|
OwlFancier posted:Like how is the existence of large scale media operations remotely in keeping with the idea of informing people? You hand over control of information availability and presentation to massive companies and then expect them to protect you??? And then you say no, actually this isn't enough, these companies must be completely free of any sort of oversight or accountability, let's call it freedom of the press! The wealthiest and most powerful companies must have absolute freedom to control information however they please, only then will we be safe! Obviously there's a difference between the idea of expecting large media companies "to protect you" and how people actually view the role of media companies. I mean, you're clearly an idiot troll, but it should be readily apparent why there should be a baseline of media companies with enough clout to push back against abnormal interest groups, whether this is lobbying groups or racist groups or the government or whatever. If you JUST have the small scale internet operators, OBVIOUSLY (you loving idiot), stronger groups can crack down hard on these types. The large media groups are a check for the other powerful interests. The small scale operators can only properly function in the ecosystem IF there are multiple large operators.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
What makes you think they would push back against that... What incentive is there? You're looking for a free market solution to the basis of effective democracy: Information provision and assimilation. That's absolutely insane in this day and age when faced with all the evidence you must surely have observed in the recent past. It's the profit seeking motive of all the media outlets that produced your drat president! The stronger groups already crack down on them, that's how capitalist control of things works, the large media companies monopolize the broadcasting space and thus drown out the smaller ones regardless of any notion of actual truth. What matters is not the quality or veracity of reporting but whether it is profitable and who has the most monetary backing for their message. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Obviously there's a difference between the idea of expecting large media companies "to protect you" and how people actually view the role of media companies. I mean, you're clearly an idiot troll, but it should be readily apparent why there should be a baseline of media companies with enough clout to push back against abnormal interest groups, whether this is lobbying groups or racist groups or the government or whatever. But what happens when those plucky, brave big fish saving all those small media outlets start eating all those independent voices to advance their own agenda? Like what is happening right now with Sinclair. Or is that okay, because giant media empires like Sinclair MUST exist to protect the weak or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What makes you think they would push back against that... What incentive is there? No you don’t understand, MSNBRaytheon will definitely tell us if the next war is just or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What makes you think they would push back against that... What incentive is there? Presumably "they" means media groups and "that" means abnormal interest groups? Have you looked at the news for the last two years? What the hell do you mean, what incentive is there? Look at CNN articles from during the election. They had the pro-Clinton articles and they had the pro-Trump articles. Now CNN articles are primarily anti-Trump. Why is this? They're trying to make money, bro. Someone else has the pro-Trump angle cornered. They embrace the other angle. Before this they played both angles. With greater than half of the population being opposed to the current government, do you think every media outlet favorably covering the current government is somehow a profitable angle? Again, are you loving retarded?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Presumably "they" means media groups and "that" means abnormal interest groups? Have you looked at the news for the last two years? What the hell do you mean, what incentive is there? Look at CNN articles from during the election. They had the pro-Clinton articles and they had the pro-Trump articles. Now CNN articles are primarily anti-Trump. Why is this? They're trying to make money, bro. Someone else has the pro-Trump angle cornered. They embrace the other angle. Before this they played both angles. With greater than half of the population being opposed to the current government, do you think every media outlet favorably covering the current government is somehow a profitable angle? Again, are you loving retarded? They're the reason trump was elected in the first place for god's sake, it was them constantly trying to profit on his entertainment value that gave him most of his damned advertising, what makes you think repeating the same thing is going to dissuade the people who voted for him already under that pretense? The liberal press doesn't like him, that's half his appeal... Reaffirming that isn't going to make a difference. And you can be drat sure that no major outlet will credit an actual left alternative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Presumably "they" means media groups and "that" means abnormal interest groups? Have you looked at the news for the last two years? What the hell do you mean, what incentive is there? Look at CNN articles from during the election. They had the pro-Clinton articles and they had the pro-Trump articles. Now CNN articles are primarily anti-Trump. Why is this? They're trying to make money, bro. Someone else has the pro-Trump angle cornered. They embrace the other angle. Before this they played both angles. With greater than half of the population being opposed to the current government, do you think every media outlet favorably covering the current government is somehow a profitable angle? Again, are you loving retarded? I like that your answer to "media only considers news as revenue and has no incentive to do anything else" is "of course it does, you loving moron". And that's good, somehow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Malleum posted:But what happens when those plucky, brave big fish saving all those small media outlets start eating all those independent voices to advance their own agenda? Like what is happening right now with Sinclair. Or is that okay, because giant media empires like Sinclair MUST exist to protect the weak or whatever? No, you misunderstand. The big media groups aren't "saving" the smaller media groups. That's absurd. But how do you think small media groups would operate in the absence of powerful media conglomerates? If CNN or MSNBC wasn't the enemy of the people and instead it was some blogger being called out by some much more powerful entity, which do you think would have the ability to hold its own? Again, my point is, that without the media conglomerates, there would literally be no room for small entities to function.