The Marprelate Tracts
Web-log for political, social and media commentary.
Last updated:
1/9/2004; 1:35:06 PM


December 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Nov   Jan



Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Subscribe to "The Marprelate Tracts" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

E-mail this blog's author, Martin Marprelate:
Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

Thursday, December 11, 2003

  

Gene Lyons

December 10, 2003

 

The real problem with American political journalism, I argued in the September 2003 Harper's magazine, isn't left- or right-wing "bias." Rather, it's the abandonment of all but the pretense of professional standards of evidence and elementary intellectual honesty among the Washington press elite.

 

"Claiming the moral authority of a code of professional ethics it idealizes in the abstract but repudiates in practice," I wrote "today's Washington press corps has grown as decadent and self-protective as any politician or interest group whose behavior it purports to monitor. In theory, the press is supposed to function in a free market of ideas, a self-regulating and relentlessly competitive quest for what the old Superman comics called 'truth, justice and the American way.'"

 

Alas, in practice only the most flagrant transgressors, such as the New York Times' Jayson Blair or The New Republic's Stephen Glass--reporters who faked bylines, made-up imaginary interviews, and wrote fiction disguised as news--get punished. Driven by cable-TV celebrity, Washington has developed a star-system rivalling that of Hollywood, or more aptly, perhaps, the old Soviet Politburo. Politicians come and go, but the Tim Russerts, George Wills and and William Safires remain forever.

 

The ethical effect has been disastrous. "Once a degree of celebrity is attained," I argued " the star system functions to protect even the most egregious offenses." Consider, for example, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. A former practicing psyschiatrist, Krauthammer's stock in trade has become describing opponents of President Bush and the Iraq war as crazy.

 

It's a tactic beloved of authoritarians everywhere. Under Stalin, psychiatric hospitals in Moscow and East Berlin bulged with political dissenters labled mentally ill. So did those in Buenos Aires under the generals. Hence most mental health professionals find using psychiatric terms in political contexts at best distasteful. From a strictly medical viewpoint, Krauthammer's lampooning ideological foes as "delusional" only increases the casual contempt in American culture toward victims of genuine brain disorders--a stigma that causes many to resist treatment. For a doctor, it's unconscionable.

 

Krauthammer really crossed the line in a recent column declaring Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean mentally ill. Granted, he appears to have been attempting satire, a risky tactic given his leaden prose style. Dean supposedly suffers from "Bush Derangement Syndrome," defined by Krauthammer as "the acute onset of paranoia" in reaction to President Junior.

 

This because Dean told an NPR interviewer some people have "an interesting theory" that Bush had a reason for censoring sections of a recent 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. Namely that the administration ignored warnings it ought to have heeded. Dean might have spoken more judiciously. But crazy? Then why has the administration been stonewalling the bipartisan Kean commission Bush himself appointed to probe 9/11 intelligence failures--refusing to turn over White House briefing documents?

 

But it wasn't until Krauthammer brought up "Murdoch Derangement Syndrome" that he got truly creative. Rupert Murdoch is the Australian magnate who owns the FoxNews empire. Krauthammer quoted Dean telling MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews that, as president, he would break up Fox "on ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not... What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one."

 

An American politician shutting down a TV network on ideological grounds? Alarming, right? Actually, no. Bob Somerby looked up the "Hardball" transcript, and posted it on his Daily Howler website.

 

MATTHEWS: Rupert Murdoch has the Weekly Standard. It has got a lot of other interests. It has got the New York Post. Would you break it up?

 

DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but-

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?

 

DEAN: I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not, because, obviously-

 

MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?

 

DEAN: Let me--yes, let me get-

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

DEAN: The answer to that is yes. I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.

 

MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You're going to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?

 

DEAN: What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.

 

In short, Dean was unmistakably joking. Krauthammer twisted his words for ideological purposes, while Washington Post editors evidently slept.

 

Physician, heal thyself.


7:36:07 PM    

 

I don’t know which is worse, Ted Koppel or 8 candidates who won’t stand up for one of their own against a member of the GOP…

 

What they should have said is “what Democrat wouldn’t clean Bush’s clock?”

 

Even the supposed “virtuous” candidates like Kucinich showed themselves for what they are: zeros when it comes to standing up for one another against Bush. No wonder the GOP can get away with running the congress like a private club… these guys know nothing about sticking together or otherwise hanging separately.

 

On a related note, check out this hilarious article on poor Joe Lieberman (the worst offender of all, aka the GOP’s favorite Democrat).

 

(thanks to Atrios)


7:24:51 PM    

 

what you have done is stunning, you have laid out a very cogent guide through this trilogy that has become so interesting to so many of us. the wachowski's seemed to have said a few times that they did not want to spoon feed any answers, figuring points out on my own is fun, but i never would have guessed at what clearly seems to be a dead-on analysis of the whole underlying construct ( who would note that the Oracle didn't have the cookies ready for Neo?) i'm sure you're right about Smith being destroyed by Neo inserting his "Code", but i think it was unfortunate that they had a cut to the Architect/Mainframe/interface right at the moment he begins to degrade, it gives the impression the machines "used" Neo. May i ask, what state do you believe Neo to be in... does he now have a residual machine consciousness, is he medically "alive" in the human world?, and what would you guess of the Oracle's and Sati's speculation that he will be seen again in a time of need? that he is living free in an as yet unknown reality (unknown to either machines or humans, perhaps Hawaii?)

