Maybe sowing confusion is the real purpose?*
According to Chuck Lane, a longtime Editorial Writer for the Washington Post:
Banks aren’t the bad guys.Chuck's entire essay establishes, at best, a vague position for a Washington Post editorial - so what is it's purpose?
Is he referring to some banks, or to no banks whatsoever? Or is he laying the cornerstone for the message that not all bank executives, or no bank executives whatsoever ... should ever be held accountable for their part in propagating significant local events as well as setting industry trends? How many readers - new or old - can tell exactly what Chuck means? Other's have different views on some of the points Chuck offers up, and even on the varying motives of diverse journalists.
Chuck Lane's current editorial - again, for the Washington Post, a prominent newspaper that prides itself on educating citizens - may, unfortunately, serve as a convenient reference for many future editorials seeking to slowly disorient and sway the views of an impatient public always in need of quick answers and consistent talking points.
What if some quick answers can be completely wrong, and even disastrously mal-adaptive? Can that be useful? One famous strategist, Napoleon Bonaparte, supposedly had a statement on just that topic. Undoubtedly, Napoleon wasn't the first to think this way, or the last.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Does that strategy embody a helpful or harmful outlook for citizens of a supposed democracy? It all depends on the intended outcome, and where that intention falls in the spectrum between dog-eat-dog vs "a more perfect union"!
If Chuck Lane feels that some citizens are his enemies, it would be nice to know which citizens those are. All of us, or just some of us? And, if that's the case, exactly what mistake does he want to help us make? The mistake of NOT being an informed electorate? For propagandists, vaguely worded precedent statements serve the same function as subliminal advertising. Their only purpose is to prime the emotional disposition of audiences.
Chuck Lane's record and position also leaves many citizens truly baffled about the politics of the Washington Post's current and former owners. Do the WashPo's owners too, feel that some citizens of the USA are their enemies? This is very confusing ground, of course, but not the sort of situation we should be forced to wonder about when discussing the motives of a nationally prominent news organization.
When answers are needed, it helps to start with a useful question, and then pursue answers with adaptive methods. As George Washington supposedly wrote to James Madison: "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." Unfortunately, Chuck Lane's current editorial on bank policy doesn't stand up as a very good example. If anything, it gums up our political machine and worsens the next impending storm.
Is there more to know about why Chuck is there at the Washington Post? At whose will? Whom does he serve? Are his messages just consistent cover for hidden goals?
When answers are needed, it helps to start with a useful question, and then pursue answers with adaptive methods. As George Washington supposedly wrote to James Madison: "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." Unfortunately, Chuck Lane's current editorial on bank policy doesn't stand up as a very good example. If anything, it gums up our political machine and worsens the next impending storm.
Is there more to know about why Chuck is there at the Washington Post? At whose will? Whom does he serve? Are his messages just consistent cover for hidden goals?
* Lyndon LaRouche's writing was also spectacularly confusing and disorienting, but strangely effective - at least for the goal of advancing his, hard to fathom, personally desired outcome.
