
What the Fluck - dredmorbius
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/WHAT-THE-FLUCK
======
welder
TLDR:

Author states we get sensational news stories, but soon forget them without
seeing the big picture. The author proposes we need a new enlightenment of
journalism which can report on all sensational stories and how they relate to
a currently unknown bigger picture.

QUOTE:

 _One newspaper editor writing about the loss of the independence of the
farmers a hundred years ago summed up the new system:

"The farmers farm the land, and the businessmen farm the farmers."

Maybe today we are being farmed by the new system of power. But we can't see
quite how it is happening - and we need a new journalism to explain what is
really going on._

REASONS FOR CURRENT SITUATION (according to Author):

* private equity (company flippers)

* giant news orgs focus on nasty sensational stories

* increased inequality (top 1% own all wealth)

* politicians helpless to make real reform

* culture of spying on everyone (PIs, NSA, paranoid husbands, investigative journalists)

* confused population wanting transparency & privacy at same time

~~~
ryanjshaw
It's a pity the author can't start a part of this revolution by writing more
clearly.

I spent about 5 minutes reading before becoming completely lost and confused -
was there a central thesis and was he ever going to get to a point
substantiating it, or was I just reading somebody's fantasy about an old era
glamour girl using journalism as a weak front story?

I wasn't convinced he'd have the clarity of thought to put a coherent big
picture together and gave up reading, coming here instead to see if somebody
had managed to decipher it all. (That being said I think he has a point and
it's something I've wondered about myself.)

~~~
r0h1n
With no disrespect to you, this is sadly the state of us hyper-readers today.
We expect straight and to-the-point prose, piddly word counts and a
literal/predictable assortment of ideas. And when the occasional author
decides to venture outside this straitjacket, we wonder what's wrong with
him/her.

Let's not forget that writing is still (I don't know how long it will remain)
a _creative_ art. And though the vast majority of it has been reduced to
algorithmic, LCM commodities, surely we can allow a few artists to tell their
stories the way they want to?

~~~
d23
While this may be a part of the explanation, I don't think it's solely
responsible. It's the responsibility of the writer to set up the reader with
an understanding of the point of what they are reading (i.e. "tell them what
you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them"). If
you're going to make a long digression, it's respectful (and less counter-
intuitive) to at least give the reader an inkling as to why you might be doing
such a thing. Between the random cat video, the shoe photo that looks like it
was nabbed from google images, and the sudden jump back to the story of
Mellon's father, I genuinely started questioning the quality of what I was
reading and whether I should be wasting my time.

~~~
JonnieCache
It's not exactly uncommon for a narrative to suddenly jump to a seemingly
unrelated scene, only for the threads to weave themselves back together by the
end. It's a standard literary trope. Fair enough, it is often a feature of bad
writing. You should probably read this article though.

His recent post about syria was excellent as well, and more concrete than this
one:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the_baath_water)

~~~
d23
I actually ended up going back and reading it and found it fascinating.

------
r0h1n
Wow! This may be the most brilliant, cheeky, inventive and yet incisive piece
of journalism I've come across in recent times. And it's on BBC (I had to
check multiple times to be sure).

~~~
valgaze
This is Adam Curtis you're dealing with, check youtube for some of his other
brilliant (& kinda far-out) documentaries

~~~
huckleberryfinn
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is pretty incredible!

~~~
samstave
"Human Resources" will change your life.

[http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-
resources/](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-resources/)

~~~
lynchdt
A documentary that starts with a slightly de-tuned low and flat piano note.
Impactful.

~~~
samstave
Every great song starts with a single note...

Now go watch the darn thing.

------
ivan_ah
I feel people who consider themselves to be "intellectuals" or more generally
people who "see" the present world situation more clearly (whether it be the
geopolitical, societal, or technological aspects of it) have the duty to write
about it and inform others.

