OK. I think I should try to unpack my last post a bit; specifically, my speculative closing line "So much for independent media...?" was a bit flip, and I don't mean to sound like a hyper-critical type. I've heard plenty, and nothing's 'pure' or unproblematically authentic, least of all processes of representation at a distance.
Nonetheless, it is interesting that this item if popping up (e.g. being 'amplified') on a number of 'anarchist' blogs (saw it tis morning on penseenoir.wordpress.com as well), but often w/o attribution. I only traced the source through my recollection of where I first saw it, and the greeceriots blog linked to the AFP articles a 'original source' (unless you follow this, you don't see an attribution).
Obviously, it seems like a good story - anarchists taking the direct initiative to support someone caught between struggle and the state. One interpretation would have it that amplifiying a 'straight' news story could build credibility with those disinclined to tryust 'indy/DIY' sources. But then it makes no sense to de-emphasize or omit the attribution. Another would suggest that you take good news wherever you can get it.
Some immediate questions, then, concern potential/intended audiences...and the relationship between mainstream media and independent information forums such as radically-inclined blogs. If AFP has bad things to say about anarchists, they're castigated (dupes for state propaganda, right?); if they have good things to say, they are reproduced and circulated (but, it would appear, without attribution). This just struck me as an interesting problem...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment