these are warnings to be vigilant and to read between the lines.it does not mean treating everything as either true or untrue but requires the sharp application of our intellectualand other skills to discriminate and differentiate.
it seems to me this principle applies at a number of levels and all the time.
i am thinking about this and hopefully applying it now as i write this and over many past days in relation to events in egypt.unable for reasons i wont go into here,to go to egypt myself im eager to understand and thirsty for knowledge about it.inevitably this leads to the media,much of which must inevitably be dominated by the mainstream meia which are themselves informed by the dominant ideas and idealogies around us.
i note the subtle shifts in language and attitude which whilst informed by the deadweight of dominant ideas is not the result of a single dimensional conspiracy.it cuts in a variety of ways,and im very aware that any language and thought from the relative comfort of an armchair in europe is itself significant and may appear to be easy.
i will restrict myself to one or two illustrations:i heard one journalist refer to young demonstrators in tones of respect but then moments later as a mob.one minute unknown men are dangerously armed vigilantes and the next a local militia protectin their own communities.the violence most of the time seems attributed as if all parties are wqually responsible when it is clearly not the case.
its also noteworthy that most of thepoliticians and some of the journalists talkj about the demonstrators are a stage army that can be called onto or off the streets like puppets.that may be the case for the reactionary defenders of the regime but not for the opponents-and actually its undoubtedly dangerous to apply such single dimensionality to any participants.its certainly not true for the dissenters from oppression who in turn are not likely to be simply persuaded by easy words like dialogue,without real and substantial,meaningful content.
(to be continued)