A Police Car on fire in Toronto
[Note: Some links are to PDF files]
I have been doing some reading on the Black Bloc tactic since the G20 in Toronto because I did not know the reason(s) for the vandalism, and I thought I should learn more before forming an opinion. Further, I had heard many politicians and journalists concluding that the tactic was incomprehensible, ineffective, immature, and so forth. Before making conclusions such as these, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and look into the reasons that they articulate for their behaviour.
A number of journalists (including Jon Stewart around 6:30, click here for the video if your are reading from the USA) commented that they were unable to discern the message of the march because there were too many messages. An example comes from the Canadian news site The Mark, where commentator John Stapleton writes in his piece, “The 2010 G20: The Day the Music Died?”
After a week of searching, I have no real idea who the leaders of the protest are or if we can even talk in those terms. There certainly seems to be neither a claim to leadership nor an overall narrative to articulate their goals or an assessment of the results. Few seem interested in assuming this leadership except to speculate on the motives of police and other security officials. In the 1960s, various groups and their leaders in Toronto and especially in the United States wrote books and articles, made public speeches in town halls, and met with media to carefully and meticulously articulate demands to distinguish the differences between sectors and groups. Back then, you knew in detail what the Students for a Democratic Society, the Chicago Seven or “Danny the Red” wanted. The “Weathermen” and the FLQ had visible and very public leadership, and that leadership appeared to have as much access to the mass media as it wanted.
Now we are left with the distinction that anarchists and everybody else want very different things, but I don’t know where to go to obtain the tracts, the manifestos, or the books that would give me more than half a page on the different motives of violent vs. non-violent protest.
Really? After a week of searching Stapleton could not come up with any writing describing the reasons for the protest? Because it took me about 1/2 an hour to find a number of descriptions about why the G20 protests were occurring, and why some people support using the Black Bloc tactic (including an assessment of its results). What I could find included some descriptions of the way the groups are organized, which details why they specifically avoid leadership and hierarchy. It also includes descriptions of why the various affinity groups avoid talking to the mainstream media, preferring instead to use alternative media and the internet to get their messages across. What I found also included some full-length books, available for free download, that detail the history behind the Black Bloc tactic and what those who use the tactic mean to achieve through its use.
(Note: I was only searching for information about groups that support the use of the Black Bloc tactic, so most (though not all) of the links above focus on that. Many other members of the various protest groups either do not support the tactic, or believe the tactic has its place but would not use it themselves. Information about the structure, beliefs, mandates and proposed alternatives from these groups is also easily obtained through a Google search. One place to start is this website, which provided a place to coordinate the various affinity groups, and links to publications detailing the views of some members of the protest groups. Although not all of these groups are anarchist groups, many of them eschew hierarchical leadership and prefer horizontal, decentralized modes of organizing and are also suspicious of the slant taken by mainstream media.)
The main point of Stapleton’s article is that there is no music to accompany the protests, that too was easily found by searching YouTube. I came up with bands like Test Their Logik, testament, the Dead Prez, Keny Arkana. I had never heard of any of them before attempting a search. He might not like the music, but it is hard to argue that it does not exist or that it is not political. Stapleton also complained that there was no concert arranged for the protest. This also turned out to be false (although from what I can gather from the internet the concert never did happen because all of the artists were detained/arrested by the police at the time it was supposed to occur).
So what is going on here? Are these journalists incapable of doing a Google search? Don’t they have research teams to do this work for them if they are too busy? It did take me longer than 1/2 hour to actually read all of the links I posted above, but it did not take long to find them.
I am not going to summarize all of the linked information, but reading the descriptions of those who support the use of the Black Bloc tactic made me rethink the post that I wrote before about “Classism and Reporting on Toronto’s G20.” In that post, I thought that the use of “middle class” to distinguish good protesters from bad protesters was really problematic because of the classist undertones of the description (I still do). After reading the linked information (especially the linked book), I now think that eliciting this kind of reporting might be part of the intent of those using the Black Bloc tactic and perhaps shows that the tactic is somewhat effective from their perspective.
I want to be clear that I am not supporting or opposing the Black Bloc tactic with these comments. Personally, I would never engage in vandalism, but I am not offering comment on those that do. Further, I intend to offer no evaluation of the beliefs expressed in the linked documents. I am neither affirming nor denying the truth of the expressed views, nor am I commenting on the reasonableness of holding such views. My only intent with these remarks is to say that if you accept the beliefs articulated in the above links, then there might be reason to believe that the use of the Black Bloc tactic is effective. For this reason, the use of the Black Bloc tactic is not incomprehensible or unintelligible (although there might be independent reasons to oppose its use).
