Brian Eno -- "The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Brian Eno's article in Time's European edition.

"liberal American media," my ass.

― Tad (llamasfur), Friday, 14 March 2003 19:27 (twenty-three years ago)

whoops, here's the link.

(nb: if this has already been discussed, feel free to delete -- couldn't find it mentioned anywhere else on ILXOR)

― Tad (llamasfur), Friday, 14 March 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Worst porn come-on line I've heard.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 14 March 2003 19:39 (twenty-three years ago)

As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought — America's real wealth — is squandered.

B-b-but...we've got "Are You Hot" with Lorenzo Lamas!

― Joe (Joe), Friday, 14 March 2003 21:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Great link Tad. Eno is God!

― chris sallis, Saturday, 15 March 2003 20:02 (twenty-three years ago)

did bush really say that the u.s. is "the single surviving model of human progress."? did eno take it out of context?
seriously, what an ignorant thing to say.

― dyson (dyson), Saturday, 15 March 2003 20:46 (twenty-three years ago)

liberal american media your ass or not, Tad, why do you seriously think anybody in America would need to read Brian Eno or even care? We have our own pundits.

I'm confused as to why the American press should be catching shit for not printing the moaning of a European record producer.

― Millar (Millar), Saturday, 15 March 2003 20:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Gd forbid you shld get another perspective on things.

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Saturday, 15 March 2003 21:00 (twenty-three years ago)

We have our own pundits

but they are obviously really effete or else US politicians wouldn't be able to get away with so much.

― MarkH (MarkH), Sunday, 16 March 2003 18:13 (twenty-three years ago)

We have our own pundits.

and a sad lot of flatulent gasbags American pundits are. do you really think Brian Eno is worse than, say, George Will, Bill Bennett, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, or any of the other screaming jackasses who pollute the American airwaves?

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 16 March 2003 18:24 (twenty-three years ago)

That's right, I forget that Europe, being second best only to Heaven itself, has no rubberstamp conservative commentary in the media whatsoever.

Don't throw a bunch of shitheap writers at me and pretend to act like that's why Brian Eno (erstwhile political knowitall that he is and full of valuable comments abt foreign policy) didn't get printed, or deserves to get printed.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 19:22 (twenty-three years ago)

don't project views onto people that they don't have, or that their posts don't imply. it's dishonest, and akin to the tactics used by "shitheap writers." AFAIC, Mr. Eno is as "qualified" to talk about foreign policy -- or anything else -- as George Will (both have the same amount of "foreign policy" experience).

and no, i'm not implying that there's some "conspiracy" that Mr. Eno's article hasn't been printed in Time's American edition. though i do find it curious that the American media will print the drunken ravings oF Christopher Hitchens (who is also as "qualified" to talk about foreign policy as Brian Eno), or those few foreigners who agree with Dubya.

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 16 March 2003 19:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Why is that curious to you, Tad? Do you find it curious that country music fans are unappreciative of the stance recently taken by the Dixie Chicks? Do you find it curious that George is still doing well in the polls despite fucking the economy in the ear? Perhaps you think that it is easier to sell magazines by telling people things they don't like to hear. You should probably not attempt to become a publisher.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 19:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Millar dude relax or something, Jesus

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:34 (twenty-three years ago)

hah...as it looks like war is finally gonna happen I think we'll hear the sound of millar getting a hard on so get ready to hide.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:36 (twenty-three years ago)

CRUNCH

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:37 (twenty-three years ago)

obThread, Eno is a decent thinker & what's refreshing about what he has to say is that he doesn't needlessly overstate things, as a general rule, which makes for propositions that are hard to disagree with unless you'd sort of already decided to disagree before you'd examined the argument

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:39 (twenty-three years ago)

By-the-by, "the drunken ravings of Christopher Hitchens," Tad, is not only a brilliant clause, but an excellent band name

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:40 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, it's pretty hard to disagree with the proposition that I & all my neighbours and friends have turned into narrowminded assholes.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:48 (twenty-three years ago)

its something you must consider.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:50 (twenty-three years ago)

But Millar that's not what Eno said at all, that's just yer paranoia or something speaking -- TS: reading vs. skimming?

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:55 (twenty-three years ago)

i.e. "I am American also, Millar, and I love being American, yet mystriously I do not feel insulted by Eno's article"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 20:57 (twenty-three years ago)

I like Brian Eno articles better when he's talking about the kind of porn mags he buys.

― Nicole (Nicole), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:00 (twenty-three years ago)

ie this article says nothing really new.

