|
Mister Mind posted:______ bless America *Congressman looks on, embarassed* "I didn't know it was BYOB[ible]"
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Mister Mind posted:______ bless America I like this type of religious liberty way more than the “let me use my Christianity to oppress people” type.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:It’s interesting watching this discussion from the UK because we never had a belief in the good faith or impartiality of most of our media: our papers are and always have been proud of being partisan garbage. The exception *was* the BBC, but it has become much more of a state broadcaster in the past 3-4 years and has also had serious problems with fascists infiltrating the current affairs programmes. Yeah, (as a non Brit that grew up on British TV) it's been sad seeing the decline of the BBC as a news organization over the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes it is, we just don’t recognize it as such because we’ve been conditioned to accept American corporate media as inherently legitimate and well-intentioned. drat. The first post I saw in there was from the guy who wants to outlaw all media and replace it with open source Twitter reporting. That thread promises to be a hell of a read later today..
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Hey maybe the dnd mod shouldn't go off about how all journalism is propaganda in the thread about trying to post and discuss reliable news sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
thegoatgod_pan posted:Do you have any examples of Bloomberg media trying to dismantle public discourse, and destroy democracy, public agency etc., or is this just a Qltist paranoia seizure in progress? The slew of "China's system is better than ours because charts, we should strive to have less democracy because it just makes Sense, we can totally have social freedom too." pieces from the nineties through early teens should be enough, but you're either not presently aware of that genre of thinkpiece or you don't remember Bloomberg promoting it. My favorite crop was when they had to either justify Bush's "China is our friend" comment to their readership, or mock the Republican backlash and call concern for human rights racist. They achieved this by pointing out that many of those killed uare were college students studying Marxism and the humanities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
The Sinophile brand of authoritarian centrism was definitely a thing. I don't know about Bloomberg specifically, but check out some stuff mainstream commentators were saying a decade or so ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html Tom Friedman posted:One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down. Or this quote from someone who was nominated to the National Intelligence Council. To be fair, it helped keep him from getting the post, but only in combination with being insufficiently pro-Israel. Charles Freeman posted:I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:I agree with not posting propaganda, especially when it is a modern targeting. To have this thread be free of it seems important. News about these propaganda efforts would be different. I think I'd lean in a slightly more permissive attitude towards posting literal propaganda, but along your same lines. If the poster was willing and able to contextualize it as propaganda in the post they post it in, I think it could be interesting on it's own -- no article about the article or savvy twitter post particularly required, if the poster is providing their own interesting context. but that's just my tastes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Mister Mind posted:______ bless America That's the Sutra of Golden Light at the bottom which is one of a handful of Buddhist Sutras that deals with the question of how to rule (fairly, justly, and as an example for everyone else through your own actions). Of all the sutras one could be sworn in on, that's a very specific and thoughtfully chosen one
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think the discussion of exactly what level of terrible RT is versus American corporate media is interesting but a debate worth having elsewhere in this forum for debate. For now I think RT and adjacent media is relevant enough to allow and if nothing else deserves a response when it comes up if you feel it’s super dangerous. Could you clarify this a little further? Because you're saying "RT...deserves a response when it comes up if you feel it's super dangerous", but you're also directing that response to another thread. So I don't understand the boundary being drawn here. For instance, would my initial response that "google's not showing any major legit source picking this up" be acceptable going forward? Because it seems like you're saying that the idea that some outlets are more legitimate than others isn't appropriate for this thread. (If it's not acceptable, I apologize; I genuinely didn't realize that was controversial.) But the only other ways I can think of to respond are to discuss every story at face value regardless of source, which seems like it would frequently result in conversations too unproductive for this thread, or to ignore RT entirely, in which case I don't see the point of posting RT at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Maybe just approach any news you consume with a healthy skepticism about the ideology/policy agenda being communicated and don't transform into babby's first news expert if something gets posted outside of the DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS  blue checkmark wonkisphere
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
So the argument for posting RT is basically just whataboutism? Clearly exposure to it has caused some harm already.... Maybe the pool of material which deserves even healthy skepticism could do with straining out the literally intentional white noise that says all news is pointlessly corrupt and therefore we need to eat all of it to parse out the truth. Peacoffee fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jan 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
the point is that real journalists work for RT too on top of whatever bullshit they publish so its relevant to this thread and that your phobia of propaganda infecting your pure brain is hilarious and a little clinical
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
That is exactly why RT hires that sort of journalist, and why Fox News hires them (sometimes the same journalists even)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