So, it seems to me that some of those who have written about the Black Bloc tactic believe that the current state of advanced consumer capitalism is deeply unjust. They outline a number of injustices that occur at both national and international levels (sweatshop labour, income inequalities within and across nations, the concentration of wealth and resources among a few individuals, environmental degradation that more severely affects poorer nations and poor communities within wealthy nations etc.).
They also believe that much of this injustice is enabled, upheld, and enforced through brutal, violent means. They point to the various wars and the unequal policing of poor, racialized, and indigenous peoples. They think that for many in the middle- and upper-class, this violence and brutality is hidden from view. Middle- and upper-class people, they say, don’t often experience targeting by the police, and so remain unaware of the mundane experiences of people from working-class backgrounds, racialized individuals, and indigenous persons, experiences that include random searches, police harassment and brutal arrests. It seems that part of the reason to use Bloc tactics is to force a police escalation in the use of force against middle class people so that they become aware of how the police are experienced by marginalized members of society.
Another function of the Black Bloc is to push the protest at hand towards a more militant and socially comprehensive direction. Largely this was achieved by the Bloc positioning itself at the forefront of the demonstration and subsequently forcing an escalation between the State forces and the protesters. Simply by resisting arrest, refusing to remain on sanctioned parade routes, challenging police barricades and by actively directing its anger at corporate targets, the Bloc ensured that such an escalation would ensue.
The purpose of such escalation in part lies in the belief that such conflict necessarily results in the unmasking of the brutal nature of the State. The subsequent brutality of the opposing police/military force is revealed. The idea is that by showing the larger population the violent means by which the status quo is maintained, a significant number of people will become further radicalized by this physical and visual demonstration of the nature of the State. [From The Black Bloc Papers, pg 12]
If I have correctly interpreted these views, and one of the reasons that some people support the use of Black Bloc tactics, then it seems like the tactic is effective. They were able to elicit an extreme reaction from the police against the peaceful protesters who might not even have been aware of the Bloc or the anarchist movement. Paikin was right, middle-class people were experiencing the use of police force in ways that shocked them.
I think it is interesting that Paikin’s classism in his reporting might actually further the aims of those using Black Bloc tactics. His classism unintentionally conveys the message that we do expect, and perhaps accept, brutal treatment of working-class people that we would not expect middle-class people to endure. Paikin’s shock at his experience of this treatment exposes, what I believe these writers would consider, the naiveté of the mainstream media.
The tactic was also effective to the extent that it encouraged me to find out about the reasons for the use of the Bloc and what these people hoped to achieve through their vandalism. Before Toronto’s G20 I was aware of movements against global capitalism, environmental movements, feminist movements and so forth. But I had never heard of the Black Bloc and I thought the anarchist movement pretty much died out with Bakunin.
Looking into these writings has also left me with some questions. For example, why were so many mainstream journalists willing to admit that they could not find any information about the messages of the various protest groups at the G20? I did not find it even remotely challenging to find this information for myself, and I have no connection to activist groups, so it is not as though I relied on some contacts that were unavailable to the journalists. I just used Google, Twitter, and YouTube to track down this information. All of that is freely available to journalists. The whole research and writing of this post has taken me 3 hours (which includes the reading). How hard could it be for them to do the same? Are they admitting professional incompetence? Are they unable to understand these new forms of social mobilization? Are they incapable of understanding the new media made available through technologies like the internet and cell phones? What exactly do these numerous journalists hope to convey to their readers with these statements of ignorance and inability to track down pretty basic sources of information?
There are also many other questions one could ask about the use of the Black Bloc tactic. [ETA: I don't want to give the impression that these questions are not already being asked within Anarchist communities. Anarchists and other members of diverse social movements are already debating these questions with one another. Here is a (video) example. Here is another (text) example. And another (text) example.] For example, even if it does seem to have been effective to some extent, we might wonder whether an alternative tactic could be more effective and less destructive. Antonia Zerbisias noted in the Toronto Star today that there was a marked difference in the reaction to the protest among those who followed the news on Twitter and those who followed the news from more typical sources (e.g. the CBC). Perhaps other tactics would have reached a wider audience? Would it be desirable to reach a wider audience from the perspective of those who use the Bloc tactic? Or is the experience of police brutality integral to the message of Bloc tactic supporters? Is it better to sacrifice breadth for depth in their view? Which view is better or are a number of views equally legitimate?