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:No, you misunderstand. The big media groups aren't "saving" the smaller media groups. That's absurd. But how do you think small media groups would operate in the absence of powerful media conglomerates? If CNN or MSNBC wasn't the enemy of the people and instead it was some blogger being called out by some much more powerful entity, which do you think would have the ability to hold its own? Again, my point is, that without the media conglomerates, there would literally be no room for small entities to function. Then... you've forced a larger entity to engage with one among countless information sources...? Rather than just ignoring them all and presenting a different position because the large entity owns a massive chunk of the broadcast space and they can be safe in the knowledge that almost nobody will actually see the smaller sources?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They're the reason trump was elected in the first place for god's sake, it was them constantly trying to profit on his entertainment value that gave him most of his damned advertising, what makes you think repeating the same thing is going to dissuade the people who voted for him already under that pretense? The liberal press doesn't like him, that's half his appeal... Reaffirming that isn't going to make a difference. And you can be drat sure that no major outlet will credit an actual left alternative. So CNN is the reason that Trump is President? Seriously? That's the point you're going to make?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:So CNN is the reason that Trump is President? Seriously? That's the point you're going to make? Did you not get the general gist of the 2016 election which was a series of instances of donald trump making GBS threads his pants publically and the entire press going "OH MY GOD LOOK HOW MUCH poo poo IS IN HIS PANTS" and the maga brigade going "HELL YEAH WE LOVE lovely PANTS WOOOOO"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then... you've forced a larger entity to engage with one among countless information sources...? Rather than just ignoring them all and presenting a different position because the large entity owns a massive chunk of the broadcast space and they can be safe in the knowledge that almost nobody will actually see the smaller sources? As opposed to the large entity owning literally all of the broadcast space in the absence of any competing sources and ignoring the smaller sources? What even is this argument?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:So CNN is the reason that Trump is President? Seriously? That's the point you're going to make? cnn regularly cut to an empty podium where trump would be speaking in t-minus 30 minutes dude
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:As opposed to the large entity owning literally all of the broadcast space in the absence of any competing sources and ignoring the smaller sources? What even is this argument? Get this, what if private large scale information provision... was illegal..? What if having four or five massive companies controlling everything is only slightly less bad than one, and maybe we could have... none of them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Did you not get the general gist of the 2016 election which was a series of instances of donald trump making GBS threads his pants publically and the entire press going "OH MY GOD LOOK HOW MUCH poo poo IS IN HIS PANTS" and the maga brigade going "HELL YEAH WE LOVE lovely PANTS WOOOOO" So let me sum this up. OwlFancier's argument is that instead of some established sources pointing out that the President's pants are filled with poo poo, he'd rather Alex Jones and comparable outlets point out that the President's pants are filled with poo poo, because somehow that's better than the New York Times doing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:No, you misunderstand. The big media groups aren't "saving" the smaller media groups. That's absurd. But how do you think small media groups would operate in the absence of powerful media conglomerates? If CNN or MSNBC wasn't the enemy of the people and instead it was some blogger being called out by some much more powerful entity, which do you think would have the ability to hold its own? Again, my point is, that without the media conglomerates, there would literally be no room for small entities to function. What's the point in holding their own if their shareholders are opposed to doing anything to rock the boat? Who loving cares if CNN can withstand pressure from the national police union if it won't ever do anything to make them mad in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Get this, what if private large scale information provision... was illegal..? Get this, what if having the president poo poo his pants on TV... was illegal..? What if having four or five massive diaper fillings daily from the President is only slightly less bad than one, and maybe we could have... none of them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:So let me sum this up. OwlFancier's argument is that instead of some established sources pointing out that the President's pants are filled with poo poo, he'd rather Alex Jones and comparable outlets point out that the President's pants are filled with poo poo, because somehow that's better than the New York Times doing it. I would rather that people were forced to acquire information by looking for it among an enforced sea of individual