chat, feelings, and random discussion thread

[hyena]

Didnt the chef of police hire some "hooligans", to fire up the conflict so he could intervene drastically and show what a hardass and competent police chef he is?
Also, Ive heard numerous (credible) reports of police brutality and dubious stuff..

I think that the probability of infiltration is really low. After the events, public opinion and judges cracked really hard on the cops, who were brought to trial for every possible offense committed. The co-operation in disruption of the public peace, through infiltration, deliberate provocation etc, didn't ever reach even a first degree court of law. If there had been the faintest smudge of credibility, the trial would have been held.

Brutality, on the other hand - trials are being held as we speak, although probably most of the cops will be acquitted because one of the main pieces of evidence for the main brutality trial has disappeared a couple of months ago (or was never there, depending on who you listen to).

In any case, the death of the young protester Carlo Giuliani has nothing to do whatsoever with police brutality; a man attacked another man with a fire estinguisher, a weapon heavy enough to kill, and the other man responded with gunshots. As I said, maybe one can make case for police disorganization rather than brutality; if the car wasn't half-full of scared young draftees maybe they would have been able to avoid being cornered in the midst of assaulters, etc.

Anyway, don't believe everything you read on "alternative" sites on the G8 events. Don't even believe everything I say if you don't want to - be careful in general, the videos, photos etc have been manipulated to no end, and the testimonies of course are all more or less false. Not to mention that it was held in Italy, and we as a populace are normally inclined to hypothesizing evil plots to rule the world even behind, say, variations in the price of salami.

 

[rahvin]

Anyway, don't believe everything you read on "alternative" sites on the G8 events. Don't even believe everything I say if you don't want to - be careful in general, the videos, photos etc have been manipulated to no end, and the testimonies of course are all more or less false.

On this topic - but with a slight derail - it seems to me that the generations pass without any drastic change in the general credibility of information. Speed and specificity of what we could call "the news" are on a steady increase, and the more it's widespread the more the public believes they are able to understand the world around them: reasons behind political events, motives for crime, discoveries in many a branch of science and technology. However, the accuracy of information is more or less the same throughout the ages, since misinformation is always equipped with the same technical means as its counterpart.

Take war news, for instance. Video feeds and live reports would make for an excellent landmark for the truth, if it weren't for the fact that all parties involved have the means to manipulate them into whatever they want. In ancient Greece you had to wait weeks before a messenger could reach you with the results of a battle, and of course he could have been lying and you had no way of knowing for certain if you weren't there. Nowadays, the same information hits you almost instantly, but again there is no sure way to tell whether you're being lied to.

My point is it still boils down to what sources individuals deem trustworthy: if you choose to always believe Fox News or the alternative press, and which ones have a firmer hold in your neck of the woods. It's hard to find reliable conservative sources of information in Italy, due to a tendency of most popular ones to easily fall into self-parody as soon as they cross the gossip line. The abundancy of leftist, alternative newspapers, websites and public service broadcasts certainly makes them more reliable as a whole, but it also makes the public much eager to swallow their agenda.

On the "police brutality" issue, I have yet to see a popular source of information siding with the "cops are innocent" faction. This is because as soon as you do you end up paired with ludicrously illiterate, fascistic magazines whose manipulation of the news is blatant.

But it's more about what is traditionally more founded in reality than about any report on a specific new fact. And the response on the part of the public is more about what is emotionally closer to one's views than about nit-pickingly separating fiction from fact. You can find complacency in the press whether you are a left-wing liberal or some uberconservative nazi, and with next to no chance of ever coming to be proven wrong. This is usually the point where I wax philosophical about the fabric of reality stretching and thinning until it's almost transparent to any interpretation, but this usually gets misconstrued as a justification for believing in stupid shit just because you can (while I probably mean the opposite, i.e. that there is a definite risk of losing the reality principle), so I stop.

 

[hyena]

And the response on the part of the public is more about what is emotionally closer to one's views than about nit-pickingly separating fiction from fact. You can find complacency in the press whether you are a left-wing liberal or some uberconservative nazi, and with next to no chance of ever coming to be proven wrong.

Right on the mark. There is a branch of economics called "public choice" which investigates, among other things, these very phenomena. It has been shown that people select the newspaper to read and the TV channels to watch mainly based on how closely these follow their own views. Of course, the residual power of orientation held by the media concerns those who do not have views to start with, or oscillate between camps. As soon as I can find the links to a couple of papers, I will send them to you (or post them here if anyone else is interested).

Conversely, I don't think I agree with the implications of this:

But it's more about what is traditionally more founded in reality than about any report on a specific new fact.