― Nicole (Nicole), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But are the porn mags he's buying new either?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

i suppose i am biased but i can't help finding Christopher Caldwell's riposte to Eno's article less respectful in its sweeping generalisations and kneejeark rhetoric. "European sympathy after Sept. 11 has largely evaporated " Caldwell observes, seemingly implying this is more to do with the fickle, superficial attitude of Europeans than what constantly appears to us as a disturbing stance by the Bush admin. in reality, this is a pathetic war of words that helps nobody, and both sides of the Atlantic seem as bad as each other if these articles are anything to go by.

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:07 (twenty-three years ago)

...and why should sympathy for the victims of Sept. 11 (including amongst the victims ourselves as a collective, having lost so many of our citizens) extend to sympathy for the Iraq attack, which has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with Sept 11? nothing nothing nothing! That's what makes this whole thing so devious that it's like Bush is ultra-evil galactic originator of evil! He's like a phone company adding phantom charges to the end of the bill: "Oh, yeah, remember that War on Terror deal? Well we're going to attack Iraq," trusting (rightly) that nobody of consequence will say to his face: "But Iraq hasn't done anything to anybody that merits invasion, unless you're all of a sudden concerned about the Kurds, which would be surprising since you haven't seemed to have any idea who they are for the past God-knows-how-many years"

That Salon attack on Nader voters was bullshit however

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:15 (twenty-three years ago)

well it gets more and more apparent by the day that attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam might just lessen the threat of Saddam's chemical weapons falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists...although my feeble brain is still a little unsure of the logic regarding that. then there's your 'neutralise potential 'euro-isation' of Iraqi oil prices' theory. i would just rather keep telling myself its about that than something as trivial as 'finishing off what Daddy started' and 'scapegoating for 9/11' which i do think are tired theories and just not as high on the list of reasons as the aforementioned ones.

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:25 (twenty-three years ago)

well, I suspect that the actual motivations are quite complex, and have something to do with oil & something else to do with positioning & something else to do with Israel & something else to do with, yes, lingering resentment over the Gulf War, but the chem. weapons thing -- aren't there plenty of places we're completely ignoring, about whose evil despots we hear nothing even though they practically write their own pro-American propganda pieces? The focus on Iraq is suspicious precisely because Iraq isn't unique in its opposition to U.S. policy, sympathy to anti-Israel (per the U.S. this means "anti-U.S.") causes, etc.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:32 (twenty-three years ago)

darnlelle for prez!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:35 (twenty-three years ago)

I am in agreement with stevem for the second time in as many days, which I'm not sure how I shd feel about since it has now crossed the line from 'odd and relatively pleasant coincidence' into 'spooky' territory.

I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere - the arguments from both sides are getting less and less intelligent (few people seem to have any grip on the real motivations for either Europe's or America's behavior at this point) and it would save us all a great deal of bothersome apologizing afterwards if they just went ahead and did what they're going to do.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh and I agree with Julio too, trading one kneejerk dope for another is a fantastic idea and EXACTLY what I'm hoping for in 2004

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:49 (twenty-three years ago)

that was a little harsh, sorry

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:49 (twenty-three years ago)

motivations of both sides: proving that they are in control of events
delusions of both sides: belief that they are in control of events

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:52 (twenty-three years ago)

when I appoint myself tsar there will be much 'splaining to do, Mr Millar

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Millar you must show me your huge list of 'stuff i disagree with stevem about' sometime because all i can think of anymore is bloody Tiny Toons....oh wait, there was that 'anti-war protest' thing...

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 16 March 2003 21:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Millar accusing anybody of being "kneejerk" = dictionary definition of "balls"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 16 March 2003 22:10 (twenty-three years ago)

America is far too diverse a place to be pinned down by someone like Brian Eno. On the other hand, the whole notion of "individualism" here is pernicious--good in small doses or when talking about frontier societies perhaps, but bad when you're talking about trying to build an equitable society. It's a useful piece for people who haven't grasped that very basic idea, but for the rest of us--presumably, that includes most ILX posters--it's just stating the very, very obvious.

― Jess Hill (jesshill), Sunday, 16 March 2003 23:53 (twenty-three years ago)

the idea of a right-wing media in the us is an interesting fiction. fox draws something like an average of 800,000 viewers. let's count right-wing outlets on television and then left-wing and we will use television because it is the most dominant medium still, ok fox and maybe bloomberg but their audience is surely miniscule. on the left abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnbc(although bill wohlman hardly shows his face anymore so they might tick more right now but they're largely a business channel so just throw them out), cnn, pbs(bill moyers= the new ezra pound) and their collective audience is in the tens of millions. rather is a democratic fundraiser. george will sits with three liberal commentators including a clinton staffer. safire(the nytimes token right winger) sits with mcgrory , broder and russert--yes yes the right wing cabal. i forget who is on cbs face the nation but scheafer is a liberal. talk radio is the only medium dominated by the right wing, mainly because they were squeezed into this tiny slice of media bandwidth from lack of access to more mainstream outlets and it was largely ignored by liberals because it was a ghetto before limbaugh. most shows on network television have a liberal bent, west wing is free publicity for the democratic party.