sources, and had to come to conclusions via collective discussion, not that they turned on the national news and go told what to think. litany of gulps posted:Get this, what if having the president poo poo his pants on TV... was illegal..? What does that even mean..? If it's abolish the executive arm of government that's an interesting idea and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Malleum posted:What's the point in holding their own if their shareholders are opposed to doing anything to rock the boat? Who loving cares if CNN can withstand pressure from the national police union if it won't ever do anything to make them mad in the first place? What does this even mean? Rock the boat? Do you want the newspaper of record for the United States to push extremist ideology? Read their opinion section if you want to see something stupid, it'll have some neo-Nazi garbage. That's the extremist ideology the country is embracing. They're not going to push some burn the capitalists stuff that you have wet dreams about. Get real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:What does this even mean? Rock the boat? Do you want the newspaper of record for the United States push extremist ideology? Read their opinion section if you want to see something stupid, it'll have some neo-Nazi garbage. That's the extremist ideology the country is embracing. They're not going to push some burn the capitalists stuff that you have wet dreams about. Get real.  my man, have you even opened up a nyt or wapo recently
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
And they've done an absolutely stellar job protecting the country from the far right thus far, I for one am very keen to see them continue to succeed so excellently. Going to absolutely take the wind out of the neo nazis by putting out opinion pieces about how actually everything was great in 2016 and we really should just go back to that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
"Wow, the news media sure is terrible!" "Of course it is, you moron, you fucker, you absolute dingdong, why would you ever want it NOT to be"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would rather that people were forced to acquire information by looking for it among an enforced sea of individual sources, and had to come to conclusions via collective discussion, not that they turned on the national news and go told what to think. This isn't real. You'd rather something that doesn't exist happen. "An enforced sea of individual sources." Who enforces it? Who picks which sources are OK? This is a nonsense statement and you know it. If you want your individual sources to exist, there has to be a competition among powerful national interests. That's the only way that the individual sources can survive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:This isn't real. You'd rather something that doesn't exist happen. "An enforced sea of individual sources." Who enforces it? Who picks which sources are OK? This is a nonsense statement and you know it. If you want your individual sources to exist, there has to be a competition among powerful national interests. That's the only way that the individual sources can survive. this is some ur fascism bullshit, try again
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/...ingawful.com%2F
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Phone posted:
Yeah, and it's full of neo-Nazi bullshit, because that's the direction the country is pivoting. You should be worried about that, not thinking that abolishing the NYT or WaPo is going to cure racism and fascism. Are they they source? Do you legitimately think that destroying the major media groups in the United States will be a step toward combating extremism in the country? Are you insane? If we outlawed the NYT and WaPo tomorrow, is that a step toward freedom or fascism? Do you think if we start locking up reporters that YouTubers are going to fill in the gap?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:This isn't real. You'd rather something that doesn't exist happen. "An enforced sea of individual sources." Who enforces it? Who picks which sources are OK? This is a nonsense statement and you know it. If you want your individual sources to exist, there has to be a competition among powerful national interests. That's the only way that the individual sources can survive. I mean in theory that's what the government is for, the weapon of the public empowered solely by virture of their existence to direct action against forces empowered by money. Though the US government doesn't work very well so you might have more luck just getting together and burning down all the press buildings or something. Y'know, something revolutionary. You really haven't established how having big media companies means smaller ones are effective though. litany of gulps posted:Yeah, and it's full of neo-Nazi bullshit, because that's the direction the country is pivoting. You should be worried about that, not thinking that abolishing the NYT or WaPo is going to cure racism and fascism. Are they they source? Do you legitimately think that destroying the major media groups in the United States will be a step toward combating extremism in the country? Are you insane? If we outlawed the NYT and WaPo tomorrow, is that a step toward freedom or fascism? Do you think if we start locking up reporters that YouTubers are going to fill in the gap? Do I think that abolishing the massive institutions that promote and cover for fascists will obstruct the growth of fascism? I realise that that's a rhetorical question but I don't think it rhetorics the way you think it does. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Wait... are you actually advocating for state run media?