Perhaps this is what we have come to. Because of corporate chain-of-command
issues (think Bloomberg in China) professional journalists can't speak the
truth anymore, so we need citizens to do the job. As the article points out,
the main thing that is missing is not the information/revelations but the
_synthesis_ of this information. What is the System? How does it work? How are
they fucking us? Who is pulling the strings? What is the good fight?

~~~
Theodores
From the follow up movie to Wall Street, Money Never Sleeps:

Gordon Gekko: "I've been considered a pretty smart guy and maybe I was in
prison too long. But sometimes it's the only place to stay sane and look out
through those bars and say, 'Is everybody out there nuts?!"

This is where we are with today's situation, only true outsiders can escape
the lies and moral values of our times. I don't think that 'intellectuals'
help, they are on the same kool aid. Even Nelson Mandela thought that going to
war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

~~~
ivan_ah
> I don't think that 'intellectuals' help...

A lot of criticism of the financial sector is dismissed with arguments like
"it's more complicated than that" and "you don't understand."

So I guess by "intellectual," I meant someone who can see through the layers
of complexity and find the weak spot. I think this might require more of an
insider position rather than outsider.

------
dredmorbius
I stuck to HN's "preserve the headline" policy, but a subtitle might be: what
Jimmy Choos, tattle sheets, Murdoch, oil and railroad barons, P.K. Dick,
McClure's Magazine, hyphenated Americans, and HSBC have in common.

I've been engaged on my own threading-of-multiple-needles project over the
past few months, and while Adam Curtis's line is a bit different from the one
I'd draw, the common thread he does find is striking, insightful, and
original.

I'd also like to hat tip Dieter Muller who'd shared this on G+:

[https://plus.google.com/110168665701189567035/posts/dzr7LNLu...](https://plus.google.com/110168665701189567035/posts/dzr7LNLuKsm)

~~~
mercurial
I'd like to comment on the form. The content is fantastic, but the way he
manages to make these individual stories into a single, coherent narrative is
extremely impressive.

~~~
Angostura
I love Adam Curtis' documentary, however the form always makes me slightly
uneasy, I always feel like there's some sleighth of hand going on. I used to
feel the same way watching James Burke's Connections where the connections
were sometimes rather tenuous ... 'someone else who wore shoes was...'.

~~~
dredmorbius
Having been on a bit of a Burke kick for the past few months (re-watching
Connections, hitting The Day the Universe Changed (excellent) and Connections2
(a bit too commercial and rushed) for the first time, I agree that some of his
connections ... are a bit tenuous. But he's making a point (forget now if this
was in Connections or TDTUC) that _progress isn 't linear and doesn't happen
within given categories_. Things draw from all over the place, some people
make it huge, many don't (the number of people in Burke's stories who either
toil on in obscurity or die penniless is ... sobering).

I'd say that while he occasionally does reach a bit far, most of his junctures
are at least defensible.

C2 is where this starts to run a bit thin. The episodes are 22 minutes long,
rather than 54, much of the material is covered in his earlier programs (and
feels a bit like a go-over / phoning-it-in), and it feels a bit more
commercial overall (not nearly as bad as the crap that shows up on most modern
TV, but decidedly moreso than the first series and TDTUC). I'll see how C3
turned out, at least it returns to the 52 minute format.

As for Curtis: I found his opening a bit weak and vague, but it built a bit
like a Neal Stephenson novel: there's foundation being laid and an atmosphere
being created which pulls together if you stick with it. No, not a fast read,
but a damned good one.

------
ypeterholmes
"we need a new journalism to explain what is really going on."

I think I've summed it up nicely in my essay the monopoly:
[http://www.lettersfrompeter.com/the-
monopoly/](http://www.lettersfrompeter.com/the-monopoly/)

Picks up right where he leaves off.

~~~
arh68
This is very well written.

~~~
maxerickson
It's a panoply of obfuscations, misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

For instance, the Federal Reserve really is a federal institution.

Also, saying the Fed provided $9 trillion is a counting game. The $9 trillion
comes from adding up a bunch of short term loans, the outstanding amount was
never near that much.

