OK, so history repeats itself, right? This is what I thought reading the last section of Mattelart’s chapter 2 (p. 48-52). How to reach a wider public than those I already have regular contact with? Newspapers, serial stories, and feuilletons were used to do it in the mid-19th century, blogs may be one of the 21st’s equivalents. I have to say I am drawn to Cesar de Paepe and his notion of public service:
“Public service should be doubly public: 1) in that it is accomplished by the direct or indirect cooperation of all; 2) in that it has for a direct or indirect purpose the benefit of all. The true public service is thus at once public both by its subject and its object.”
Ndiejhdine & Kritchevski, according to Mattelart (51), argued against Lenin that a revolutionary press must be “the product of strong local organizations” (this would be Stephen’s point against Reflexivity) and that it must take into account “‘the ordinary things of life'” (which would be my point for Reflexivity). Stephen’s argument may invoke Gabriel Tarde who described publics as the “social groups of the future” (in Mattelart, 42) and defined a public as determined by “consideration of the outlook of others” – which may well be the part I have not ‘done well’ with!
I am with Lenin (gag) on the notion of a blog (for him it was a paper) as, at least potentially, collectively an agitator and an organizer. I’ve clearly been working the moral high ground moreso than the propagandistic angle, however, which may be another – or continuing – point of dissension within the DRP group, such as it may yet be? At any rate, blurring a few strands together here, Stephen responded only to the weakest aspect of my argument and neglected the rest.