"C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
>
> The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control,
> as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts,
> is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis
> -- aided by the force of nationalism and media control by
> substantial interests -- presuppositions that set the limits
> of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon.
> Then let the debate rage; the more lively and vigorous it is,
> the better the propaganda system is served, since the presuppositions
> (U.S. benevolence, lack of rational imperial goals, defensive posture,
> etc.) are more firmly established. Those who do not accept the
> fundamental principles of state propaganda are simply excluded
> from the debate (or if noticed, dismissed as "emotional,"
> "irresponsible," etc.). --Noam Chomsky
I think it is possible to get too wound up in whether Person A is a good person or a bad person. And it seems for this reason a serious deflection from our concerns to fuss about Hersch's motives or intentions (now or then). In fact he has several times over the years provided us useful information, and it is the information we need to deal with, not with arriving at personal judgments of Hersch. And of course the same point applies to the people at Counterpunch (or for that matter such DP scalawags as run Alternet). Journalism does not in itself _do_ anything. It provides material for activists to reshape as needed for their purposes.
I agree with Chomsky. That is one of the reasons leftist organizers can never regard as their main task participating in that debate. We need, rather, to work towards transforming it to discussion within a growing mass movement of resistance.
Carrol