~~~
ivan_ah
> obfuscations, misunderstandings and mischaracterizations

I came out reading this with a very positive feeling--though I must say I
already believed most of the things discussed in these articles. Could you
point me to some of the obfuscations, misunderstandings, and
mischaracterizations? I'd be happy if I can correct some of my misbeliefs...

Are you rejecting the whole notion of "hidden power," or the premise that the
hidden power influences and controls the Federal Reserve system and other
institutions like the IMF?

~~~
maxerickson
Well, I started with 2.

I have reservations about the amount of power available in the systems of
today, and about how that power is exercised, but I'm not a big believer in a
competent, intentional conspiracy underlying it.

~~~
mrow84
I share your skepticism of a "competent, intentional conspiracy", but I wonder
if there might be an analogous, emergent phenomenon. I also find it plausible
that this (hypothetical) emergent system has been opportunistically
capitalised upon, despite not being intentionally created. Does that seem
unlikely to you?

------
heed
Interesting article, but this part irked me:

    
    
      But there is a paradox here. Because many of those who are 
      shocked by the extraordinary extent of the secret 
      surveillance - radical journalists, cyber-revolutionaries, 
      internet libertarians - are also argueing for total 
      transparency of information."
    

Those that dislike secret surveillance value their privacy over total
transparency of information. There is no paradox there.

~~~
dwaltrip
Also, I thought argument was: privacy for the individual and transparency from
organizations/institutions.

~~~
Nursie
Yes, exactly, transparency of government, that we pay for and should be able
to inspect/evaluate etc. but stay the hell out of my private life!

It's not a paradox, it's common sense.

------
todayiamme
What's interesting to me is that the robber barons owned a disproportionate
percentage of the GDP as compared to the most wealthiest individuals in the
developed world today. For instance, it is estimated that Rockefeller's
personal fortune alone amounted to ~1.5% of the US' GDP. I wonder why this is
the case. What changed and why don't we have a Rockefeller equivalent today?
Is it perhaps because of greater total prosperity and increased complexity it
is harder to dominate large verticals and possess such great personal wealth?
Or is it something regulatory?

~~~
dredmorbius
_Rockefeller 's personal fortune alone amounted to ~1.5% of the US' GDP_

I'd have to dig for the references, but as I recall it was Rockefeller or
Carnegie whose _income_ (or at least that of their companies) comprised a
percent or two of GDP.

In terms of wealth, Rockefeller is considered to be the wealthiest individual
in modern times. From Wikipedia:

 _By the time of his death in 1937, estimates place his net worth in the range
of US$392 billion to US$663.4 billion in adjusted dollars for the late 2000s
(decade), and it is estimated that his personal fortune was equal to 1.53% of
the total U.S. annual GDP in his day. When considering the real value of his
wealth, Rockefeller is widely held to be the wealthiest person in history._

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures)

A related reference I strongly recommend (and Ida Tarbell makes an appearance
there as well) is Daniel Yergin's _The Prize_ (both a book and PBS/BBC TV
series now available on YouTube). The arc inscribed by the development of
petroleum is truly staggering.

As to what changed: 100:1 EROIE energy, high-yield mineral deposits, a lack of
complexity brakes (pollution, NIMBY, anti-trust, and similar rules), as well
as the vast potentials available through exploiting nascent energy and mineral
wealth, as well as the huge technological advances of ~1880 - 1930 had a huge
amount to do with the wealth accumulated at that time. I see this as more
having to do with multiple low entropy resources than regulation, thought that
has had some effects. And the negative externalities were tremendous as well,
from economic instabilities (the late 1800s saw tremendous busts, despite a
gold-backed currency) to corruption and abuse, to pollution and
discrimination.

