In this world where work is meaningless and where we try to infuse our being with such by posting things on blogs and the twit-face the Me-tube in order to (for this seeking soul, at least) connect and in that connection "make" meaning "between us" I continue to encounter situations that confuse my understanding.
Greenwald today offers an example of the "for-hire" corporate spokesman. (You can click through at the end for details). Upon reading that phrase I had to find out exactly what that meant. I knew what it meant, but I wanted to get some knowledge of this specific case. (As the current Admin's Press Secretary leaves we must note that he too is, perhaps more obviously, "for hire".) This example via GG is James Richardson of Hynes Communication. I went to Hynes and while reading his bio thought no good thoughts about this man. However, directly above his bio was one for Ethan Kendrick and upon reading his bio and his work focus I thought good thoughts about this man.
It became clear, of course, that Hynes Communication will be all things to all customers. And then I had that most hackneyed of thoughts about prostitution in all guises. But, it seems infinitely MORE HONEST to me to be one who services another's bodily pleasures than one who services conflicting modes of agency.
This is a bit hard to parse and I will encourage any help on this to clarify, but I find myself intimately tied to my thoughts and those thoughts and presentation thereof I want to be what I consider ME. I may not show ALL of me to the public, but what I show, I intend that to be representative. I may need to adjust on the run whenever new information or understanding alters a perception...but the end product will remain somewhat consistent (if not always coherent!).
So does Red-State blogger and corporate/power man MEAN what he says (and if so does that make a difference--I think it does)--and does his opposite man "speaking for" alternative energy and adoption and so on MEAN what he says? Or are they both simply taking sides for pay? And again, does it matter? So, James and Erik don't say a damn thing, Hynes does? Right?
I've asked this over the years when I have made specific reference to the American Chemistry Council. This is a lobby group that only spouts a business/corporate line. No shades of gray--unless they can see a future benefit. Dow and Pfizer etc. don't speak for themselves (look I've made them person-like), the ACC does.
So, one can posit that perhaps there is no ethical speech in the public realm. There are only momentary power positions and those are as likely to change as the weather.
I often praise Emerson (or at least often quote him) but he is loosey-goosey with the concept of "whim" in presentation. He was a good man. But one can see how much of his philosophy is easy to use to negative effect.