The Rise of Weaponized Flak in the New Media Era. Brian Michael Goss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ support for Dilma’s impeachment (Arnaudo, 2017, p. 18).

      Dilma was a prisoner of Brazil’s military dictatorship, subjected to torture as a young woman at the start of the 1970s. Impeachment is a “soft” tactic by way of comparison. At the same time, if they are not confronted, the “civilized” procedures of flak may prove more destructive of governance for gutting it from inside its own system of checks and balances; in this case, by repurposing impeachment from a question of scandal to an instrument of flak.

      A Survey of Sub-Categories of Flak

      Having considered what flak is not—namely, scandal—I will pivot to subtypes of flak, beginning with a basic distinction between flak-in-action and flak-in-discourse. Herman and Chomsky’s original characterization of flak emphasizes its manifestations in actions; to wit, letters, phone calls, or more drastic, law suits directed at flak targets. Throughout this volume, however, I will dwell more on what I am calling flak-in-discourse than on flak-in-action by mainly analyzing texts. At the same time, I readily acknowledge an often-intimate link between discourse and action; indeed, speech can be readily regarded as at once discourse and action.

      In sharper definition, what then is flak-in-discourse? It is not garden-variety talk or writing; rather, it presents weaponized forms of discourse that at some point in the chain of its production is backed with power. The authors of flak-in-discourse do not seek to inform or educate the public as an end in itself. Rather, the flakster’s objective is to inflict damage on a target. It follows that flak-in-discourse is not simply a negative review made in good faith. In this view, assessing the Los Angeles-based rock band Warpaint’s most recent recording as below-standard is not in itself flak, regardless of whether the criticisms are crude or couched in sophisticated musical analysis. Good faith criticism’s project is not to derail the musical career of Warpaint as an end in itself or to otherwise complicate the lives of the band members; and even if it was, a lone crank’s review will not have the clout to halt the band’s trajectory. In contrast with a flak campaign, a lone crank’s review is similarly unlikely to incite concrete action such as a boycott of Warpaint or a committed movement devoted to hindering the band from playing. Finally, criticism ←37 | 38→of Warpaint does not in itself rise to the level of a sociopolitical issue, thus has too faint a signature to be construed as flak.

      A case study of climate change denier Christopher Monckton follows to further concretize the differences between flak-in-discourse and flak-in-action—as well as discourse and action’s proximity to and synergies with each other. In the case study, I will also introduce further terminology for flak targets (personalized/issue-oriented/meta-ideological) and flak modalities (boutique versus vox pop).

      Flak-in-Action/Flak-in-Discourse Case Study: Lord of Flak

      Christopher Monckton is a climate change denialist brand-name who has made presentations across the world, including in the U.S. Congress—a presentation that prompted a 48-page rebuttal from climate scientists (Hickman, 2010). In politics, Monckton was an adviser in the Conservative Party in the 1980s but has since careered further right in having been a (losing) parliamentary candidate for and deputy leader of the anti-Europe and anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party. As concerns political activity, Monckton has asserted himself to be a member of the House of Lords—an imaginative claim for which the British State has repeatedly chastised him in writing (Beamish, 2011, para. 4). He inherited the title of Lord when his father passed away but is not a member of the House of Lords entitled to vote with the parliamentary body. Monckton has also, inexplicably, claimed to have been awarded the Nobel Prize and to have formulated an elixir that is effective against AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and the common cold (Bickmore, 2010). Notice that this brief survey of documented claims by Monckton about his CV constitutes description with implicit criticism—not flak!

      As concerns discourses on climate change, Monckton has made public power point presentations in which he purports to demolish the pillars of climate science. One of Monckton’s performances in 2009 was hosted by the Minnesota Free Market Institute on the Bethel University campus. Climate researcher John Abraham of University of Saint Thomas in Minneapolis attended the event. In response, Abraham crafted a university class-session length power point slide show with voice-over that he posted on his campus’ server. Abraham’s response adhered closely to the scientific issues and characterized Monckton as an engaging presenter—if decisively wrong on substance, hence the need for rebuttal.

      ←38 | 39→

      Barry Bickmore, a self-described “Republican scientist [who] advocates sane energy policies” at Brigham Young University, described Abraham’s slide show as “an exceptionally mild-mannered, careful critique of one of Monckton’s presentations” (2010, para. 75). Monckton’s response to the academically-grounded power point presentation exemplifies flak-in-discourse. He took his campaign against Abraham to Alex Jones’ InfoWars program. To wit, “Monckton described Abraham as ‘this wretched little man’ who ‘only belongs to this half-assed Christian Bible college’” (quoted in Winterer, 2012, para. 15). Saint Thomas is, in point of fact, a Catholic university. Continuing, “Monckton described Abraham’s response as ‘complete fabrication’ and ‘lie after lie after lie after lie’” (Winterer, 2012, para. 15). Monckton also referred to Saint Thomas’ president as a “creep.” On the InfoWars platform, Monckton executed a pivot from belittling flak-in-discourse to flak-in-action. Alongside the heated claims to delegitimize Abraham, Monckton appealed for listeners to contact the university’s president/creep and agitate for discipline of Abraham for his ostensible lack of professional legitimacy; flak that extended beyond words into appeals for mass action (writing emails) with the expectation of further action internal to Saint Thomas (professional reprimand).

      Monckton doubled down with further discourse to seed flak-in-action, lobbed from Anthony Watts’ climate change denial flak mill, Watts up with that?:

      May I ask your kind readers once more for their help? Would as many of you as possible do what some of you have already been good enough to do? Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, [email protected], and invite him—even at this eleventh hour—to take down Abraham’s talk altogether from the University’s servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help. (The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, 2010, para. 7)

      In an academic environment, it is laughable that a presentation such as Abraham’s that pivots almost entirely on dry scientific literature on topics such as mean ground temperatures would occasion hair-on-fire demands for a “disciplinary inquiry”; and demands for such discourse to be suppressed reek of dreaded, 200-proof political correctness. In any event, outside the academy, Monckton’s 678-word flak-in-discourse accusations on Watts up with that? triggered more than 350 comments—or, 180 pages of responses when printed, as flak-in-discourse begat further flak-in-discourse. Moreover, Monckton again crosses from flak-in-discourse intended to harm Abraham’s reputation to ←39 | 40→making an audience appeal for flak-in-action through concerted email writing to Father Dease. Numerous readers/commentators, in turn, averred that they had sent Father Dease a letter (e.g., “PJB,” SimonH,” “jaypan,” “Billy Blofeld”) as the clarion call of flak-in-action was heeded.

      One reader/commentator brings added understanding of the flak technique of flooding-the-zone through flak-in-action emails by openly yearning for a deluge into Father Dease’s inbox (“Robin”, 2010). In turn, a professional organization is usually obligated to a respond to inquiries composed with a reasonable facsimile of pertinence and literacy. In this manner, a flak-in-action campaign can drain at least some time and resources of its target. The flak-in-action in this case also bids to position Abraham as the nuisance and to cultivate the idea that life on the campus would be easier without the faculty member and his slides shows. As the СКАЧАТЬ