Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
r'hllor's redrum lobster

u.s. media: lmao you thought politics was bad

17 posts in this topic

so i've been thinking for a while there should be a distinct thread to discuss the u.s. media environment – separate (though certainly not unconnected from) u.s. politics. 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com

this supremely fucked up bullshit finally pushed me to create this thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to love our billionaire overlords. It's hard to imagine a bigger media outlet perpetuating any opinion other than the status quo, seeing how they would rather shut down than let the workers unionize. It truly is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.. On the other hand, between climate change and the insane rise in inequality, maybe we will see a shift in our lifetimes (preferably before the next great war..).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. media are War cheerleaders when it comes to foreign policy- 

We need a media that isnt brought to us by Big Pharma and mega Insurers when Healthcare is covered, we need a media that isnt brought to us by Big Oil when climate change is discussed, we need a media that doesnt try to silence the whistleblowers, truth tellers and a media that isnt afraid to Speak Truth to Power. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we definitely need more transparency when it comes to the media. But increasingly the modern media is looking outdated and irrelevant. When opinions are being formed on social media rather than by watching the tv, then what are the media companies going to actually do. 

The news is becoming so decentralised and chaotic, the rise of fake news and stories that are rushed out in pursuit of speed over truth. That is the real problem we face right now. I don't care who owns Fox news because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I care about who is pumping out the stories that people are discussing on twitter and facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must roll back Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, in order to break up the media monopolies and impose some sort of civic responsibility on these people and their properties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world, I'd love for all news companies/organizations to be non-profits and possibly have to pass certain ethical certifications so we get less of the corporate media and the infowars BS.

By the way, I'm curious to see if there are any legal ramifications to closing down these NYC based digital papers. I believe New York State has the right to union organization in the state constitution, (which is a big part of why NY unions are very against having a state constitutional convention, as they fear that being removed) so if they're considered NY companies, they might well have cause to take the owner to court, especially considering that he is very vocally anti-union and had apparently talked about shutting down those digital newspapers if they did unionize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 2:22 AM, DireWolfSpirit said:

U.S. media are War cheerleaders when it comes to foreign policy- 

We need a media that isnt brought to us by Big Pharma and mega Insurers when Healthcare is covered, we need a media that isnt brought to us by Big Oil when climate change is discussed, we need a media that doesnt try to silence the whistleblowers, truth tellers and a media that isnt afraid to Speak Truth to Power. 

 

Yeah, I know I've caught some flack here for posting up You Tube politics and news talk links and the like, but I think they are becoming more and more important. When you get past the Alex Jones type crap, you can find some solid, independent sources. David Pakman is one of my current favorites. Despite the progressive bent, I think he's typically measured and fair.

 

/And he is almost entirely viewer funded, so you cut out the Corporate Media bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I think we definitely need more transparency when it comes to the media. But increasingly the modern media is looking outdated and irrelevant. When opinions are being formed on social media rather than by watching the tv, then what are the media companies going to actually do. 

The news is becoming so decentralised and chaotic, the rise of fake news and stories that are rushed out in pursuit of speed over truth. That is the real problem we face right now. I don't care who owns Fox news because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I care about who is pumping out the stories that people are discussing on twitter and facebook.

Yes, Facebook and other social media platforms are displacing traditional media outlets.

Hence, my perusal (often on Facebook) of comments to various political articles.

I note that linking or quoting Twitter threads is becoming quite common on the political threads here as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I think we definitely need more transparency when it comes to the media. But increasingly the modern media is looking outdated and irrelevant. When opinions are being formed on social media rather than by watching the tv, then what are the media companies going to actually do. 

The news is becoming so decentralised and chaotic, the rise of fake news and stories that are rushed out in pursuit of speed over truth. That is the real problem we face right now. I don't care who owns Fox news because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I care about who is pumping out the stories that people are discussing on twitter and facebook.

The two issues are related though. In a world where every many government agencies, corporations, NGOs, etc. each have dedicated public relations staff, sorting the truth from lies likewise requires a group of people working on this full-time. Unless these people are doing their jobs properly, the stories on Facebook and Twitter will necessarily be mostly nonsensical or false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 9:32 AM, Mikael said:

Got to love our billionaire overlords. It's hard to imagine a bigger media outlet perpetuating any opinion other than the status quo, seeing how they would rather shut down than let the workers unionize. It truly is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.. On the other hand, between climate change and the insane rise in inequality, maybe we will see a shift in our lifetimes (preferably before the next great war..).

They've recently realized they aren't immune to pitchforks.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/26/worlds-witnessing-a-new-gilded-age-as-billionaires-wealth-swells-to-6tn

“We’re at an inflection point,” Stadler said. “Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905, this is something billionaires are concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and, the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing I’ve considered is that it seems like partisan news is more profitable than news which is more balanced and. I’m crying out for some sort of neutral news media that can look at events from numerous angles, but there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2017 at 2:05 PM, Paladin of Ice said:

 

By the way, I'm curious to see if there are any legal ramifications to closing down these NYC based digital papers. I believe New York State has the right to union organization in the state constitution, (which is a big part of why NY unions are very against having a state constitutional convention, as they fear that being removed) so if they're considered NY companies, they might well have cause to take the owner to court, especially considering that he is very vocally anti-union and had apparently talked about shutting down those digital newspapers if they did unionize.

per matt bruenig, there is likely little-to-no legal recourse. as the outfits were just completely shuttered, not moved, reduced, or temporarily closed, which is apparently any business owners absolute right to do, for whatever reason they see fit

 

Edited by r'hllor's redrum lobster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eggegg said:

one thing I’ve considered is that it seems like partisan news is more profitable than news which is more balanced and. I’m crying out for some sort of neutral news media that can look at events from numerous angles, but there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for that. 