Another example, is at least one person said the group using the Bloc tactic wanted to protect the other protesters by diverting police attention (and guns) from these other groups. But does the use of the tactic create the danger? If so, then how is that better than the “protection rackets” used by the mob? If your tactics are the same (or similar) to those use by the people you oppose, then how do you know whether you are on the side of the good? When I look at the G-20 coverage I am struck by how similarly the Black Bloc and the Police look and behave. Both are dressed all in black to appear as a unit, both wear masks to obscure their faces, both suddenly dart in a particular direction with no warning in order to create fear and confusion. The main difference seems to be that the Bloc attacks property, whereas the police attack people. Oh yeah, and only one has the support of the government. Even the police that are undercover cops look like the Black Bloc once they have removed the black to fade into the crowd… really very similar tactics… But if that is true, then mightn’t there be a problem with the tactic? Are the reasons behind a tactic enough to justify its use? This question applies equally to Bloc actions and police actions.
A further example, some protesters who oppose Bloc tactics said they felt their messages were drowned out by the vandalism. Do the use of these tactics enable or detract from the ability of others to have their voices heard? If it makes it more difficult for some groups to have their concerns recognized as legitimate, then how does that square with the Bloc’s supporters explicit statements against domination and commitment to egalitarian horizontal mobilization?
Like I said above, it is not my intention in this post to take a stand on these issues. But I welcome comment and discussion.
When the scope of the discussion is only between the black bloc and the police I’ve always instinctively taken a “pox on both your houses” stance.
I can see violent force (and let’s not kid ourselves – breaking other people’s shit and setting it on fire is violent force, just not against a person) being used effectively in three situations:
First, if you are the one who has more infrastructural power. You wield it to completely wipe out the opposition and bully the rest into submission.
Second, if you are the one who has less infrastructural power but you have widespread popular support, and can get away with all sorts of shit without anyone giving away your position. This is only effective, of course, if the opposition can’t just eliminate the population along with you. (When you understand “eliminate” not as kill but arrest and remove, you’ve got the Toronto police right here.)
Third, if you are the one who is not in power, but the regime that is in power is so weak and unreliable that effectively you are in the first situation, and can just bulldoze your way into a coup.
The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, for example, seems to be a combination of 2 and 3, with more 3 – the Western forces can’t penetrate much of the area and are mostly limited to very specific urban operations, while the Taliban can go just about everywhere and have plenty of time and patience to recruit or bully as many as they can to their side.
The black bloc, however, I don’t see being anywhere near any of those three situations – I would think the vast majority of people in Canada much more value the status quo than any violent revolution (because frankly the status quo is preferable to anyone who isn’t willing to kill and die and see friends and family do the same for an ideology just yet!); obviously the people in power can still exert more physical force if push comes to shove (however unable or unwilling that physical force is to prevent damage to shop windows and police cars); and to anyone who doesn’t know what they’re about the vandalism just looks like something out of an English football hooligan riot than anything of sociopolitical merit.
I can sort of see a parallel between them and, say, al-Qaeda, in that both are pretty decentralized organizations dedicated to asymmetrical warfare, but without al-Qaeda’s selling point of removing colonial Western powers from places where they don’t belong I think they have a much steeper uphill marketing battle to fight.
But my own highly subjective reaction to vandalism as a tactic? “Talking didn’t work so let’s destroy something because hey at least we’re seeing results that way” didn’t work for Bush and Cheney, it won’t work any better when you’re not the commander of the world’s most powerful military.
I really like your analogy between the BB and the cops. Having been in the sort of information vacuum about the black bloc you describe I’ve even often suspected that the people performing the vandalism were undercover police officers working specifically to justify the extra police powers and security expenses. It’s a small consolation that at least most of them are not, but a consolation nonetheless.
I should specify that the above only relates to the belligerent tactics used, as I’m still going through the links. I’m just thoroughly unconvinced of the persuasive power of framing yourself in the discussion as “those people who yell slogans and break things”, especially when it’s that very group that’s caused so much trouble in the past (Nazi jackbooted thugs, racists in the Civil Rights era, those Syrian neo-Nazis who Chris Hitchens had a run-in with a few years back).
