> I enjoyed the piece a lot and didn't mean to knock it in any way, nor
> suggest that you're a spring chicken when it comes to dealing with the
> mainstream media, always a tricky proposition. One of the things the Post
> piece accomplished, in my opinion, is it humanized anarchists - made
> them/you less "other" in pomoese - for certain Post readers, so if (when?)
> the DC cops riot, these readers will be less likely to side with the cops.
Exactly. You've picked up on the reasons why I decided to go ahead with the interview. If the media is finally beating down our door, after decades of anarchist bellyachin' about our image, why not take the opportunity to put a human face on ourselves.
I'm still pretty skeptical when it comes to dealing with the boss media, but I sense that times have changed and that the media is out to demonize us like they woudl have, say, 15 years ago. That will change as the rank and file reporters are disciplined by their bosses and by the owners to cast us in a bad light. After all, we are ANTI-CAPITALIST.
This is getting weird. The BBC wants to come out and cover our soccer game on Sunday.
> Earlier Carrol had written,
>
> >One of the things we were unable to protect
> >ourselves sufficiently against in the '60s was the enemy choosing our
> >leaders for us. (Jerry Rubin being a case in point.) And even choosing
> >(or coining) our slogans (don't trust anyone over 30, bra-burning, etc.)
>
> thereby arguing that the so-called enemy had "chosen" Klein in order to
> thwart the left, or possibly he was simply noting something the left should
> be wary about. I'm still wondering about his theory on Rubin.
I'm pretty aware of what happened in the 60s, with Mario Savo and other media ordained superstars. I'm working with my comrades here to rotate our media spokespeople.
> So I was just suggesting it was silly to think that the "enemy" had "chosen"
> you as a leader for malicious purposes by writing an article. I went on to
> argue that a better tactic for the corporate media, in my opinion, would be
> to ignore the left - then again maybe an effective strategy would be to
> focus the spotlight on talented, young leaders so that in turn they will be
> denounced as media darlings by other leftists until they're thoroughly
> demoralized. The last statement (at the top) was sarcastic, suggesting as it
> did that we're in a revolutionary situation where the state deeply cares
> who's leading the left. Not one of my better posts.
Anther reason for doing the interview is the fact that if one of us level-headed anarchists don't talk to the media, they'll interview one of the wingnuts who hang around radical movements and we'll end up being portrayed in a skewed fashion. Already, I'm dealing with one of our dangerous wingnuts here locally who is incredibly jealous that I got in the Post without trying, while all of his efforts to get his name and face in the paper has only netted him half of his face in a picture of Pat Buchanan kissing a baby.
<< Chuck0 >>
This was the year *everything* changed.
-- Commander Ivanova, 2261
Mid-Atlantic Infoshop -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/
"A society is a healthy society only to the degree that it exhibits anarchistic traits."
- Jens Bjørneboe