 

i half expected him to actually be a present day patient in a "Locked-in" state, (these may be caused by a variety of medical conditions, most commonly brain tumor, certain post-stroke scenarios, etc) wherein the patient is awake, but has no avenue for communication with the outside world at all (not even eyelid blinking, sphinctre contraction, puffing, eye movements, etc.) some new work with brain/eeg interfacing can yield a reproducible "yes/no" eeg signal that can be used to spell words, etc. i half-imagined Thomas Andersen to be such a patient, and that his machine interfaces were the beginnings of escape, but that he had survived by constructing his elaborate fantasy world of the Matrix, that he could hear or sense trinity or morpheus in his hospital or rehab center,... anyway, thank you, thank you, thank you, a wonderful, wonderful job of thinking and writing... i can't wait to see the movie again, if we can just find a baby-sitter

 

I would contend that Neo is still alive, a bit overwhelmed – as I think we can all understand, given that he’s had his eyes fried, his mate impaled, and his brain partially overwritten – but there are two things that lead me to believe that he is both alive in the physical and mental sense of the term.

 

The first clue it seems to me is that after Smith is eradicated and Neo’s prostrate body is being moved to the transport we are given a glimpse of that same view from the machines-eye view (all the golden light and all) and it is Neo himself who is blindingly bright, so bright that he outshines an entire city of machine consciousness all around him. From this I deduce two things: a) that Neo is still alive, since his body is capable of producing such a powerful “machine-readable consciousness” signature, and b) his consciousness has been altered somewhat (making it read up like the machine consciousnesses), but certainly not eradicated -- since it is glowing so brightly. I’d venture further to say that his altered consciousness is glowing so brightly – brighter than any machine -- precisely because, although altered, he is still fundamentally and unalterably human at the core.

 

The second clue to Neo’s continued existence is the fact that the W bros tacked on an ending to clear up a few Qs for the audience, in which the Oracle says to Sati basically that yes, we’ll see Neo again, he’s not dead. I expect that Neo to be both medically alive and yet to exhibit a form of consciousness that, while still human, is more attuned to the machines than before, and remember, before he could start to feel them.

 

As for the rest of the human members of the Matrix, you can be sure that they are alive and well, if also a bit dazed like Neo. After all, the Matrix is still generating juice, isn’t it? I wouldn’t be surprised if they all wake up in their beds thinking they had a funky dream, like Neo in the first film.

 

The whole question of Neo’s third “death” (remember he’s already died at the end of the first and as the Oracle said, should have died at the end of the second rather than appearing at Mobil station) in three movies also raises an interesting topic that I’d like to address briefly and to which you allude: the question of how and why Neo is needed to eliminate Smith. I’ve read some things that claim that Neo was merely a means for the Source to plug into Smith and eliminate him. These explanations typically rely upon that same sequence you identified when Neo is shown bursting with light (like the Smiths). This has been interpreted as some kind of electrical pulse or surge supposedly emanating from the Source. This explanation reminds me of the old (and now debunked) matrix-in-a-matrix theory: both initially appear to be the “only” interpretation of the action on the screen, but in fact fail to take into account for everything that we have already learned.

 

So, for example, why would the Source need Neo as a glorified cable to plug into the Matrix? We already know that the Matrix is connected to the Source: the Source is where Matrix programs go when they are obsolete, the Source is also the source of the new upgrades, and some programs have even hacked the firewall (the Merovingian and Trainman) to facilitate getting between the Source and the Matrix unobserved. So a link does exist, and Neo is not needed to create one. Secondly, Neo is not needed to insert a machine code – that could just as easily be done by creating a program, inserting the code into the program, and then sending that program to the Matrix to be assimilated by Smith, insuring the uptake of the program. So what does Neo provide that the machines need to destroy Smith? Not as a link, not as a Trojan horse, but rather because Neo has something that the machines cannot reproduce. My reading is that something is the same something that was needed to reload the Matrix at the end of the second flick – the power of choice, of free will and a decision freely chosen, not mandated by an algorithm, as would be the case in any machine entity. So it was truly Neo that destroyed Smith, the very essence of Neo, not the Source or any type of electrical surge.

 

After all, ask yourself, if you are a movie director who do you represent visually the power of one world view destroying another? You’d depict it as an exorcism, but what does that look like… particularly if the evil spirit is actually a computer program? Well, maybe you’d try and depict a surge of light… and furthermore, in a trilogy of movies that went far out of its way to highlight issues of choice, determinism, free will, destiny and alternate forms of consciousness, does it seem right that in the ultimate confrontation the only role for human beings is that of a glorified modem? No, it certainly doesn’t, so I think I can say with some certainty that such an ending is not what the Wachowski bros intended anyone to accept.


6:51:45 PM    



© Copyright 2004 Martin Marprelate. Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Last update: 1/9/2004; 1:35:06 PM.
Powered by