I am interested to hear what you think after you have finished with the links. I think one of the points that I was trying to make in this post is that another use (not encapsulated in the three you mention) is a kind of “experiential theatre.” I agree that most in canada are not willing to disrupt the status quo. But I think the BB would say this is because they don’t experience the same “reality” that racialized, poor, and indigenous persons experience. It is a kind of theatre of the experience to expose what is usually hidden (to most).
Your second reply/point is exactly what I was trying to get at when I was talking about the problems involved when you become/behave like those you oppose. I think this problem is evident in the torture debates as well. Some think torture is justified because the Taliban do it, and it is expedient for getting information. Well, perhaps, but if you do it too, then why are you the “good guys”?
On a less serious note, the above paragraph details the same reason that I hated the first Transformers movie. We are introduced to the autobots and the decepticons, and told the autobots are “good,” but from everything depicted in the film, they seemed exactly the same to me. So then, what makes them good?
So I read the part of the big PDF about the experiential theatre stuff. I can see the reasoning behind it: troll the police into revealing their true hideous monster form and the public will understand the truth.
The problem is that, without enough context, and especially when the context that is there apparently pits it against shadowy armed thugs that appear to proactively want to destroy our world, most of us in the audience end up cheering for the monster.
Let’s say I, Joe Q. Public, a middle-class fourth-generation German immigrant (hence not impoverished or racialized or indigenous), see that a bunch of people are trolling the police into brutalizing everyone, and that the police are in fact doing so.
I’ve got three possible reactions:
1. Conclude that this is how the police normally function and this is really them taking off their mask of civility, and thereby take up the banner in a mass public outcry against this state.
2. Conclude that the people trolling the cops into this action are the ones to blame, and approve of any reasonable means to negate the threat of these people and the danger they represent to the state I live in.
3. Conclude more or less the same things as 2, but also realize that the police are acting unreasonably (whether because of proportionality or merely because they targeted the wrong people), and take up the banner in a mass public outcry for the state to do something to keep the police from stepping out of line.
I can’t in my right mind choose 1 without a whole lot of background. First, I must be aware that the escalation of force reveals something that is the status quo for other people (which I have no reason to assume it is without finding that out from a trusted source), rather than an extreme deviation therefrom in response to a specific stimulus (which lines up pretty well with my prior experience).
Sometimes 1 works. I’m thinking of the Mavi Marmara incident a few weeks back, where sympathy for the Israeli side of the discussion dropped precipitously outside of Israel at least for a while. But in that situation there was already such an easily accessible wealth of information about the arbitrariness and brutality of the siege that once you managed to grab the world spotlight you can get Joe Public to catch up very quickly. And even then the ultimate utility of that incident in ending the Gazans’ suffering is still questionable – and there are still a lot of Joe Publics out there who’d still believe the Israeli line just because they trust the privileged group’s information more. (I must admit at this point I haven’t been keeping track of things there lately and am skimming Google News results right now – it does look somewhat optimistic though, but what change I see is definitely more along the lines of 3 than 1.)
I suspect most people who did not already agree with the anarchists to begin with will take routes 2 or 3. Either of them is bad for the anarchist cause, but 3 I think is even (for the anarchists) worse – if it listens to the people, the state just learns its lessons and becomes more sophisticated and subtle in its control. 3 is particularly bad in terms of intent, if part of my outrage turns out to be fuelled by the thought that our police are idiotically playing into the hands of the black bloc and my complaint is that we (ETA: I didn’t even notice that I typed “we” here at first, but I think it says a lot about the viewpoint I’m expressing) should be more clever and efficient in targeting them.
I know a few otherwise very thoughtful people whose ability to empathize with other human beings quickly shuts off at the mention of G20 protestors – even when I get them to admit (with someone else, not linked) intellectually that the police are stepping out of line in dealing with them and that most of the protestors don’t embrace black bloc tactics, it’s just that much harder for them to care when that “G20 protestor” label is applied to the victims than nearly any other identifiable group except “terrorist”.
I think this is a good segue into the “leftist kitchen sink” nature of the G20 protests. Have you ever been told to do something by someone you live with, then in the middle of doing that thing get told to do something else, then this other thing, and now that we’re talking about this you need to do this too, and why can’t you ever do this other thing right, and you really need to get this one last thing done as soon as possible–it’s incredibly annoying, even from someone you know only means well. And to have every leftist cause get together in a single protest without any unifying message so that any onlooker who doesn’t know all the details of the different factions at play just sees a lot of energy and no direction… to be a bit anachronistic, it just screams “Tea Party” to me.
