4 ms·
I don't believe the passage you quote from supports your assertion in any way. Here it is in full: "I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will
by mazelife 10y ago
I don't believe the passage you quote from supports your assertion in any way. Here it is in full:
"I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."
To unpack that (along with context from the rest of the email), Podesta's correspondent is bemoaning the fact that politics has begun to be covered as entertainment and celebrity gossip. He suggests that any hope that things will take a turn for the better after the election is misplaced, and that there's a larger issue: "we"—and by this he clearly means media elites, people in public office, and in general the milieu to which he belongs rather than some shadowy cabal of which he is a member—have not upheld their duty to help keep an informed and skeptical citizenry. He suggests that misguided attempts by the media to keep people compliant and docile have started to wear thin, but that in the absence of information and understanding all that anger is liable to attach itself to a demagogue like Donald Trump.
In short, he is advocating the exact thing mentioned in the article: informed civic and political participation! This is a perfectly anodyne line of thinking, and I don't really see what cause is served by stealing and leaking this person's private correspondence. And who is this dark and Machiavellian correspondent? This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ivey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ivey
- camperman 10y ago"To unpack that, Podesta's correspondent is bemoaning the fact that politics has begun to be covered as entertainment and celebrity gossip." I thought he was saying they've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and conspire to produce a compliant and unaware citizenry. That's what he says. "He suggests that any hope that things will take a turn for the better after the election is misplaced, and that there's a larger issue: "we"—and by this he clearly means media elites, people in public office, and in general the milieu to which he belongs rather than some shadowy cabal of which he is a member—have not upheld their duty to help keep an informed and skeptical citizenry." Except he says 'we've all been quite content to ... conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry', exactly the opposite meaning. "He suggests that misguided attempts by the media to keep people compliant and docile have started to wear thin but that in the absence of information and understanding all that anger is liable to attach itself to a demagogue like Donald Trump." Indeed. "In short, he is advocating the exact thing mentioned in the article: informed civic and political participation!" War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. "And who is this dark and Machiavellian correspondent? This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ivey" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ivey" So, a close confidant of the Clintons (Bill made him Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts) and with strong connections to the current Dems (team leader in Arts and Humanities for the Obama transition).
- dsp1234 10y agoWar is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Ignoring Context is Enlightenment.
- burkaman 10y agoLet me compare this sentence with a similar example. When Obama says something like "we've been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts on this nation", does that mean he's advocating being blind? Is he explaining why he supports more mayhem? Is he literally talking about himself, or is this a different use of the word "we"? Is it possible that sometimes people exaggerate a position of the establishment that they are themselves a part of, in order to make a point and push for a change?
- jahewson 10y agoYou're still dismissing the actual context of these comments and projecting your own read-between-the-lines ambiguous alternative universe in its place. I don't think it could be much more clear that this guy thinks that media coverage has "been" (and I quote him saying "been" because he's talking in the past tense) 1) sub-par, trivialised entertainment rather than thought-provoking information 2) needs to be something better in the future. The author of this email writes books about policy and how to improve it! He's particularly interested in improving cultural and civic life. We can see quite clearly the context of his comments, and the broader context of who he is and why he's engaging in this dialog. Or we could ignore all that and whip up a bizzarely contextless fantasy constructed around misreading the word "we" and ignoring pretty much everything else. Oh wait, I just said "we" in the previous sentence yet I don't mean myself - gee, how about that? Worse still, I think you're actually guilty of the very problem he laments. Rather than having a dialog around politics of careful debate and fair analysis, we (again this "we" does not include me) are content to dismiss the facts, stir up fake controversy and peddle conspiracy theories and other attention-grabbing but ultimately misleading soundbites.
- camperman 10y agoI don't know how it could be clearer: an academic and long-time confidant of the Clintons emails the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign and says "we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." It's sparkling clear from his tone, content and personal history that he's an insider and adviser to the campaign and that this is just a run-of-the-mill email to the Chairman with his thoughts on strategy. I don't see anything abnormal in this exchange at all: grizzled old adviser shares his thoughts on the entertainment-cum-revolution that is the Trump campaign and ruefully admits that the Dems need a rethink. And I'm not the one tying myself in angry knots trying to spin this as an innocent email encouraging greater civic participation.
- sigmar 10y agoThis seems to illustrate the issue with mass leaks. Lots of stuff can be taken out of context and misrepresented. Which is why journalists exist, ie to give information/leaks an accurate and responsible perspective.
- mazelife 10y agoThe problem with relying on journalists is that when everything is just dumped out there, the decontextualization and misrepresentation comes so fast and furious that it's uphill battle to counter once it's out there. Jonathan Swift puts it better: "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect." There's a really good interview in the intercept between Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Klein about this exact issue. [1] Greenwald mentions: "So [Wikileaks] were very much an ardent and enthusiastic proponent of that model — that when you get tons of information that belongs in the public eye, you have the corresponding responsibility to protect not only people’s physical security but also their privacy. I used to defend them on that all the time. Somewhere along the way, WikiLeaks and Julian decided, and they’ve said this explicitly, that they changed their mind on that question — they no longer believe in redactions or withholding documents of any kind." "I think WikiLeaks more or less at this point stands alone in believing that these kinds of dumps are ethically — never mind journalistically — just ethically, as a human being, justifiable." [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podesta...