I honestly don't see any recent history of police brutality in Italy. I am reading a book on red terror in the 70s, and recently read another book on neo-fascist terror in the same years. These stories are filled with dead and maimed cops, but it's very infrequent to hear about a policeman shooting a terrorist. The same goes for organized crime: in the 90s, at the height of the most recent mafia war, criminals killed policemen and judges, but the mafia heads were incarcerated, not shot at point blank range.
Of course we know from the international news that other countries are afflicted by police brutality. And we had such episodes in the 20s and 30s, during the fascist regime. But can one assume a pattern of behavior to be current in a country because it happens elsewhere or because it routinely happened eighty years ago? Based on this assumption, then Germans are Nazis, and everyone is racist in France because there used to be Apartheid in South Africa.
I know you didn't mean to support the brutality hypothesis, but I'm pointing out how there can be flaws also in popular perception of what is "traditional".

 

[rahvin]

Conversely, I don't think I agree with the implications of this:

Ah, there were no such implications. I meant that in Italy a certain side is traditionally more reliable in general. Maybe you disagree with this implication as well, but it's one I'm inclined to defend. On the basis that liberal sources of information have bothered to come up with offerings to the public that were, on the whole, more educated than the rest. The counterpart, on the other hand, has valid publications on specific topics, but unfortunately the general public doesn't read them anyway. And the conservative-oriented newscasts for the masses are a joke defying the rules of common sense, let alone factual truth.

Obviously, the left-wing press has most facts wrong about police brutality (and about a hundred other things, from the alleged about-turns of our less liberal ministers when it comes to international and military politics to the reasons why it's so very hip to have a blog -- freedom of speech ahoy! when there's about 2-3 owners of blog sites in the entire universe), but this kind of discredit doesn't change the fact that "WWWWRRRAUUURGH!!! THE COMMUNIST COPKILLERS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!" just isn't journalism.

 

[hyena]

this kind of discredit doesn't change the fact that "WWWWRRRAUUURGH!!! THE COMMUNIST COPKILLERS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!" just isn't journalism.

You are completely right, especially in this case - the specific copkillers are probably right-wing extremists, and this settles the matter.

Speaking of news media, I think that the only reliable conservative daily is Il Foglio. All the rest is, exactly as you said, just a joke (well, maybe L'Osservatore Romano is not a joke, but I wouldn't necessarily place it in the context of conservative news media).

Also when it comes to opinion periodicals, the situation is dire. The only review of geopolitics in this country belongs to the group of L'Espresso, and while it is not blatantly aligned with Soviet-style editorial policies it is still slightly suspicious. Adornato's Liberal is a terrifying parody of a free-market monthly. There is a small weekly in Lombardia called Il domenicale which is run by conservative catholics with brains, but the circulation is regional.

On the other hand, I'm not sure about the credibility of some leftist publications. Take il manifesto: okay, it's a pleasant read because most contributors are highly educated and know how to write. But the conclusions they draw in most cases defy reason, there is not even a case to make for factual inaccuracy - they're just not interested in facts. And the major left-wing daily, ie La Repubblica, is only slightly more serious than a tabloid magazine, especially these days.

Where news reporting on TV is concerned, I tend to agree with you. Maybe it's because the TV formats allow less dicking around than the press, but I would choose the leftist media any day over the ridiculous, soap-operish rightist ones. Again, La7 is doing a good job of being neither here nor there and still retain credibility, but I am afraid I am somewhat losing the passion for the stand-out-of-the-crowd style of Mr. Ferrara and his associates (the newspaper is still good, however).

 

[rahvin]

On the other hand, I'm not sure about the credibility of some leftist publications. Take il manifesto: okay, it's a pleasant read because most contributors are highly educated and know how to write. But the conclusions they draw in most cases defy reason, there is not even a case to make for factual inaccuracy - they're just not interested in facts.

As agreed above, it's a matter of seconding individual inclinations. Il Manifesto appeals (among others) to the kind of 50-something lawyer/doctor/university teacher who misses the Sixties because he's had SO much fun and still managed to come out on top: he's fairly literate and believes he's even more; he comes home early from work if he wants to, and in the living room of a suburban single-family house he sits with a glass of mineral water, ready to be told what he wants to hear. He loves to feel indignation at Berlusconi's inability to speak proper Italian or at his lack of etiquette; he loves to know everything about multi-cultural events taking place downtown, because there's no chance of any of the noise and discomfort ever reaching his abitation.

