different origins. I was reading something in details about this last year, I was surprised I hadn't looked into it more previously. The reason I mention is the on the likes of twitter and maybe even on mainstream news channels these days, there is talk of 'left' and 'right', people on one side arguing the the truth with people on the other .. I for years have not liked these terms, and I look at each issue separately, weight it up, listen, watch, read as much as I can, or find, and then come up with an idea about it .. I am all for let every flower bloom, and let people weigh it all up and decide. (as it is going now, mainstream news getting worse, 'controlling the narrative'.. 'shaping perception' .. this is what I think these politicians, on all sides are doing, most have no morals, they are hypocrites, and it seems they don't care.. have you noticed that politicians don't seem to care about hypocrisy any more, maybe they never have. It seems to be getting worse though. Especially when it comes to foreign policy. I could talk about nato bombing of yugoslavia, libya, all the wars the past twenty thirty years, why nato actually exists, the history, the bombing of the Donbass since 2014 (Have you seen the documentary 'Ukraine on Fire'. I feel like I have too much I want to post, it's hard to explain, without going back to first principles.. where I am coming from.. as I know this subject, if you don't.. people have ideas that a person is saying such a thing because they have such and such agenda... .and so if you don't describe the background of how you got to this, then... Anyway.. I will just type this. around 2007, living on my own for the first time, in a small flat, I suppose I began considering politics, foreign policy of countries, and that is what I first considering when I first voted for a party, I was looking for people who weren't part of the war machine, I had maybe heard people on late night radio shows, read a bit hear and there, I recall earlier on being aware of the Palestinian situation, found people who knew about that, reading, comparing to what was said on the 'mainstream news' .. left and right.. wars .. Iraq. Who was against that. Who was on the 'right side of history' ... and from then on, if I every watched the news, bbc, sky news, or picked up any newspaper, I would be considering their agenda, why reporting what reporting, what are they leaving out,.. etc.. I mention this.. (I will just say if someone asked, I would say I was 'left' .. back then it seemed more obvious, I mean why would anyone say they were 'right wing' .. and I feel like my views, my sense of rooting for the underdog, my sense of really not judging people on how they look or religion or country from or whatever has been as it always has, also my sense of why are invasions of countries taking place, what is actually going in, . .. this idea the US, UK.. are the 'goodies'.. spreading 'democracy'.. and 'values' ..over the years I can just sense propaganda and nonsense instantly.. and this has nothing to do with what they call 'left' and 'right'... .. Have you noticed all the corporations and war missile manufactures are all into the modern day 'liberal' issues .. and most of my life if someone asked me was I 'liberal' .. I would say yes. To a degree.. I always took it to mean I don't judge people by clothes they are wearing, I really don't care what people are up to, and I am open to change, new ways, also I was against bombing people, for the working class .. There was an old Labour politician, Tony Benn, who talked about the money never 'trickling down' .. it always 'bubbles up' .. (He also had interesting views on European Union, or what it was back then.. not wanting to join.. he was an 'internationalist', but his reasons for not wanting to be part of it, related to being on the side of the working class.. this 'old labour' left .. side of being against EU membership. Back then it was the tories.. the 'right' who wanted EU membership, good for the corporations, cheap labour, bad for the unions.. this back in the late 70's and 80's.. anyway, that's a different story (at the time I wasn't even aware of this, as I just put on the 'mainstream news' and put on 'bbc question time') ..
Anyway, I skipping around here, I knew I would be, I'm sorry about that.. The point is I think 'politically' I have always been a bit .. well, I don't like labels.. but the issue these days, is you give your opinion on one topic, and people put you in a simplified thing, you are a 'right wing facist' 'left wing communist' .. .this type of stuff I think is propagated by all these news outlets - I hardly watched any of the US news channels, and a decade ago, I would have consider 'oh yes fox news is for the right wing loons' .. and 'cnn' msnbc or whatever is over there.. is more reasonable.. these last few years, I have seen clips (I admit, not an expert on this), but they all seem pretty bad, nonsense on both sides. I watched cnn for a night a year or two back, it was like they were talking to small children. Also these so called 'left' organisations seem to be for censorship, under the guise of 'disinformation' ...