While this isn't US News, it is a good indicator of the type of people at RT. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-46699507
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:While this isn't US News, it is a good indicator of the type of people at RT. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-46699507 okay this is only making me like RT
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Otherkinsey Scale posted:Could you clarify this a little further? Because you're saying "RT...deserves a response when it comes up if you feel it's super dangerous", but you're also directing that response to another thread. So I don't understand the boundary being drawn here. Back during the contra revolution the cia recruited director of comms/pr for the contras quit because he was disillusioned with all of the atrocities. In the process he wrote and talked a bunch about how he'd been trained to influence reporting on various pertinent subjects and it's entirely relevant to this conversation. Basically, in both the eyes of the public, policy makers, and intelligence agencies there were a few tiers of media respectability. This was determined by a combination of reputation, journalistic standards and integrity (which were explicitly the number one challenge of the job, because domestic papers just would not publish the bullshit jerkoff pieces about the Contras being non-atrocity comitting saviors), geographical proximity and reader familiarity. Essentially you had, in order of increasing reader credibility, state funded media (eg Voice of America, RT/Sputnik, Press TV, China Daily Al Jazeera is included here when reporting on Qatar, though their foreign reporting is quite independent), which no one in journalism took at all seriously as sources; major foreign media was a middle ground of established yet people lacked specific familiarity to know which were the most or least credible outlets in a given country; then you had partisan newspapers or news-magazines, they still had journalistic integrity and the partisan slant was known and it was going to be extremely tough to get bullshit stories into them; finally you have major domestic newsrooms that were the gold standard of credibility because they had the highest level of editorial standards and fact checked diligently compared to everyone else (this is your NYT, WaPo, Guardian, New Yorker, etc. Reuters, AP, AFP are maybe a third step down ). If it would be a news story in its own right that they published an article based on shoddy journalism or fake sources, they're in that last tier. I'm leaving out tabloids, which were considered useful to an extent, but everyone already knows where those fall. The stated goal of propaganda efforts was to get beneficial stories into the highest credibility tier of news possible. Generally, the top tier was out of reach and domestic partisan sources were similarly out of reach from direct efforts. They did discover that by feeding stories to a wide variety of foreign media, you could sometimes get a story slipped into mid-level american media because they'd report on the foreign reporting. When a story was ready to be farmed out, they'd release it through the state owned channel and would then very actively shop it to foreign press, if foreign press bit, then they'd shop that as newsworthy to American press and hope it was a slow news day. For anyone here old enough to remember the Contras fight against the Sandinistas, if you read any positive news about them, this was how it got to your eyes. This is all 1980s stuff, though the fundamentals are essentially unchanged. Twitter and Facebook both have had a completely massive impact in presenting complete shill bullshit side-by-side with absolute top-tier reporting and at first visual glance, they both look more or less identical. Facebook, being facebook, of course went extra evil and allowed targeting bullshit stories straight to the eyes of the people they wanted influenced, which is basically a wet dream for someone trying to disseminate propaganda. Just because facebook (and to some extent news aggregators in general are guilty of this) has allowed the visual perception of all the news being the same and bad and all equally partisan (and tbf probably 99% of the news you see on FB has gone through some targeting algorithms), the tiers of journalistic integrity absolutely are still a thing. The process of getting stories into domestic news outlets that Americans intrinsically trust more than foreign news sources is still done largely the same way it always was, it's just bolstered by all the social media targeted stuff and there are a lot more completely artificial 'newsrooms' churning out entirely made up stories for trolls to link on social media. Recognizing that not all media is the same is fundamental to not being conned by the people who make conning you their livelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:okay this is only making me like RT geez dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Back during the contra revolution the cia recruited director of comms/pr for the contras quit because he was disillusioned with all of the atrocities. In the process he wrote and talked a bunch about how he'd been trained to influence reporting on various pertinent subjects and it's entirely relevant to this conversation. This is very interesting. Do you know a book or article that elaborates on it (specifically the ex-Contra guy and his taxonomy)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:This is very interesting. Do you know a book or article that elaborates on it (specifically the ex-Contra guy and his taxonomy)? Edgar Chamorro. He wrote a monograph specifically on the subject with the Institute for Media Analysis called "Packaging the Contras: A case of CIA disinformation." I talked to him in person a bunch, too, he's a peculiar figure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Good https://twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/1080664990711918593
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
They're scared https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1080998665672630272
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