Panorama, on the other hand, commands the attention of a white-collar father of three who wants to look at boobs while at the same time buying a respectable publication. He'll glance at the headlines about global warming and what to do to help prevent it ("dry yourself off with Bodyflik!"), then skip to the page with the naked models and later leave the magazine for his wife to check the latest news on the Jolie-Pitt situation.

It's easy to hate both sides, but the former is a necessary step the latter will have to go through to gain a semblance of recognition, precisely because it plays a subtler trick on the readers. Your understanding of the world needs not be immense to scoff at the association between breasts and social commentary, but seeing through the distortion of the other type of press requires additional skills.

 

[hyena]

Your understanding of the world needs not be immense to scoff at the association between breasts and social commentary, but seeing through the distortion of the other type of press requires additional skills.

I am not entirely sure about that. I've come to believe that the type of individual who enjoys the breasts-commentary connection is, unbelievably enough, pretty alert to the fact that most articles in il manifesto just don't make any sense. We - and by "we" I mean you and me, and all the other readers who would actually like to read meaningful commentary - are probably more exposed to difficulties in this specific area, because we are biased in favor of elegant discourse: if it is well-written, then probably there is a meaning, and if we don't grasp it immediately it's because we need to read with more attention, or reflect in further depth. after all this effort, of course, we conclude that what they say makes no sense, because there is no other answer. people who perform rougher reality checks, however, have an advantage over us where some mistifying articles are concerned.

last week there was a blatant example of this on radio radicale. while i normally listen to it with pleasure, on account of its transparency in the provision of, say, direct reporting of parliamentary debates, it went completely over the top in commenting the stupid incident concerning paul wolfowitz's unkempt appearance when visiting a mosque. at some point, a listener called in and said that "holes in his socks prove that at least he is spiritually close to the poor". the host of the program, for all his intellectual prowess, actually took into consideration the comment - and not only for politeness toward the listeners, which is not a prized trait on that specific radio. of course the comment was idiotic, but it took the host about three minutes to deconstruct it. a run-of-the-mill reader of panorama would have simply labeled the comment "bullshit" and moved on. of course this is so very stupid that there is no doubt about who is right, but in circumstances that are slightly more complex people who are more intellectually oriented risk to lose the plot.

with this, i don't mean to express a personal preference toward breast magazines (!) and those who read them - but it is important to remark how these people might have a very efficient bullshit radar when it comes to especially improbable political statements.

 

[rahvin]

I guess I'm convinced that you first have to unlearn and then learn again (how to mistrust, basically). The horny readers who are unfazed by articulate discourse should probably learn its merits, fall for the mock-humility of the upteenth article about homicidal drug users who never ever get a chance of redemption, then realize they're still reading or listening to bullshit.

If you skip that passage, I'm tempted to say you'll be stuck in a loop forever, because even if you overcome the urge to associate national affairs with a woman's bosom, you're easy pray of those who mock this connection for a living (most liberal comedians, for starters). Remember about ten years ago, when a popular anchorwoman was dubbed - by one of those magazines providing the seedier kind of commentaries - most telefuckable? She later answered a question about this subject during an interview, and the snippet never left the air for months while every conceivable comedy show decided to make fun of the term and the fact that she actually repeated the word on TV. Now, I have no idea whether she was somehow in on the whole thing and decided to capitalize on the "compliment", but her public answer was by no means inappropriate: she addressed the point because she was asked to, without winks of complicity nor coming off as a prude.
Where did that leave most of the audience, though? Battling between not having the wits to outgrow the lecherous original comment ("har har, she's so professional but would make an awesome sex object too!") or feeling superior because it was so damn hilarious that the stupid people would call her that. I blame this on not having acquired a taste for educated language, propriety and intellectual rigor.

 

[hyena]

i was lucky not to know about the telefuckable story, but yes, i see what you mean. and i concur completely on the fact that people should neither be giggling like schoolchildren at the mention of sex nor ridiculing those who, well, actually think of sex. to me, it's completely obvious that people of the preferred sex seen on TV are evaluated also according to their desirability by each and every viewer, as much as everyone else. populist magazines and shows that underline this obvious fact are being too low-brow, and elitist magazines and shows that confute this obvious fact are just lying. which brings us to acquiring a taste, as you say, for educated language, propriety and intellectual rigor. for example, public TV channels might start replacing heinous shows centered around dilettante singers and dancers with, say, films in english with italian subtitles. most market observers claim that this will only lose them audience. i wonder why this should be a problem; the imminent availability of three million cable channels will lose them audience anyway.

 

[Kovenant84]

Yeah, so how about that superbowl!

