Reply #37: What's so funny?

[Bryan Sacks]

Rich,

When I was in graduate school, the biggest joke running was the credentialization process. It was the one subject we all understood would never be given the scrutiny it deserves. Exactly who is positioned to expose the credentialization process for what it was? The weaker student who got passed along despite failing his prelims because of his personal connections to his professors? The professors who did the passing along?

Over time, everyone in academia gets implicated in systems like these. Very few people can remain unblemished. Regarding prelims, what i'm describing is a conspiracy. Professors in essence agree that "We will all pass along this student who we all know has failed to meet our stated standards for reason we do not want made public, and we will lie about this if asked." Professors who hate each other nevertheless get in league with one another because they need each other's cooperation in this conspiracy from time to time, and for other professional reasons.

The corporate media operates slightly differently, with a similar result. Do you really think that all of those White House reporters, many of whom are very smart people, haven't known on some level that they're been lied to by this Administration AS A MATTER OF POLICY on a host of issues for five years now? Of course they know. But they play along, out of careerist motives, cowardice, protective descriptions of self that separate them from the corrupt liars they report on and other profeessional considerations. That's why when a story like the Downing Street Minutes breaks, one which categorically illustrates that the government has been lying for years, the corporate media still tread lightly. Because they've ingested the lies for so long and conveyed them to the public, they're somewhat psychologically invested in keeping up the facade. They can't go nuts about exposing the truth because they feel implicated in the system of lies.

In government, I suspect, it's something very similar.

The idea that whistleblowers always have someone to go to--in academia, in government, in media--is what's laughable. Has Sibel Edmonds gone to people? Did you read the "Vanity Fair" article this summer? Guess that investigation of Dennis Hastert will be wrapping up any minute, huh? And those Able Danger fellows, heck, there the toast of the USA now that they've once again exp
None of this necessarily 'discredit' government or academia (it IS meant to discredit the corporate media). It just points out that, like all institutions, neither seeks to expose it own inner workings which, if light were shone on them, would appear quite ugly.