Interesting, but it seemed to me more about the author's anti-european feelings rather than about anti-americanism - the main theme I felt was 'europeans shouldn't feel anti-american because the european countries all have their own problematic issues'. He raises some interesting and valid points, but his language is often very slanted, he makes a some tenuous connections, and in a number places he states his opinion as fact. For me this detracts from the work and greatly reduces the effectiveness of his message, and his various snarky parenthetical comments don't help.
On a more meta level, reading this reminded me what a pain it is to read long things on the web. In a magazine, book, or paper it would have been easy to read that artical, but on the web I found myself having to re-read sections multiple times and kept finding myself wanting to skip ahead sentences and even whole paragraphs. This is not unique to this article, but IME generally true of lengthy writings on the web, and I don't really understand why. How do others find reading things on the web?
I don't think it was necessarily an anti-european argument, more anti-european press. From there, he tried to connect them to an apologist faction of the American press, which he does with varying degrees of success. I agree that the style hindered his argument. There are a lot of well-meaning, intelligent people who make important arguments, but then leave it open to attack because of its style.
On the whole, though, I thought some good points were made. It would have been nice to make the connection that media control by the few (as in the cases he cites) is a Bad Thing, and that American media rules are leading us down a similar path.
Long articles on the web have the same effect on me. I used to think the NYT broke up it's articles into seperate web pages just to get more click-through revenue (and no doubt, this must be one of the reasons it does so), but for readability some of the longer articles are best read in sections.
I was with the author until part IV. As you say, his sentiments got in the way. It was a fascinating survey of the relevant literature, though, and I think it helped me clarify some of my own thoughts on the matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
On a more meta level, reading this reminded me what a pain it is to read long things on the web. In a magazine, book, or paper it would have been easy to read that artical, but on the web I found myself having to re-read sections multiple times and kept finding myself wanting to skip ahead sentences and even whole paragraphs. This is not unique to this article, but IME generally true of lengthy writings on the web, and I don't really understand why. How do others find reading things on the web?
no subject
On the whole, though, I thought some good points were made. It would have been nice to make the connection that media control by the few (as in the cases he cites) is a Bad Thing, and that American media rules are leading us down a similar path.
Long articles on the web have the same effect on me. I used to think the NYT broke up it's articles into seperate web pages just to get more click-through revenue (and no doubt, this must be one of the reasons it does so), but for readability some of the longer articles are best read in sections.
no subject