I know some Democrats who handwring about her being "too radical, she's going to just scare people into voting more conservative," and I just want to loving slap them. Like, WTF, how can you not realize that an American centrist Democrat is basically a right-winger everywhere else in the world?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:I know some Democrats who handwring about her being "too radical, she's going to just scare people into voting more conservative," and I just want to loving slap them. Like, WTF, how can you not realize that an American centrist Democrat is basically a right-winger everywhere else in the world? Almost every single one of those centrist Dems was so profoundly traumatized by the '84 election that they'll never be able to process that that was 35 years ago. And I'm using the word "traumatized" very deliberately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Mister Mind posted:______ bless America If you, like me, wondered why the Golden Light Sutra was the particular pick, apparently the text relates to being an exemplary and just leader, with an explanation of the rewards and punishments for those who rule their countries well or poorly!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:So the argument for posting RT is basically just whataboutism? Clearly exposure to it has caused some harm already.... I think its worth considering why when RT is so similar in content and form to Fox news, why do many people associated with the left like watching it? At least for revolutionary leftists I think the answer is pretty clear: when one believes it is necessary to overthrow the American government, RT's relentless message that the system is rigged, illegitimate, and broken is exactly the kind of message you want to promote. So its not surprising it appeals to a lot of the left. I would argue though its not a good news source even for revolutionary leftists though, for the same reason Fox news is a bad news source for conservatives. That is it it is designed to tell you what you want to hear and expect to hear, more so than what's important. There's nothing I distrust more than someone who wants to tell me how much they're just like me and share my feelings and concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
gently caress yeah
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I think its worth considering why when RT is so similar in content and form to Fox news, why do many people associated with the left like watching it? At least for revolutionary leftists I think the answer is pretty clear: when one believes it is necessary to overthrow the American government, RT's relentless message that the system is rigged, illegitimate, and broken is exactly the kind of message you want to promote. So its not surprising it appeals to a lot of the left. When I first learned about RT in 2013 or 14 it amazed me how much it seemed like Fox news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
RT's only value is the same as Fox's value, "What is currently being shopped around in the crazyverse so we can tell when it leaks into the real news." Because like the contra-guy said, it DOES leak. And knowing what the propaganda of the week is means you can spot it when it does. I would never take any news story from RT seriously as a news article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
mistaya posted:RT's only value is the same as Fox's value, "What is currently being shopped around in the crazyverse so we can tell when it leaks into the real news." Because like the contra-guy said, it DOES leak. And knowing what the propaganda of the week is means you can spot it when it does. It's the state propaganda of an extremely right-wing authoritarian state - so yeah - I don't think that anybody should consider a good news source for any reason. If you ever see something produced by RT that you agree with - you should really think about why, both why you agree (which might be totally fine) and why RT is publishing it (which is not for the purpose of journalism).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:It's the state propaganda of an extremely right-wing authoritarian state - so yeah - I don't think that anybody should consider a good news source for any reason. If you ever see something produced by RT that you agree with - you should really think about why, both why you agree (which might be totally fine) and why RT is publishing it (which is not for the purpose of journalism). Also, why any people being appearing on, or being promoted by, RT are willing to be promoted or published by them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
saintonan posted:This, completely. Everyone's up in arms about an op-ed when it's crystal clear Mitt's gonna vote with Trump 100% of the time. Hint: you're not in opposition to someone you vote in lockstep with. This should be blasted at the Capital building non-stop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zyF0ZOy3k
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:It's the state propaganda of an extremely right-wing authoritarian state This also describes the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:This also describes the BBC. Only in the most flippant, shallow way, after ignoring context and nuance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:This also describes the BBC. *has read george orwell and is extemely smart and knows what is and isnt propaganda* nuh uh
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
if it werent for england's ridiculous parliamentary infighting and the rise of labour they'd be the most overtly right wing authoritarian nation in the first world. there's still a solid argument to be made that this remains the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Only in the most flippant, shallow way, after ignoring context and nuance. That's news in general
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Lyta Gold, for Current Affairs: People Who "Pretend" to Be lovely Frequently Are Just lovely, on Louis CK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:if it werent for england's ridiculous parliamentary infighting and the rise of labour they'd be the most overtly right wing authoritarian nation in the first world. there's still a solid argument to be made that this remains the case. I'd like to see that argument because that's a mind-boggling stupid thing to say when, say, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, the DRC, and the CAR are around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
captainblastum posted:I'd like to see that argument because that's a mind-boggling stupid thing to say when, say, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, the DRC, and the CAR are around. The statement was qualified with "first world," which I mean I think you could debate whether or not the US or UK are more right-wing but it's mostly an academic exercise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:11
|
|