Just kidding. A couple of things, as I didn't get to log on all weekend. In regards to police brutality and the like, things are always rather interesting here in NY. Of course, everyone hears the stories of cops shooting an unarmed man twenty times on the day before his wedding, and the story will spiral out of control for weeks. But interestingly enough, it seems to me that such rare incidents (when the the victim is unarmed and non-threatening) are the only ones that make the news. Unless the police really fuck up, as in that case, or knowingly beat or torture someone (as in past years), there is usually no outcry. As soon as any aggressive behavior, or god forbid a weapon, is shown, people just necessarily assume that the aggressor is going down, no questions asked. Part of it is probably a recognition that most of these cops are putting their lives on the line on an almost daily basis, and part is lingering respect from incidents like 9/11.

As far as the reporting of such incidents, and reporting in general, well, it's a sticky subject. I think it's pretty well known that most of this city leans a little left of center, and the publications reflect that. We have our intellectual merit rankings as well, with the Times on top (and the Wall Street Journal, though that's more right-wing), and then the Daily News, and Post. TV, though, tends to be the polarizer of choice in these parts. Right wingers rail against everything but Fox News, while the left wing likes to break down the rest of the channels into varying degrees of liberalism, and sanity for that matter. The big problem is that there really is no middle. And unfortunately for the right, all they have is Fox, which people tend to ridicule outright for all its talk of leftist conspiracies. The left has its share of nutjobs as well, but they at least have some more moderate leaning channels. The one thing I will say, is that for all the crap I give O'Reilly, he's at least had the good sense in the past months to point out that he isn't the craziest one on the right these days.

In any case, I agree that the growing problem with news these days is not so much that people look for just the news that pertains to them, but rather that they do so without looking for multiple views on the same story. Case in point: the recent fiasco in Boston, regarding the advertising for the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie. For those not in the know, figures (essentially lite-brites in the shape of a character from the show) giving the middle finger, where magnetically attached to various buildings, structures, etc., with a battery pack attached to help keep it lit through the night. Some people thought it might be some kind of bomb, and the police wound up approaching the dozens of displays as a terrorist threat, and later arrested the two men who had put them up and charged them with felonies. Now, most of what is heard on the internet is the outcry of "Omg, Boston, get with the program - they're cartoons!". But not a lot of credit is given to the Boston PD, who, for all they knew, were trying to defuse a terrorist attack. Sure, maybe some more research and communication could have occurred, but the advertisers aren't totally innocent, either. Hell, placing magnetic packages with large black-tape-wrapped battery packs on bridge struts is probably not the most intellegent plan ever.

~kov.

 

[Taliesin]

You, and me, and her, simultaneous...

Dont you ever get caught up in another language?
With the french seeping through my neurons for over a year now, writing clear english grammar seems more and more difficult.. glad to see I spread laughter where I go though.

 

[Lina]

Just for the record, I wasn't teasing you in a mean-spirited way. It just struck me as a funny typo.

 

[Arch]

I might understand why there was a typo of the word chief. Chef is "boss" in German.

 

[Taliesin]

Just for the record, I wasn't teasing you in a mean-spirited way. It just struck me as a funny typo.

Yea I know. I also know you're pretty far from "the typical american" and maybe speak more than just english, but an american making fun of the mistakes I make in english still leaves a weird feeling.

I might understand why there was a typo of the word chief. Chef is "boss" in German.

And in french

 

[marduk1507]

Dont you ever get caught up in another language?
With the french seeping through my neurons for over a year now, writing clear english grammar seems more and more difficult.. glad to see I spread laughter where I go though.

Of course I do, but I tend to read what I write, and correct myself. Thanks for the laugh!

Yea I know. I also know you're pretty far from "the typical american" and maybe speak more than just english, but an american making fun of the mistakes I make in english still leaves a weird feeling.

Hah, your being "the typical German" here is even funnier than your police chef. Yaeh, theim iliterete emerican idoits.

 

[Taliesin]

Hah, your being "the typical German" here is even funnier than your police chef. Yaeh, theim iliterete emerican idoits.

I never said I was "the typical german", Im just saying americans dont have a reputation of being experts in foreign languages or being very tolerant/patient with people who dont speak english so excuse me when it leaves a stale aftertaste, my overly open, non-prejudiced friend

 

[rahvin]

I never said I was "the typical german"

I think he's saying you are.

 

[Lina]

I also know you're pretty far from "the typical american" and maybe speak more than just english

Sadly, no, in that sense I'm typical.

 

[Taliesin]

Brilliant, everyone's typical then.

Maybe we can turn this into something productive, because Im intrigued.. what is typically german then?

 

[rahvin]

what is typically german then?