Manufactured Content
Briefly: A Chomsky Style take on some quality NYT reporting
Marcos Back in Public Eye in Mexico
First: Quotes. Only directly quoted sources not subordinated to describing ‘accusations’ against the government come from conservative/pro-globalization sources. None of them substantiate or warrant the article’s description of the ‘loose’ left coalition’s political position. We get accusations, ad space for conservative party, then a quote from Subcommander Marcos insinuating his political impotency.
Second: Rhetorical focus on the agent/action. The article only gives personal descriptions of Marcos, and a vague outline of the endpoint to the political movement he participates in. This functions to diminish the questions of social justice and the actual forces at work (the peasant and native uprisings in Chiapas, the Zapatista movement [which, btw, doesn’t even get named], globalization protests in other places which ally with the Zapatistas, NAFTA, etc). Instead, we see a small man involved in petty political acts that look like media sensationalism when viewed as isolated events.
Third: Unsubstantiated claims about the Zapatista movement and Marcos. Beginning with: characterization of “his flagging campaign for a socialist movement,” with no qualification of why it flags, or what that actually means for its goals. Continues with: “Times have changed since then. The corrupt and authoritarian party that ruled Mexico from the 1930's through the 1990's is out of power. Mexico has a functioning democracy. Armed revolutionaries are no longer in fashion.” Seriously. Any basic speech communication student knows that as a argumentative strategy, begging the question doesn’t get you that far. Insofar as the article acts as a subtle (or not so) refutation of Subcommander Marco’s politics, the argument that “times have changed” begs the question to the question Marcos poses as to ‘what exactly has changed?’ under democracy. As a logical fallacy, it even holds up poorly without a substantiation of this claim. The government can hardly be called functioning- the PRI still controls both houses of congress and so no substantial changes in institutional structure have come through under Fox. Even so, this only responds to not even half of the Zapatista’s movement, which came as much as a backlash on globalization and NAFTA- which still would be ‘in fashion’ under the NYT’s interpretation. “Since the riot, his supporters' protests have been modest. Most Mexicans appear to be more focused on the presidential race and the bickering between candidates from the three main parties.” This is seriously inane. How do you measure ‘focus’ of a nation? Most ‘focus’ is a function of media attention, which comes from people like the Times anyways.
Last: descriptions of events. Here’s the best example
For 24 hours the farmers, who call themselves the Front of Peoples for the Defense of Land, battled the police with machetes and homemade firebombs. They set up barricades of burning tires, blocked a major highway and threatened to blow up a gasoline tanker truck.
The police prevailed in the end. When the tear gas cleared on Friday morning, a 14-year-old was dead from a gunshot wound, more than a dozen police officers bore machete wounds — one lost a hand — and at least four protesters had been beaten badly enough to be hospitalized.
This refers to the ‘riot’ that brought the Subcommander back into the limelight. It gives no description of how the violence began, which would determine the proper response to Marcos’ ‘accusations’ and similarly dodges questions of police brutality. The agency focus lies on the ‘farmers’ and not the police, which would make it seem that the police acted solely in self defense, when at the end of the day, they have the guns and the funds, and the likely scenario would not have them in a solely defensive position.
Duncan
Marcos Back in Public Eye in Mexico
First: Quotes. Only directly quoted sources not subordinated to describing ‘accusations’ against the government come from conservative/pro-globalization sources. None of them substantiate or warrant the article’s description of the ‘loose’ left coalition’s political position. We get accusations, ad space for conservative party, then a quote from Subcommander Marcos insinuating his political impotency.
Second: Rhetorical focus on the agent/action. The article only gives personal descriptions of Marcos, and a vague outline of the endpoint to the political movement he participates in. This functions to diminish the questions of social justice and the actual forces at work (the peasant and native uprisings in Chiapas, the Zapatista movement [which, btw, doesn’t even get named], globalization protests in other places which ally with the Zapatistas, NAFTA, etc). Instead, we see a small man involved in petty political acts that look like media sensationalism when viewed as isolated events.
Third: Unsubstantiated claims about the Zapatista movement and Marcos. Beginning with: characterization of “his flagging campaign for a socialist movement,” with no qualification of why it flags, or what that actually means for its goals. Continues with: “Times have changed since then. The corrupt and authoritarian party that ruled Mexico from the 1930's through the 1990's is out of power. Mexico has a functioning democracy. Armed revolutionaries are no longer in fashion.” Seriously. Any basic speech communication student knows that as a argumentative strategy, begging the question doesn’t get you that far. Insofar as the article acts as a subtle (or not so) refutation of Subcommander Marco’s politics, the argument that “times have changed” begs the question to the question Marcos poses as to ‘what exactly has changed?’ under democracy. As a logical fallacy, it even holds up poorly without a substantiation of this claim. The government can hardly be called functioning- the PRI still controls both houses of congress and so no substantial changes in institutional structure have come through under Fox. Even so, this only responds to not even half of the Zapatista’s movement, which came as much as a backlash on globalization and NAFTA- which still would be ‘in fashion’ under the NYT’s interpretation. “Since the riot, his supporters' protests have been modest. Most Mexicans appear to be more focused on the presidential race and the bickering between candidates from the three main parties.” This is seriously inane. How do you measure ‘focus’ of a nation? Most ‘focus’ is a function of media attention, which comes from people like the Times anyways.
Last: descriptions of events. Here’s the best example
For 24 hours the farmers, who call themselves the Front of Peoples for the Defense of Land, battled the police with machetes and homemade firebombs. They set up barricades of burning tires, blocked a major highway and threatened to blow up a gasoline tanker truck.
The police prevailed in the end. When the tear gas cleared on Friday morning, a 14-year-old was dead from a gunshot wound, more than a dozen police officers bore machete wounds — one lost a hand — and at least four protesters had been beaten badly enough to be hospitalized.
This refers to the ‘riot’ that brought the Subcommander back into the limelight. It gives no description of how the violence began, which would determine the proper response to Marcos’ ‘accusations’ and similarly dodges questions of police brutality. The agency focus lies on the ‘farmers’ and not the police, which would make it seem that the police acted solely in self defense, when at the end of the day, they have the guns and the funds, and the likely scenario would not have them in a solely defensive position.
Duncan
posted by Duncan at 8:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home