on criticism.

it's a pain to have something regular that gets left behind in the rush of the pre-exam paper-writing orgy. i enjoy writing in this journal, but it gets kinda hectic and hard to keep up with when there's so many other things more pressing.

however, i've got something to write about today that needs to be written, and it relates to the inevitable stir caused by my rude little zine article. i'm going to try and make this about how alternative media relates to its audience, and avoid making it about how little fratboy tools can't take criticism. if it veers off toward the latter, i apologize.

now, one of the main focuses of my project thus far has been the withdrawal of mainstream media. the corporate-run media is so isolated and separate from the polis as a whole that it's nearly impossible for it to function as a truly empowering outlet for civil discourse. alternative media might seem to be the solution to these ills, in that it offers citizens an unprecedented level of enfranchisement in producing media content and contributing to the discourse, rather than simply consuming it.

however, to say that alternative media is universally better than corporate is to create a false dichotomy of good/evil that really has no place in ethnographic research. and criticism is one thing that alternative media does really well, but also in a sense really poorly.

the independent nature of alternative media makes it easy to criticize establishment institutions, like i did in my first essay for the zine, without any problems. nobody minds if you diss the war on terror, 'cos it's a favourite punching bag of the quasi-intellectual wannabe media literate folks who constitute the greatest part of the zine's audience.

however, the insular nature of forms like the zine mean that it's a lot more difficult to be critical of those who might also be members of the incestuous little community that forms its audience. since people are bred and indoctrinated to see the corporate media as fundamentally Other, as separate from society as a whole, people tend to respect the right of criticism. growing up with a professional musician as a parent, i can say with some confidence that it's not exactly kosher to confront a reviewer about a review that one feels is unjustified. and especially not to decry them for criticising you "in this kind of environment," as i was. (note also: what is that supposed to mean?)

the band members that i wrote the terrible review of seem to have this expectation in a 'scene' zine that one won't be critical of members of that scene, that a reviewer has an obligation to be 'encouraging' or some such crap. certainly, i do feel some measure of obligtaion to encourage talent where i see it, especially locally - but i do not feel any obligation to encourage shit, anywhere. sorry, but being in the same faculty as me doesn't entitle you to the complete suspension of my critical faculties. i would have been happy to write some encouraging things, if there was a single thing i legitimately liked about the band.

certainly, the band members are entitled to their (incorrect) opinion of the quality of their music, based upon countless stoned mumblings in a frat-house basement. indeed, they are free to call my tastes misplaced, my verbosity pretentious, and my weight gargantuan. i ripped on them pretty bad in my article, and i'd be a pansy if i expected anything less from them in return. but for one of them to walk up to me in class and look me in the eye with disappointment and ask why i'd criticize them so harshly, as though i have some responsibility to cheerlead every bunch of jam-band wannabes that happens to be involved in MIT... well now that's just asking for propaganda.

and if anyone thinks that's gonna come from me before i've even gotten a job in the corporate-shill media... they're sadly (and hilariously) mistaken.