~~~
lsc
>the late 1900s saw tremendous busts, despite a gold-backed currency

You made a typeo.

but yeah. I'm not sure why the hard-currency folks think that a commodity-
backed currency will result in a more stable economy. Boom and Bust is the
natural state of capitalism, and perhaps the natural state of human society,
at least in times of dramatic technological change.

~~~
mistermann
> I'm not sure why the hard-currency folks think that a commodity-backed
> currency will result in a more stable economy. Boom and Bust is the natural
> state of capitalism, and perhaps the natural state of human society, at
> least in times of dramatic technological change.

If you have a central bank constantly messing with interest rates and money
supply, it distorts the market. That's why they do what they do. Whether we
are better off or not I do not know, but to assert that it is irrelevant is
incorrect.

I can agree that capitalism is more prone to boom and bust, but in a bust
individuals will generally react accordingly in a mostly logical way. A
central bank managed economy will (with the best intentions in mind I assume)
often intervene in a way that promotes a continuation of the non (or
negatively) beneficial economic behavior, if they didn't start it in the first
place. _This_ is where the hard money people are coming from, or at least this
one.

~~~
pjc50
All sorts of buried assertions in what you're saying: why are boom and bust
"logical" in the first place? Do they not result from over- and under-valuing
investments?

Central bank management has achieved pretty much exactly what it's been tasked
with doing: price stability of the aggregate inflation measure. This is
despite large variation in underlying commodities like oil. Housing went mad,
but it wasn't included in the measure of inflation and far too many people
were happy with asset price inflation to stop it.

(In any case, money supply is far more a function of lending than of currency
issue. Hard currency does not prevent expansion or contraction of the money
supply)

~~~
mistermann
> why are boom and bust "logical" in the first place?

They're not, they result from humans _not_ being logical creatures.

> price stability of the aggregate inflation measure.

Depending on how you measure.

> Housing went mad, but it wasn't included in the measure of inflation

Case in point. The largest lifetime investment of 95%+ of the population and
it became a bubble/mania largely because of central bank intervention in
interest rates.

> Hard currency does not prevent expansion or contraction of the money supply

That is not my understanding. If your currency must be backed by gold for
example, then the money supply would grow slowly and prices would adjust
accordingly. This is very different from today's practices.

------
andreyf
The report mentioned in the article, titled "The Rogue Element of the Private
Investigation Industry and Others Unlawfully Trading in Personal Data", is
actually (mostly) public, written in 2008:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/171666578/SOCA-Report-on-
Private-I...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/171666578/SOCA-Report-on-Private-
Investigators-Report-Jan-2008)

It's a fascinating read.

~~~
r0h1n
Nice find! Looks pretty legit too, though in today's age of elaborate
forgeries and pranks one can never tell.

I tweeted the report to the author (@adamcurtisblog) - let's see what he has
to say.

~~~
andreyf
BBC covered it here, saying the redacted version I linked to was published by
SOCA last year: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-23493112](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23493112)

------
jl6
I personally see a danger in over-narration. History and journalism alike are
written by people trained to be storytellers. But why should there be an
overarching story? The real world is messy and rarely breaks down into simple,
digestible narratives. There is no beginning, middle and end. There are no
villains or heroes. There are, at best, subplots.

Trying to connect the dots is what fuels conspiracy theories - which are
typically compelling because we believe deeply that somebody has to be in
control somewhere, that there has to be order behind the chaos.

Perhaps there are patterns if not stories. Perhaps statistics could tell the
story properly, if we had any good data (we don't).

History stories typically gloss over nuance, with the aim of producing a more
manageable summary. In the local dialect, you might call them the ultimate
leaky abstraction.

I don't have any solutions so mope over!

~~~
igravious
> But why should there be an overarching story?

I think that I can answer your question. Bear with me. I think the reason
stems from the same place why Jesus shared his worldview through parables (for
instance), and why Orwell and Huxley outsell Nietzsche and Bentham. I think
that narrative is a very effective way to get a point across, and it also may
be how we (as cognitive beings) are fundamentally wired. Did you ever stop to
think that your life which appears to have a coherent narrative thread only
appears so because you internally and involuntarily constantly construct and
reconstruct this narrative thread overlaid on the messy indigestible complex
fragments of your existence. Like the persistence of vision allows the
discrete frames blend into continuity.