Just one aspect of this, and really, I now rarely mention this, and likely you might think I am a loon for it, or maybe you already do, but the nonsense about the Russia Ukraine conflict for last few years, by all mainstream news, politicians, the government, and the 'opposition' .. the 'left' and 'right' newspapers .. Talking about propaganda.. Many people aren't allowed anywhere near mainstream news. This is a long story though, I have typed a lot .. I rarely mention it, it seems most (a lot?) of people have been fooled by it. I could type a lot more. This isn't just I heard one person say something on youtube. This is noticing how mainstream news, newspapers.. The Daily Telegraph in the UK.. it's like they are getting their stories direct from the Ukrainian government. Anyway, I have typed this out in a haphazard way, .. I lost all the threads I had, and likely said not much, I just wanted to type something though.. 'mainstream news' journalists who no longer can get a story printed, even though they great investigative journalists, Seymour Hersh,
I recall seeing John Pilger speak at the start of conflict in Ukraine .. discussions with other people, people right about previous wars, speaking about Nato .. that they aren't a 'defensive alliance' .. all this type of stuff.. the so called 'liberal' media in US, UK, don't allow these people on. I suppose the 'right wing' channels the same. They are over here. I don't really even think of them in these terms ..
Places like https://thegrayzone.com/ .. or https://declassifieduk.org/ I like to read these places.. of course if you look on 'wikipedia' or any of the 'mainstream' media will label as 'conspiracy' ,.. Russian disinformation .. all laughable stuff. It isn't that I read, or watch this stuff, and take it all in as 'fact' and 'truth' ... it's that I know I am seeing, reading more views. I will find places online I can watch a full translated speech by President Putin, interesting stuff. He speaks a lot of sense. Of course, many on social media.. they all go along with the crowd, they aren't really interested in a lot of this but as the times are as they are, they see this stuff, so go along with it (Iike I said pre about 25 years old I avoided all this kind of stuff). Anyway, this is a kind of half drunken fleeting glance at how I see this, for anyone who is interested. "Does the lack of editorial oversight undermine its legitimacy?".. Definitely not.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I was just drinking a coffee this morning, and it came to me that I posted something about 'definitely not' .. at the end of a post here last night. I thought that was a bit of an odd ending. Just to clarify I was comparing people I had arrived at, found, through having a sense of someone's record, record on previous wars etc (I'm talking here more about geopolitical type stuff), or someone that I give a weight to their views, I listen to, read, because one of these people I already know has recommended, shared their work.. I would then start to read, judge it, and see what they are saying (This type of thing, at some times in my life I would avoid, as I suppose it takes time, it isn't 'easy', .. at some times though I enjoy to a degree, attempting to understand different sides, what is going on, compared to what is being served up to the masses), comparing this to say what is in a national newspaper, with an editor etc ..
I understand why the majority of people would sit down at 6pm and have their 'news' packaged, given to them (I suppose now there is more 'rolling news cycles' which changes things.. how they have to report, the money, advertising, etc .. sorry I don't want to type another long message.. haha.. I just wanted to clarify how I finished the last reply there). I could give examples, over the years, wars.. the same people who lie about every war, keep on in the next war, (I was about to get onto something else..).
Just this point though, the 'legitimacy' — I don't see as something that is given to someone if they appear in a certain newspaper, compared to an investigative journalist who's stories newspapers these days wouldn't print. How the wider population judge it though, that's .. well I suppose what you are touching on in your essays, article there. These days it's easier to find independent journalists than it was years ago, but the 'mainstream' has adjusted, more 'propaganda'. .
Anyway, it's a topic that a lot could be said/wrote about, I was just coming here to briefly clarify that last remark (I am slightly hungover, and had only had first sip or two of first coffee, hopefully the gist of what I mean is there).
__
Edit.. just to add (I had one cup of coffee, in the midst of painting some kind of scene..)