Here’s the dog I have in this fight: I’m generally okay with police. I think the modern state is deeply flawed, but one of the least worst options humanity has discovered, and I would much rather hedge my bets improving it than replacing it with an unknown, or worse, an older system with modern tech – and inflammatory talk about dissolving it, however fun it might be, doesn’t help that at all.
I think the modern nation-state and its desire for power, for all its deficiencies in this role, is a vital counterbalance against big business and basically the only thing between social democracy and a new feudalism. Smashing Starbucks windows and taunting cops is going to do fuck all if MegaCorp can just hire a couple guys to drag you out back and put a bullet in your head in broad daylight and threaten to sue your strata company for nuisance if its security forces interfere. (The court, of course, would be a private arbitrator for whom MegaCorp is a valued repeat customer.) Anarchy is not, never was, and never will be a viable solution if what you want is respect and equality and justice for all human beings.
These criticisms say nothing about the genuine issues of accountability and gender and racial iniquity that we as a species still have so much to do to resolve. I identify with a lot of causes associated with the “left” and want to see genuine progress towards those causes. And as someone who’d rather play to win than alienate everyone and gloat over a pyrrhic moral victory, the last thing I want to be associated with is a group of ideologues who resort to polarizing and ineffective tactics to push a radical agenda you’d find floating in orbit somewhere off the dark side of Ron Paul. And that, I think, is one of the worst things about the ecumenically incoherent nature of the G20 protest movement.
This is pure violent macho posturing. The past nine years of neocon rule in America shows us exactly what happens when you attain power with that mindset.
Anyway, this turned out a lot longer and rantier than I thought it would be. Yet oddly enough now that I’ve had a night’s sleep I’m still incapable of editing much out. (Heck, I’ve added to it since.)
Just one note about the good guys in cartoons: they’re always the ones whose leading alpha male is nicer to his subordinates. And are very often the ones who are trying to maintain the status quo. I have no idea how this maps on to what we’re talking about now, though, so I’m just throwing this out there. :V
Matt, thanks for the long comment, which you have obviously thought about quite a bit. I do still have some questions about what you said.
I think you are right about the three possible reactions. I also think you are right that most will go either the route of 2 or 3, rather than 1. But, I still think the question I raised about the depth vs. breadth is relevant here. Remember: “Antonia Zerbisias noted in the Toronto Star today that there was a marked difference in the reaction to the protest among those who followed the news on Twitter and those who followed the news from more typical sources (e.g. the CBC).” People who followed on twitter were more likely to actually be at the protests, or to be younger people. And I think those who experienced the brutality of the police reaction really were radicalized more than they would otherwise be.
For example, I had one friend who is rather conservative, who was caught in a Kettle as he was walking home from a Jays baseball game. Since this experience, he has been posting updates about G20 info on his FaceBook page, and sounds like he is still really pissed about his experience. I don’t think he will become an anarchist because of this, but he seems to have moved away from his original conservatism.
I had other friends who were more “left” and they all seem to have been really charged over the whole ordeal. They are continuing to go to and organize protests against the police use of force and to support the people arrested. Again, I don’t think they are going to become anarchists, but they are more charged than usual.
If the goal is to mobilize people, and to mobilize them in a way that lasts beyond the protest, then that goal might be met. I am not entirely convinced that the BB tactic is meant to turn people into anarchists. One thing they keep saying is that there are multiple sides to the resistance. I think if they convince people to get involved in the community, then that might be enough. I can’t remember exactly where he said it, but in one of these three videos, the Stimulator talks about how the other side of the movement is building community, with things like free food distribution and so on (I don’t have time to look them over right now).
So even if people don’t end up accepting anarchist beliefs, if they end up mobilized to improve the conditions of their communities, including things like pushing for better and more fair policing, then I think this might be considered a success. One of the things in the three videos linked above was that there seemed to be a sense of solidarity expressed with others who might disagree with the BB tactic, but who nonetheless volunteer and work toward building fairer and more just communities.
I have more comments, but will have to post them later.
There is a pretty good collection of research on unequal policing at Tim Wise’ blog from Sunday.
Here is another video, that I think demonstrates the point above, especially in the interview of the Criminal defense lawyer. She said she now has a different perspective because of what she experienced. I think this was the intended effect.
Fantastically well written post my friend! It is nice to see someone who doesn’t formulate an opinion before investigating the facts and approaching the question from a variety of angles.
Keep it up!
Thanks JR, I’ve been enjoying your blog too.