― keith (keithmcl), Monday, 17 March 2003 00:35 (twenty-three years ago)

fox draws something like an average of 800,000 viewers.

And Ann Coulter thinks they're all liberals lusting after her, which is the funny part.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 March 2003 03:17 (twenty-three years ago)

So would this be the Needle in the Camel's Eye?

― Homotextual, Monday, 17 March 2003 11:46 (twenty-three years ago)

none of the ppl keith mentions---including the west wing, a rad-lib wet dream fiction---are even faintly "left" economically, any more than clinton was

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 March 2003 12:07 (twenty-three years ago)

at least that means that the coming crash can only be blamed on free market gibberish so *hurrah!!* (in the sense of winning the argument but losing the patient)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 March 2003 12:09 (twenty-three years ago)

millar- I was being reasonable ;-)

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 17 March 2003 12:28 (twenty-three years ago)

hush mark s you'll get the people who imagine gore would have kept us out of this mess all lathered-up like

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:35 (twenty-three years ago)

talk radio is the only medium dominated by the right wing, mainly because they were squeezed into this tiny slice of media bandwidth from lack of access to more mainstream outlets and it was largely ignored by liberals because it was a ghetto before limbaugh. most shows on network television have a liberal bent, west wing is free publicity for the democratic party.

I do not agree. Local TV news in this country is obviously right-wing, since it focuses on crime stories instead of the real graft and chicanery that goes on in local govts in bed w/real estate developers, etc., who are the true evil people in this country, not someone who sticks up a convenience store. This slant keeps the middle classes up in arms against the "lower" without hipping them to what their supposedly benevolent superiors are doing with their tax money. All this is so blindingly obvious to me, it's ridiculous. Read Myron Orfield on the process by which tax dollars are used to create sprawl, etc., and the efforts by local media to suppress this information (tax-sharing is "socialism"), and weep.

― Jess Hill (jesshill), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:39 (twenty-three years ago)

You guyses have broad definitions of "right wing" and "left wing"; I would presume that to be a member of either category, you'd have to have a pronounced ideological orientation. Thus, Fox News just fits, most local news and indeed most major-circulation newspapers decidedly do not. It's true that Fox News and talk radio represent a niche. Mainly because to keep their influence and circulation it behooves news outlets to stay somewhere in the middle (whatever the middle is at the moment). Granted the middle may have moved rightward, but doesn't the very nature of a "wing" imply that it's off-center?

The effects of mainstream news coverage may be seen to benefit one political program or another, but that's a different issue.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 17 March 2003 16:39 (twenty-three years ago)

It's probably the case that generally Europe is to the left on the states. It could easily be argued that Europe's moderate right is to the left of the Democrats.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 00:55 (twenty-three years ago)

The effects of mainstream news coverage may be seen to benefit one political program or another, but that's a different issue.

True, but my point is that not reporting where tax dollars go and instead reporting that someone shot someone else over drugs or held up a bank is a pretty big political program, to me at least. You hardly have to be a "leftist" to see that spending money to benefit developing suburbs over inner cities (or in Orfield's classic formuation, outer-ring suburbs which are now decaying too) is a major part of why this country has its current problems--gated communities, etc., as Eno points out. What is so distressing is the way that expressing even the mildest critique of these kind of processes gets you branded an enemy of "individual freedom" and so forth. It's unimaginable that any mainstream news outlet would ever do so.

― Jess Hill (jesshill), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 15:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Also the assertion that the Fox News Channel is some sort of underdog is ridiculous. I have right here a full-page color ad they dickishly took out in The Nation proclaiming "Thanks to the American people. You've made the FOX News Cahnnel the most watched, most trusted news channel." (Based on Nielsen ratings.) Not only is that scary (really scary) it demonstrates the stranglehold the right is getting on the American media--every other network is scrambling towards the right in an effort to steal Fox's thunder. News as entertainment is turning into news as entertainment as Bush propaganda machine.

― adam (adam), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 15:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Possible argument: Bush and co are in control of events.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, you gotta hand it to Victor N. at the Nation for running that ad...

― Jess Hill (jesshill), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 19:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Um, what I don't understand is why people seem to think that Eno is saying anything different from several hundred US "leftist" pundits have said?

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 19:52 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.