.. I am glad to type this out here as I feel like it's more likely if someone did come across this and read this, they are more likely to have a sense of what I am trying to say. They may be more inclined to read a few lines, rather that see one aspect, and label the person in simplified way. You mentioned it in your essay on here, the attacks when you posted a link to the article on facebook .. In a way I suppose there is a 'mainstream' of social media. I only briefly went on facebook over a decade ago, so I don't know what goes on there, but I hear certain geopolitical views blocked, supressed .. all the time under the guise of 'protecting' people from 'misinformation' 'disinformation' .. I know this is another subject, without going into that ... the point that I think you made regarding twitter, is why I tend to not post any of my views of this type of thing on there (well it's partly because this account I have here, this name, I moved over from Bob Dylan forums of various guises, initially more with feet in a kind of early days 'weird twitter', posts of verse, art, photography, with the odd Bob Dylan post .. I saw 'twitter' as just a little place that I can place stuff here and there, maybe some people will find it .. )
I don't 'use' twitter as they likely want people to, I never go on the 'feed' and see what it is showing me, there a few accounts on there (I'm talking more about if I go on there to look for something in relation to an event in the world, political, or whatever), these accounts will likely have links to websites, there articles, substack posts, youtube interviews (if they haven't removed their video).. my point is that I'm using it as another tool .. this is different to me logging in, and posting for example
"I think the US, UK are throwing fuel on the fire, by sending billions of pounds, a billions of pounds worth of weapons to Ukraine .. these people in charge don't actually care about Ukrainians, they are 'fighting to the last Ukrainian' as a way to try and bring Russia down"
..(I would have to cut it short, not explain what led to the view, the background, context, what led to the invasion, the 'other side of the story, other aspects), that would lead to followers or people seeing it replying, 'Russian misinformation', 'Putin talking point' , and the short little clips of text leads to all this back and forth arguments, attacks, labels, - I think you were referring to this. For example maybe a right wing politician has said something similar to the point that you make, people might see this and label a person as 'right wing fascist' ..' etc. this is kind of exchange the likes of twitter and modern day 'culture' I suppose encourages in different ways. My point is that these places can be used in different ways, and also new places and ways of people finding out more, weighing up all the aspects, not having some kind of 'guardian of the truth' that doesn't allow certain views in public that stray from the 'accepted narrative' (often linked to government, big corporations, corporate media), because if people are only 'allowed' to see one side of the story.. then it isn't really a 'democracy' that they are in. Anyway, thank you for posting your post here, and a place here for such a rambling reply to be posted.
__
nm.
A really interesting piece. I find it hard to reply succinctly after reading many lines, and many different aspects coming to mind as I read through. I liked your article from two years ago. Okay, just on truth.. maybe this isn't exactly referring to your piece, but in general feel like censorship has been getting worse over the last few years, masquerading as 'keeping people safe from disinformation' .. the BBC over here in the UK have a 'disinformation' wing. Essentially it means anything that doesn't go along with the prevailing orthodoxy. My view of the 'media' as it is today, has developed over the decades, since I was about 25 (until then, without really considering the details, I knew I wanted nothing to do with the politicians, political parties of the day.. Labour, Blair, Iraq war.. Conservatives.. Thatcher before that.. I was studying physics, interested in science, and then at the same time realised I was more interested in other aspects that weren't science, there seemed so many other roads opening up, music, literature, films.. the idea taking note of what politicians, newspapers talking about politics where saying. I paid no attention to it (although part of the reason for this, was like I say, I knew at a glance that Blair Labour, no better than tories .. (had a brief understanding of history, the Labour party over here, historically from the working class.. I didn't get any sense from my family about this though, another story).. the US politics there seems a difference.. the 'left' - 'right' .. over there, seems to have different origins. I was reading something in details about this last year, I was surprised I hadn't looked into it more previously. The reason I mention is the on the likes of twitter and maybe even on mainstream news channels these days, there is talk of 'left' and 'right', people on one side arguing the the truth with people on the other .. I for years have not liked these terms, and I look at each issue separately, weight it up, listen, watch, read as much as I can, or find, and then come up with an idea about it .. I am all for let every flower bloom, and let people weigh it all up and decide. (as it is going now, mainstream news getting worse, 'controlling the narrative'.. 