Maybe it’s just the Dziekanski and the Wu incidents are still very fresh on my mind, as well as the Olympics during which the cops did nothing visibly amiss but we all knew it was because they knew everyone was watching them like a hawk, which is causing me to mentally downplay the contrast between the Toronto police’s behaviour at the G20 and the status quo.
I tend to think of this sort of PR stuff as a sort of warfare, inasmuch as warfare is a sort of diplomacy, and so the thought of proactively instigating violence towards such ends does not sit well with me.
I wonder, at any rate, how many people’s eyes are opened versus how many people are alienated. With all respect to Johannesson’s view, her experience strikes me as primarily a matter of finally learning what it feels like to be in the client’s position, which is of great value but isn’t quite the same as turning someone towards your side who wasn’t basically on your side to begin with. Just by learning what you need to learn to be a criminal lawyer she’s got plenty of the necessary background to understand her experience properly.
And even then I wonder if, all other things equal, a step forward and a step back cancel each other out to be equal to no movement at all…
The bubble thing made it on to both the MSM and Failblog.
This may be much closer to the Mavi Marmara than I thought.
Yes, it does seem to go on. I read this article in the Globe where people are drawing on G20 experiences to describe the experience of racial profiling, so…
I wouldn’t say I’m surprised by mainstream media use of terms such as “incomprehensible” and so-forth, although I’m not clear about their motivation. I know a lot of people assume papers are in league with powerful interests, but it may be more simple and less nefarious than that. A newspaper columnist, meeting with the leader of a third party in Saskatchwan that I’m involved with, said that the reason the media ignores us is that, “We want a two-party system because it makes for simple stories that more readers can understand.” That’s all there is to it. They are not pushing a right-or-left-wing agenda, they are just applying the principles of Star Wars aesthetics–basic, simple, dualistic, and stereotypical. Not for the sake of social control, but for the sake of selling papers.
If this is true of media in general, then the dismissive reporting on the protests and refusal to distinguish the myriad groups involved, may not be a politically-motivated choice, but an aesthetic one subordinated to a commercial one. And it may not be so much the will of journalists as the bounds set by editors that are to blame.
Thanks for the comment, Devin.
I am wondering from what you wrote, though, how do the papers in Saskatchewan report on national politics? ‘Cause there are four national parties. Also, I find the statement that readers are too simple-minded to understand complex political arguments really cynical. I am not even convinced that having only “two sides to a story” makes a more dramatic narrative. Further, I don’t see why the inclusion of a protesters voice needs to be complex or boring. SubMedia.tv produces a show “It’s the End of the World as We Know It which explains things pretty simply.
That said, I am not really worried about the powerful interests, though, I don’t think that saying the reporters–or at least their editors–are aligned with powerful interests is nefarious. Clearly they are, because they need to keep their advertisers. Newspapers have never run on subscriptions, but instead on ad revenue.
What I do find strange, though, is the admission of incompetence. Reporters all over were saying that they can’t find the leaders, can’t find any texts, and so forth. That to me seems really odd. Why would they be asserting their inability so strongly? It is not true of all media, however. For example, the CBC did a report that seemed to show some research. But even here the research seems to involve finding “experts” and “leaders” to appear on camera. This technique seems ill-adapted to the subject they are covering. It is the lack of adaptability, combined with the admission of incompetence that I find so strange.
“What exactly do these numerous journalists hope to convey to their readers with these statements of ignorance and inability to track down pretty basic sources of information?”
That’s a very interesting question, and not enough people ask it of their news sources, or themselves. It reminds me of when Larry King admitted he doesn’t use email or know how to search the Internet. It’s as if they expect people to admire their ability despite their obvious gap in education.
Thanks for the comment saskboy.
This was certainly the question I found most interesting. I dunno whether you could think of more possible answers, but I could only come up with two: 1) they are admitting incompetence and that traditional journalist methods/traditional journalism is dead (so ok, we already knew that, why is that news?) or 2) they expect that their position as “experts” will mean that others will think if they can’t find the info, then the info does not exits (but then that seems like a pretty deliberate, or as Devin might say, nefarious, abuse of power).
Do you have alternative explanations that you can think of?
[...] media” seems incapable of figuring out what is going on. The same thing happened after the G20 in Toronto, and I wrote about that here. I am a philosopher, and what we do is analyse arguments, so I am going to comment on [...]
[...] they are doing it just by reading the internet. This is exactly the same way that I was able to sort out what was going on in the G20. If you read and can research, then you can figure out the movement. It is simply not [...]