Balanced is not always quality though. Consider the patent absurdity of giving equal time to pseudoscience views with subjects like evolution, vaccination or climate change, when those subjects have an overwhelming consensus with 99% of all serious scientists. To give equal time to get the crazies view serves no good to the public, its actually negligence. Yet this is exactly the kind of damaging, idiotic crap the MSM airwaves are full of day after day. The dumbing down of American discourse is in full affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

per matt bruenig, there is likely little-to-no legal recourse. as the outfits were just completely shuttered, not moved, reduced, or temporarily closed, which is apparently any business owners absolute right to do, for whatever reason they see fit

 

 I hope we don't ever get into the territory where the government is mandating that private businesses stay open for whatever reason they see fit..

Edited by Cas Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disney attempted to blacklist the LA Times due to unflattering coverage

They had to back down due to backlash from other news/media sites, but the fact that they even attempted it and kept at it for a couple of days shows how many lines the powerful companies and people are willing to cross.

Quote

As reviews of Marvel’s Thor: Ragnarok began rolling out in advance of the movie’s November 3 release, a review from one news outlet in particular — the Los Angeles Times — was glaringly absent. And its editors didn’t hold back in explaining why.

In a simple “note to readers,” published November 3, the newspaper explained that it could not review Thor: Ragnarok prior to the film’s release — nor include it or the highly anticipated Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi in its annual entertainment Holiday Preview. The reason, the note said, is that Disney (which owns both Marvel and Lucasfilm) had barred LA Times critics from attending advanced press screenings of both movies — and, in fact, any Disney movies — in response to “unfair coverage.” (LA Times film critic Justin Chang only saw and reviewed Thor: Ragnarok once it was released to the public.)

As LA Times writer Glenn Whipp explained on Twitter, the “unfair coverage” in question was a scathing two-part series published in late September that investigated Disney’s fraught business ties in Anaheim, California, home of the company’s Disneyland theme park. Disney’s displeasure with the LA Times’s reporting of this story took the form of a statement essentially blacklisting the entire paper from interviews and screenings related to any of its many properties, until the paper “adhere to balanced reporting in the future.”

Four days after Disney issued the ban — and barely six hours after several critics groups banded together to condemn it — the company announced that it would lift its restrictions after having “productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at The Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns.”

Neither Disney nor its CEO Bob Iger explained why or how the LA Times’s Anaheim report was as “biased and inaccurate” as the company now claims. Even after lifting the ban, Disney has still has not publicly asked for a retraction of the Anaheim story, nor issued any corrections on the content of the report itself. The company’s first statement merely cited an Orange County Register op-ed that calls the LA Times report “a hit piece”; it appeared to stop just short of calling the LA Times “fake news.”

Criticism of Disney’s behavior, especially from critics and the press, was swift and fierce.

On the morning of November 7, four major critics organizations — the New York Film Critics Circle, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Boston Film Critics Association, and the National Society of Film Critics — collectively stated that they voted to exclude Disney’s films from consideration for their respective annual honors and awards until it lifted the LA Times ban, which the organizations called “antithetical to the principles of a free press.” The Toronto Film Critics Association followed with a statement of their own condemning Disney’s action, as did the Television Critics Association. (Note: Vox film writer Alissa Wilkinson voted in favor of the measure as a member of the NYFCC; Vox critic-at-large Todd VanDerWerff is on the TCA board, and writer Caroline Framke is a TCA member.)

Meanwhile, some news outlets and critics — including The A.V. Club, Flavorwire, the Boston Globe, and Washington Post columnist Alyssa Rosenberg — said they wouldn’t attend Disney’s advanced press screenings in an act of solidarity with the LA Times’s staff. Less than an hour before Disney lifted its ban, the New York Times also issued a statement confirming it will not go to preview screenings “until access is restored to the Los Angeles Times”:

There were even some writers and directors joining the swelling protest, like The Deuce creator David Simon and Ava Duvernay, whose big-budget Disney film A Wrinkle in Time is due out in March.


Ironically, Disney’s decision to blacklist the LA Times and the ensuing fallout likely drew more attention to the articles the company disagrees with than they would have received if the company said nothing at all.

Even though Disney has since lifted the ban, that shouldn’t detract from the frightening fact of the matter, which is that a powerful company took issue with reporting on its business dealings by blacklisting the news outlet that dared do it. What may look like a petty dispute over whether critics should get advance access is, in fact, a pretty chilling sign of the lengths Disney is willing to go to when it feels threatened. After all, the report that so offended Disney wasn’t an entertainment story at all — but Disney knew that’s where it could exert its power to punish the newspaper for publishing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Been getting into The Majority Report with Sam Seder of late. Don't mean to keep pimping "You Tube" news, but I'm finding it to be generally more informative and certainly more entertaining than MSM.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0