Leave the news to real newsies: Matt Smith is right to criticize mainstream media coverage of the war, and even to assert that anyone with brains doesn't get their news from it ["alt.war," April 2]. But he goes on to write that no one is reporting that the U.S. got into a war from which it will not be able to extract itself (as if asserting a future truth is journalism) and then offers a list of tedious progressive Web sites (Working Assets? Give me a break) that apparently revel in reporting such assertions. Not to mention the journalists (Salon.com, the Bay Guardian) who all sit in cozy, expensive apartments in Noe Valley and type out serious musings from coffeehouses in the Outer Mission in what is probably the richest, safest, whitest large city in the U.S., if not the world.
Smith is just as much a dolt as those in the mainstream media; indeed, he wouldn't exist as a journalist without them. Yet, if he works hard, he'll soon get offered a gig at the Chronicle, which his type always accepts, declaring cynically, "After so many years at the Weekly, I feel I could do more at a large publication."
Why not reveal, finally, to the world the strange connection between nose piercings, blond dreads, comfy post-college lifestyles, and the urge, rare among most people, to throw oneself at policemen and lie down in front of cars without a care in the world? Smith's upcoming trip to Berkeley, promised in his article, will give him a great opportunity to research this story. Leave the rest to real journalists.
Gregory Michael Johnson
Via the Internet
Nice theory, no examples: Smith's piece brought back painful memories of how I looked at the world during the Vietnam War era. I recall using the same rhetoric: If you do not agree with me you must be ignorant, brainwashed, or merely uneducated. The fact was that if you disagreed with me, no amount of information gathered would have sufficed for me to respect your point of view because I felt morally superior as long as you disagreed with me.
Just like Smith mentions in his article, I felt at the time that the mainstream media lacked depth and was not telling the truth. If you wanted the "truth" in those days I would have pointed you to the analysis of the East Village Other or Village Voice -- the alternative sources of the '60s in NYC; if you questioned their iconic views, I would have deemed you a village idiot.
I felt like I was on a mission to save the world from warmongering, prejudice, patriotism, greed, capitalism, and inequality, and was extremely intolerant of people who did not think just like me. I was a revolutionary who had just helped shut down Hunter College; I aspired to become a writer or painter and looked down on my father's humble blue-collar background and his lack of education. Just like Bill Clinton -- for whom I voted twice -- I finagled my way out of serving in the military to avoid ending up being shot at in Nam. The draft was fine for the uneducated, but not for me. Free speech was an OK notion, but I wanted anyone who disagreed to please shut up. I just loved flashing peace signs.
I read Smith's article with nostalgia and was impressed with the number of sources quoted, but he never provided a single relevant example that would justify sifting through that tangle of www's. His article reminds me of the Andy Warhol movies of the '60s: You watch with anticipation waiting for something to happen, but nothing ever does.
Robert Cabrera
Berkeley
Thanks for agreeing: I've been reading Smith's column off and on for a few years now, and this is the first that has inspired me to write back. I have been thinking that this war would be known for the emergence of the Internet as the best (and almost only) source for decent news, and it is nice to be right for once.
Like television coverage of Vietnam, it is a breakthrough in reporting technology and will forever change the way people with half a fucking goddamned brain get their information. Can you imagine if all we had was TV and the Chronic? Ech, I'd rather not ....
Simon Bolivar
Oakland
