|
I despaired of getting my Journal read in it's own thread on this issue, so here it is:
"Star Simpson / Bomb Scare" and The War of Art.
Has anyone else been disturbed by the slant of the articles regarding the whole Star Simpson "Bomb Scare" at Boston/Logan airport recently?
There's a number of articles that use various tactics to paint the situation in a particular way that read like textbook examples of mis-reporting to me.
Such as:
"MIT Computer Whiz Arrested With Fake Bomb At Logan Airport" (informationweek)
Suggests maybe she wanted to use it as part of a bluff?
Well read a little deeper and we see that she was asked what it was and she replied that it was art.
Hence we get a headline like this:
"MIT Coed With Fake Bomb 'Art' Arrested"
I'd link to that story, but it's already gone.
But read more than one story and read between the lines and it becomes clear what probably happened:
- She had worn the shirt the day before.
- It is a piece of art she wore for career day.
- She woke up the next day and either threw it on because...
a.) it was handy OR MAYBE
b.) wanted to show her boyfriend the neat art thing she made while he was away.
- She winds up at the airport doing what people typically do. (mills about while waiting)
- Fidgets with playdoh.
- Asks for flight information.
- Is asked twice about her shirt - to which she responds "It's art"
No nefarious plot, no cry for attention, no utterly careless behavior.
But read the majority of stories and it sounds very different.
Just look at the implicate assumption of phrases such as "...says fake bomb is art.." or "...fake bomb is hoax...".
See what I see?
They lead you to take for granted that it's a fake bomb and go on from there.
Once you accept the "fake bomb" part you're 80% of the way toward what they'd have you believe.
Just do a googlenews search and do a sample.
The slant is disgusting - it's security and authority and media trying to cover it's ass - without regard to what might happen to the student who, almost quite literally, got caught in the crossfire.
Also note the "didn't answer questions" bit that is repeatedly mentioned with out the "...until asked a second time.". Very convenient bit of editing.
Also welling up in these articles is a whiff of the anti-science, anti-intellectual streak that is running wider and wider though our national culture. (as is evident in articles such as the Boston Herald opinion piece by Howie Carr)
More ominous is how the very idea of creativity gets handled. How many times can they put the phrases "Whiz Kid", "Wacky Artist" and "almost got killed.", "...nearly got shot", next to each other before people start to get the point? How many more times across all these articles before an astute reader realizes that that is the point. (i.e. "keep your antics, no matter how innocent, in check or we might accidentally shoot you." and for those who knowingly toy with the absurdity of the security state it's "we'll have an excuse to shoot you sooner or later if we feel like it, so stfu.")
Why make that threat? Those who champion the security state think they have enough intellectual capital to last them the rest of their business lifetimes. They can't handle rapid change - the nineties scared them. They want innovation at a more comfortable pace: the speed of business. When they want creativity and innovation they intend to beat it out of us - with no more awkward volunteering, no more messy, unasked for questions that blow the cover off of their ulterior schemes, and certainly no more multi-billion dollar companies popping out of capital vacuums thank you very much. ("It takes money to make money. It DOES! We say so!") Maybe they'd rather not physically beat people, but their general stance on torture shows that they already have a bullpen full of cut-outs to do so when expedient.
In the long run, that's the road to disaster.
Intelligent victims of extortion are rarely creative in matters unrelated to escape, resistance, and reprisal.
Those who benefit from the security state expect this. Hell, even the most mediocre employee eventually engages in the conscious withdrawal of efficiency. What troubles them about "smart people" is it's hard to know what easter eggs they've left waiting for you in the results of their labor when you piss them off. That's what really frightens them. Mainly in technology, but also, not so consciously to them, in matters of art.
I feel sorry for them (once I get tired of being enraged or disgusted).
I feel sorry for the rest of us.
Not sure there's a solution.
It's a conundrum alright.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
