seattle.indymedia.org

PMR in the Local Corporate Press

author: acumensch
Aug 01, 2008 12:45

The Tacoma News Tribune (TNT) has a strategy for superficial reporting that works in the same way most corporate media works. Last night Ian and Drew from the TNT focused on what was peculiar and humorous 'about' the activists, neglecting to take notice of what was peculiar and humorous 'to' the activists. This is perhaps the single most annoying tactic of the bourgeois media, since it is not only a "superficial" excuse for reporting, it is also a way to characterize any action in a way that seems like real reporting but is essentially degrading.

Drew and Ian focused primarily on the mundane aspects of last night's events, characterizing every movement the demonstrators made as puerile, uncoordinated, and above all, small. Without explanation, most of the vignettes they talk about are entirely from ignorance, since they are only a series of first glance judgments, which play up the roles of the 'authorities', whereas any kind of opposition demands more explanation, and is not given any. The de facto position of the reader is meant to side with the authorities.

At one point I was asked by the Ian and Drew what the protesters thought and what their goals were. I told them, "Why don't you ask them?" They replied apologetically, "We know our coverage is superficial..." and insisted that I tell them why the action was taking place even though equipment was moving to Fort Lewis, etc. I gave them my talking points about the action, and told them that their superficial coverage would invariably get its "truth" from the police chief's perspective, which is why they cannot be trusted. At that point they decided to speak to a couple activists, just to show they cared.

I will try to post some of my video soon, but unfortunately today is a moving day for me.

the corporate media

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/crime/2008/08/01/protestors_sing_chant_take_pictures_at_p

add a comment on this article

Comments

More from the TNT website
Posted by: somebody at Aug 02, 2008 15:08

found at http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/military/

Any thought to moving Fort Lewis cargo via ports elsewhere?

Posted by Mike Gilbert @ 11:15:55 am

That's basically the question I put to the spokesman for the Army Surface Deployment and Distribution Command at Scott Air Force Base, where they make the decisions about how to move Army gear to and from the United States from Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else.

The short answer: Not really.

Actually, what I asked was: In light of the increased security issues at recent operations at the ports of Tacoma and Olympia, did the SDDC consider sending this latest shipment home via some other port – Beaumont, Texas, or Port Hueneme, Calif., for example? And how much more would it cost to move all that stuff – 900+ vehicles and 300+ cargo containers -- to Fort Lewis by rail?

Via e-mail, response from spokesman Ken Holder:

"First and foremost, we do what's best for the Warfighter to get their equipment to the point of need quickly and safely. We conduct analysis of the following criteria when we're selecting an off-load port -- port congestion on the day the ship is scheduled to discharge; geographic location of the port as it relates to the Warfighter; intermodal solutions (truck and rail); and port operating capability -- meaning the seaport infrastructure is able to upload or discharge the Warfighter's equipment. Cost is always a concern, but not the deciding factor. We continually strive to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, however operational requirements are sometimes the priority.

... While cost is always a concern, it is not the deciding factor when we're selecting where a ship would offload cargo -- we look at port congestion, port operating capability, intermodal solutions, geographic location of the port in relation to the Warfighter and what's best for the Warfighter.

The sooner the Warfighters have their equipment, the sooner they can get about the task of getting it ready for any future contingency."

Not using the Port of Tacoma
Posted by: manofsteelbeams at Aug 03, 2008 20:11

In reality, the US Military possesses the capability to move their equipment over the shore and out to the ships at sea without using any port facilities at all.

I suspect that the US Army logistics and transportation professionals would relish the opportunity to exercise their Logistics Over the Shore (LOTS) capabilities. My bet is that they would get it done faster than using the Ports, but they are required to use them by Executive Order to support the local economies.

LOTS
Posted by: anon at Aug 04, 2008 17:01

Actually, LOTS is pretty time intensive, requires a lot of resources, and is used when you don't have a port or sufficient port facilities available. A port is always going to be faster, since then you don't have to put a shipment on a lighter, have the lighter drive to an adequate beach, discharge the shipment, turn around and repeat. Plus ports have much more and much better MHE available.

True Enough
Posted by: manofsteelbeams at Aug 04, 2008 23:28

It is true that Ports (in reality) would be faster. I concede that point without question.

Additionally, we are required by the President and the Congress to use civilian ports (and civilian labor) where feasible.

seattle indymedia center

Newsfeed

Get Involved

Search

Information

IMC Network

PMR in the Local Corporate Press