A cultura da abjecção
Deborah Orr, no Guardian, lembra o essencial: não são apenas os aparentes actos criminosos do império Murdoch que são graves, também são graves os seus métodos «legítimos». Murdoch criou uma cultura do lixo. Lixo estético, ético, jornalístico e humano. Acabou com a cultura da «deferência», mas também tornou normal a cultura da abjecção.
But for many years there has been widespread acquiescence to the idea that it's reasonable, even necessary, to punish imperfect humans for their success or wealth – particularly when that success is wholly or even partly put down to the agency of the media in the first place (...). But the attitude itself is wrong (...).
The funny thing is this: while Murdoch's empire may now be crumbling, one of the magnate's objectives has been fulsomely achieved, and remains, as yet, unchallenged. He wanted to destroy British deference to people who had, or seemed to have, a sense of entitlement. His own sense of entitlement, fostered among all of the lieutenants in his own organisation and beyond, trumped everyone else's.
The compact was between him and the public whose interest, however prurient, his newspapers piqued, directly or indirectly. It was Murdoch, his clients and all those others who picked up the stories, ran them and read them versus the rest of the culture. Much of that culture has accepted to some degree that public figures (...) are always, in some sense, fair game. I repeat. Even now, the debate is all about illegal means, not bogus, self-righteous, spiteful, resentful, petty, judgmental and repellently self-interested attitudes.
Britain can only save itself from Murdoch by re-examining that baleful legacy, and understanding that by threatening the exposure and condemnation of private, human failings, the Murdoch empire, and much of the rest of the press, held the politicians, the police, and the entire population, to ransom. (...)
But for many years there has been widespread acquiescence to the idea that it's reasonable, even necessary, to punish imperfect humans for their success or wealth – particularly when that success is wholly or even partly put down to the agency of the media in the first place (...). But the attitude itself is wrong (...).
The funny thing is this: while Murdoch's empire may now be crumbling, one of the magnate's objectives has been fulsomely achieved, and remains, as yet, unchallenged. He wanted to destroy British deference to people who had, or seemed to have, a sense of entitlement. His own sense of entitlement, fostered among all of the lieutenants in his own organisation and beyond, trumped everyone else's.
The compact was between him and the public whose interest, however prurient, his newspapers piqued, directly or indirectly. It was Murdoch, his clients and all those others who picked up the stories, ran them and read them versus the rest of the culture. Much of that culture has accepted to some degree that public figures (...) are always, in some sense, fair game. I repeat. Even now, the debate is all about illegal means, not bogus, self-righteous, spiteful, resentful, petty, judgmental and repellently self-interested attitudes.
Britain can only save itself from Murdoch by re-examining that baleful legacy, and understanding that by threatening the exposure and condemnation of private, human failings, the Murdoch empire, and much of the rest of the press, held the politicians, the police, and the entire population, to ransom. (...)
às
02:19
<< Página inicial