'shaping perception' .. this is what I think these politicians, on all sides are doing, most have no morals, they are hypocrites, and it seems they don't care.. have you noticed that politicians don't seem to care about hypocrisy any more, maybe they never have. It seems to be getting worse though. Especially when it comes to foreign policy. I could talk about nato bombing of yugoslavia, libya, all the wars the past twenty thirty years, why nato actually exists, the history, the bombing of the Donbass since 2014 (Have you seen the documentary 'Ukraine on Fire'. I feel like I have too much I want to post, it's hard to explain, without going back to first principles.. where I am coming from.. as I know this subject, if you don't.. people have ideas that a person is saying such a thing because they have such and such agenda... .and so if you don't describe the background of how you got to this, then... Anyway.. I will just type this. around 2007, living on my own for the first time, in a small flat, I suppose I began considering politics, foreign policy of countries, and that is what I first considering when I first voted for a party, I was looking for people who weren't part of the war machine, I had maybe heard people on late night radio shows, read a bit hear and there, I recall earlier on being aware of the Palestinian situation, found people who knew about that, reading, comparing to what was said on the 'mainstream news' .. left and right.. wars .. Iraq. Who was against that. Who was on the 'right side of history' ... and from then on, if I every watched the news, bbc, sky news, or picked up any newspaper, I would be considering their agenda, why reporting what reporting, what are they leaving out,.. etc.. I mention this.. (I will just say if someone asked, I would say I was 'left' .. back then it seemed more obvious, I mean why would anyone say they were 'right wing' .. and I feel like my views, my sense of rooting for the underdog, my sense of really not judging people on how they look or religion or country from or whatever has been as it always has, also my sense of why are invasions of countries taking place, what is actually going in, . .. this idea the US, UK.. are the 'goodies'.. spreading 'democracy'.. and 'values' ..over the years I can just sense propaganda and nonsense instantly.. and this has nothing to do with what they call 'left' and 'right'... .. Have you noticed all the corporations and war missile manufactures are all into the modern day 'liberal' issues .. and most of my life if someone asked me was I 'liberal' .. I would say yes. To a degree.. I always took it to mean I don't judge people by clothes they are wearing, I really don't care what people are up to, and I am open to change, new ways, also I was against bombing people, for the working class .. There was an old Labour politician, Tony Benn, who talked about the money never 'trickling down' .. it always 'bubbles up' .. (He also had interesting views on European Union, or what it was back then.. not wanting to join.. he was an 'internationalist', but his reasons for not wanting to be part of it, related to being on the side of the working class.. this 'old labour' left .. side of being against EU membership. Back then it was the tories.. the 'right' who wanted EU membership, good for the corporations, cheap labour, bad for the unions.. this back in the late 70's and 80's.. anyway, that's a different story (at the time I wasn't even aware of this, as I just put on the 'mainstream news' and put on 'bbc question time') ..
Anyway, I skipping around here, I knew I would be, I'm sorry about that.. The point is I think 'politically' I have always been a bit .. well, I don't like labels.. but the issue these days, is you give your opinion on one topic, and people put you in a simplified thing, you are a 'right wing facist' 'left wing communist' .. .this type of stuff I think is propagated by all these news outlets - I hardly watched any of the US news channels, and a decade ago, I would have consider 'oh yes fox news is for the right wing loons' .. and 'cnn' msnbc or whatever is over there.. is more reasonable.. these last few years, I have seen clips (I admit, not an expert on this), but they all seem pretty bad, nonsense on both sides. I watched cnn for a night a year or two back, it was like they were talking to small children. Also these so called 'left' organisations seem to be for censorship, under the guise of 'disinformation' ...
Just one aspect of this, and really, I now rarely mention this, and likely you might think I am a loon for it, or maybe you already do, but the nonsense about the Russia Ukraine conflict for last few years, by all mainstream news, politicians, the government, and the 'opposition' .. the 'left' and 'right' newspapers .. Talking about propaganda.. Many people aren't allowed anywhere near mainstream news. This is a long story though, I have typed a lot .. I rarely mention it, it seems most (a lot?) of people have been fooled by it. I could type a lot more. This isn't just I heard one person say something on youtube. This is noticing how mainstream news, newspapers.. The Daily Telegraph in the UK.. it's like they are getting their stories direct from the Ukrainian government. Anyway, I have typed this out in a haphazard way, .. I lost all the threads I had, and likely said not much, I just wanted to type something though.. 'mainstream news' journalists who no longer can get a story printed, even though they great investigative journalists, Seymour Hersh,
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/why-substack?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
.. I don't know places like Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/
Chris Hedges (I haven't read hardly any of this, but I know him for a show I watch sometimes,
https://chrishedges.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=reader2&utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fchris%2520hedges&utm_medium=reader2
I recall seeing John Pilger speak at the start of conflict in Ukraine .. discussions with other people, people right about previous wars, speaking about Nato .. that they aren't a 'defensive alliance' .. all this type of stuff.. the so called 'liberal' media in US, UK, don't allow these people on. I suppose the 'right wing' channels the same. They are over here. I don't really even think of them in these terms ..
Places like https://thegrayzone.com/ .. or https://declassifieduk.org/ I like to read these places.. of course if you look on 'wikipedia' or any of the 'mainstream' media will label as 'conspiracy' ,.. Russian disinformation .. all laughable stuff. It isn't that I read, or watch this stuff, and take it all in as 'fact' and 'truth' ... it's that I know I am seeing, reading more views. I will find places online I can watch a full translated speech by President Putin, interesting stuff. He speaks a lot of sense. Of course, many on social media.. they all go along with the crowd, they aren't really interested in a lot of this but as the times are as they are, they see this stuff, so go along with it (Iike I said pre about 25 years old I avoided all this kind of stuff). Anyway, this is a kind of half drunken fleeting glance at how I see this, for anyone who is interested. "Does the lack of editorial oversight undermine its legitimacy?".. Definitely not.