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Yeah, and it's full of neo-Nazi bullshit, because that's the direction the country is pivoting. You should be worried about that, not thinking that abolishing the NYT or WaPo is going to cure racism and fascism. Are they they source? Do you legitimately think that destroying the major media groups in the United States will be a step toward combating extremism in the country? Are you insane? If we outlawed the NYT and WaPo tomorrow, is that a step toward freedom or fascism? Do you think if we start locking up reporters that YouTubers are going to fill in the gap? News empires are like forces of nature, really. Definitely do not have their own agendas and viewpoints that they consciously decide to push. No, they are rudderless and directionless and easily swayed by the winds of change. Which is why its imperative that they not be inconvenienced in any way or held accountable for their actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean in theory that's what the government is for, the weapon of the public empowered solely by virture of their existence to direct action against forces empowered by money. And your thesis is apparently that the government is a weapon of the public empowered by virtue to act against forces empowered by money. Obviously you live in a different reality than I do, so I don't imagine that any claim I make will be effective given that you are from another dimension. What world are you from, freakshow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
I'm advocating for a state run absence of media. The abolition of media as a large scale industry directed from the top down and in service to any coherent interest. Ban papers and news broadcasts, basically. Information is far too important to hand over control of to any small group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Do I think that abolishing the massive institutions that promote and cover for fascists will obstruct the growth of fascism? No, you think that eliminating the various factions competing for control of the fascist apparatus will obstruct the growth of fascism. If there's only one group controlling that apparatus, apparently it will be better!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
When the new york times lets a bunch of neo nazis use their platform to boost their message, it just happens for no reason. Nobody ever sat down and decided that yes, they would like to have neo nazi viewpoints in their paper of record. Which is why its also filled with a bunch of articles on UFO sightings and all the people gangstalking the author.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
Malleum posted:When the new york times lets a bunch of neo nazis use their platform to boost their message, it just happens for no reason. Nobody ever sat down and decided that yes, they would like to have neo nazi viewpoints in their paper of record. Which is why its also filled with a bunch of articles on UFO sightings and all the people gangstalking the author. yeah but they're just so god drat good at the news
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
How clear can I make "ban the press"? I don't want one big media company, I want no big media companies. Not private, not state owned. This should not be a difficult concept for an American to grasp, for all that I dislike the founders of the US they were sensibly paranoid about the notion of creating sources of incredible power on the basis that they could not be trusted to be run well for very long. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Malleum posted:News empires are like forces of nature, really. Definitely do not have their own agendas and viewpoints that they consciously decide to push. No, they are rudderless and directionless and easily swayed by the winds of change. Which is why its imperative that they not be inconvenienced in any way or held accountable for their actions. The first part of this is actually partially true. Some news empires push an agenda. Some sway with the winds. The second half of this is your own construct. I'd rather see such news empires locked in a struggle with the government, rather than a government with no outside force attempting to hold it accountable other than individual bloggers, which is apparently the proper apparatus to hold a government accountable? Again, if the government and various media outlets are locked in a struggle, the individual news outlet actually has the possibility of functioning. Why this seems like such a wild and alien idea is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
The only thing that can hold a government to account is a politically engaged and informed populace, and a populace can only be informed if it seeks information, not if it has it spoon fed to it by either the government or the richest prick with a press. The rich won't save you from the government and they definitely won't save you from the fash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:The first part of this is actually partially true. Some news empires push an agenda. Some sway with the winds. The second half of this is your own construct. I'd rather see such news empires locked in a struggle with the government, rather than a government with no outside force attempting to hold it accountable other than individual bloggers, which is apparently the proper apparatus to hold a government accountable? Again, if the government and various media outlets are locked in a struggle, the individual news outlet actually has the possibility of functioning. Why this seems like such a wild and alien idea is beyond me. So these media empires, who have no agenda and have no direction, are locked in a struggle with the government.... because? Just because?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How clear can I make "ban the press"? Right, the "enforced sea of individual sources." Again, what does that even mean? So kill all of the media companies? You're left with the government and what? Bloggers? Who enforces your sea? What outlets are available? You can mock my claim that the media companies provide oxygen for the small groups, but you can't even speak a word in defense of your brainless idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm advocating for a state run absence of media. The abolition of media as a large scale industry directed from the top down and in service to any coherent interest. I'm going to have to chew on Anarcho-Journalism a bit, but an immediate gap I'm seeing is for the people who cannot realistically compile their own comprehensive aggregate internet news sources in the absence of pre-chewed TV broadcasts. It's also an obvious gaping MARKET niche and I'm not sure what moves in to fill it without violating whatever rules your new order has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 04:33
|
|