The pattern is us.

------
Ar-Curunir
The author of the article also made a documentary titled "The Power of
Nightmares". I recommend everybody with any interest in the recent history of
the world watch the documentary. It's available at the Internet Archive:

[https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-
Episode1Bab...](https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-
Episode1BabyItsColdOutside)

------
triplesec
Since nobody has yet posted it, for those unfamiliar with Curtis, he made the
outstanding BBC documentary the Century of the Self. Link here to google,
because you will probably want to choose your own website for watching it (or
actually buy it as a DVD present for somebody, to encourage more excellent
documentary making!)
[https://www.google.com/search?q=century+of+the+self](https://www.google.com/search?q=century+of+the+self)

------
JDGM
Having seen several of Adam Curtis' documentaries, it was impossible not to
read this whole piece in his voice, which I found had a tremendous influence
on the reading tempo.

Nowadays I am used to skimming and speed reading and jump reading and chunk
reading and generally doing anything other than actually properly word by word
reading a piece as an intact ordered playback...but here, for once, I could
and did.

------
user24
> "we need a new journalism to explain what is really going on."

I have high hopes for the Greenwald/Omidyar venture

~~~
thisiswrong
I also have high hopes for the PayPal 14

~~~
cakeface
What is the PayPal 14? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

------
hownottowrite
McClure's January 1903 Issue [PDF]:
[http://www.unz.org/Pub/McClures-1903jan](http://www.unz.org/Pub/McClures-1903jan)

~~~
nfoz
Thanks!

------
hobs
I loved the article, but it almost seemed like three different articles. I
actually scrolled through the stuff about dramatic journalism to get to the
interesting stuff, about how we are all pawns in a game we cannot see. That is
the meat of the issue as far as I can see it, and until we can come together
and do something in unity we will continue down this path.

------
kbenson
Is it me, or does the BBC video player volume go all the way to 11?

~~~
dredmorbius
Oh yeah, they do that. Yes, it's an ST reference.

------
trendoid
We still cant comprehend the impact machines will have over future-selves.
Considering big-corps are only there for profit, I don't see any reason why
majority of population won't lose their source of income. One case that comes
to mind is that of support jobs offshored to India/China. After looking at
what these people do in their 8 hour work day, its silly to argue against such
jobs going extinct. They are not learning anything new while they are at work
and once machines take over, they become worthless. Why would companies like
AT&T, Verizon etc would suddenly start caring about these people becoming
unemployed when the only reason they contacted them was cheaper labor compared
to US citizens?

------
bayesianhorse
To say it with the words of @BigDataBorat: 90% of data is unstructure.
Furthering analysis reveal that 60% of unstructure data is cat video.

------
nathanvanfleet
While I might appreciate the idea, I'm not sure journalism is what is needed.
More like well researched books that can go a little more in depth about
things. Like a Malcolm Gladwell who doesn't work for corporations.

------
ameister14
This is an interesting article, though I have on issue: Ida Tarbell's claims
have since been discredited. Her father was put out of business by
Rockefeller, and as Rockefeller hardly ever gave interviews or opened up to
anyone, she was free to craft the message she wanted.

~~~
dredmorbius
The Tarbell family history is hardly unknown, and was, if I understand, known
to McClure's at the time she wrote it. It's certainly part of Yergin's _The
Prize_ (itself a largely sympathetic history of the oil industry) in both the
book and video. You'll find her family's history detailed on page 86 of
Yergin's work (trade paper).

Tarbell was a highly regarded journalist, she did extensive research on the
Rockefellers. I'm not aware of any specific inaccuracies in her story. Just
because someone has a personal tie to a story doesn't mean their reporting is
in error, and unless you've got specifics regarding inaccuracies, I find your
statements without basis.

~~~
ameister14
Sure. The main thing is not what Rockefeller did, but what prompted his
actions and the people that he was up against.

First, while describing them as simple, honest businessmen, she somehow forgot
that her father and his compatriots firebombed Rockefeller's pipelines and
production facilities, prompting a large part of his response. They would
attempt to destroy his ability to do business, and he responded by driving
them out of it.

Second, she did extensive research on the Rockefellers, it's true, though she
never actually interviewed them. Rockefeller Sr., in fact, refused to go to
the press and refute most of her statements, and didn't let anyone else do it
for him. So, you only get one side.

I don't think it's good journalism to portray a large corporation as evil and
its competition as good simply by virtue of size. She didn't actually show
that the independent producers were innocent in this, merely that they lost.
She then would wax poetic about the noble nature of their business ownership,
and how Rockefeller was attempting to destroy and pervert that nobility.

It's kind of like how Native Americans were portrayed up till the 1970's; they
were savage, and we were noble. Not really true, though much of what they were
accused of doing was accurate.

Now, we know that Rockefeller would offer stock or cash for the ownership of
these refineries or fields, and we also know that the stock or cash offering
would almost always be far more than it was worth. Further, the railroad
companies accused of colluding with Rockefeller would routinely gouge him;
it's why he built pipelines in the first place.

He built a monopoly. That's true. It's also true that it drove down costs to
5% of the initial cost of Kerosene when he started. He ruthlessly crushed his
competition and he definitely engaged in what are currently illegal business
practices. It's just her portrayal of him as the villain and her father's
compatriots as noble american heroes I take issue with.

~~~
dredmorbius
_she somehow forgot that her father and his compatriots firebombed Rockefeller
's pipelines and production facilities, prompting a large part of his
response_

Citation needed.

~~~
ameister14
[http://www.amazon.com/Titan-The-Life-John-
Rockefeller/dp/140...](http://www.amazon.com/Titan-The-Life-John-
Rockefeller/dp/1400077303)

~~~
dredmorbius
Thanks. Doesn't immediately support your claims though I may look at the book.

------
ommunist
This is a massive rant with some very interesting documentary. It shows very
well that "democracy" is not working for quite a long time in the West, bent
to the will of the wealthy.

And like every other teethless poor, the author does not even dare to suggest
the way out of the trap.

------
sluukkonen
Now I'm interested in seeing the whole Harry Caudill documentary. I wonder
what it's called...

------
FeeTinesAMady
marcofloriano: you're hellbanned. Everything you post shows up as dead.

------
RuCrazy
i didn´t find it all that great..overrated

------
timbro
> And our reaction is always the same - shock and horror

And more importantly, _nothing significant_ ever happens.

It all continues and we think "it's gonna be ok", "they will do something, I
mean, they _have_ to, right?", "I mean, we're not in a sci-fi movie or
anything"...

As far as I've understood, back when I was in school, this is exactly the
attitude/mood/behavior/culture which gave the Nazis a chance to become what
they became.

------
FridayWithJohn
I just read the article for the kitty! (and it turned out to be a really good
read)

------
chrisweekly
TLDR.

(That is the most rambling, incoherent, jumbled mess I've come across in a
long, long time. I read about half of it and it was a waste of time.)

------
terabytest
I opened this earlier this morning and I'm pretty sure it was "What the Fuck",
not "What the Fluck"

------
caublestone
At the top of the comment thread,

"This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house
rules."

Though it doesn't specifically talk about censorship, freedom of speech was
pretty essential to all of these historical pieces. Ironic.

~~~
puller
"Freedom of speech" never implied a right to have a specific third party
publish your comments for you. It was always about limiting law and
government.

------
pdknsk
I literally said WHAT THE FLUCK when I got to this sentence.

> This was reported in the press - who also described how Yeardye drove Diana
> Dors to safety in a green cadillac owned by a bubblegum tycoon called John
> Hoey.

Most of this should've been condensed for less tedious reading.

