|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. Telesur is also a source of legitimate original journalism. But as a savvy consumer of information, you know that it is not to be trusted regarding certain matters without corroboration. Just like RT. Just like the NYT.
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. one of those specific, identifiable biases is that there has been no point, both during your lifetime and arguably ever, where the New York Times has served as anything more than a stenographer for the US State Department regarding the ease, desirability, and certain positive outcome of any given US-backed regime change initiative. surely, the savvy media consumer is aware of this fact, no?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Telesur is also a source of legitimate original journalism. But as a savvy consumer of information, you know that it is not to be trusted regarding certain matters without corroboration. Just like RT. Just like the NYT. Telesur is headquartered in Caracas and was founded as a mouthpiece propaganda outpost by Hugo Chavez about a decade ago. RT is headquartered in Moscow and is required to be registered as a foreign agent by the state department. It was founded by the Russian government in 2005 to advance Russian interests abroad. The NYT was founded in the 1800's and was not established by the United States government and is not headquartered in the capital, it is also one of the most highly regarded journalistic publications in the world. I know USA = Bad, but this is grasping at straws the NYT isn't getting kickbacks to provide positive coverage of the Trump Administration.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Telesur is headquartered in Caracas and was founded as a mouthpiece propaganda outpost by Hugo Chavez about a decade ago. The United States government primarily exists to protect the interests of the 1% and the NYTimes is owned by those same people.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I know USA = Bad, but this is grasping at straws the NYT isn't getting kickbacks to provide positive coverage of the Trump Administration. The NYT literally gets valuable favors, in the form of access to sources, for publishing what the State Department tells it to. Edit: Added an explanatory clause. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The NYT literally gets favors for publishing what the State Department wants it to. Do you have a source for this?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Telesur is headquartered in Caracas and was founded as a mouthpiece propaganda outpost by Hugo Chavez about a decade ago. William Randolf Hearst proved once and for all that all privately owned media is 100% trustworthy and reliable without ulterior motives no siree.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Do you have a source for this? Read Manufacturing Consent. E: or watch the documentary. It’s like an hour and a half long and free on YouTube. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 23:27 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:The NYT was founded in the 1800's and was not established by the United States government and is not headquartered in the capital, it is also one of the most highly regarded journalistic publications in the world. And yet, in this specific instance, it is acting as a mouthpiece for the Trump Administration and Pompeo State Department's narrative. I don't dispute that the Times was founded to be something different from Telesur or RT, but that's not particularly relevant to the conversation at hand. What matters is that the Times is pushing a narrative that is at least as dangerous to the Venezuelan people's wellbeing as anything put out by Telesur.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. The specific biases of the NYT are the worst kind possible - biases in the favour of the US bourgeoise, who are the most destructive economic actors on a global scale, and in favour of the US state & establishment, especially with regards to foreign policy, on which they have an atrocious record, which is obviously a highly relevant factor in this thread. I mean I honestly used to think highly of the NYT, they seemed so professional and seemed to put so much work into their articles, and I still think they do good work sometimes, like relatively recently when they aired out Google's workplace sexual harassment issues. But after coming down on the wrong side of history on basically every important foreign policy issue I would have to be terribly stupid to take anything they have to say on Venezuela seriously. Being skeptical of publications that have proven themselves time and time again to publish bullshit isn't "reductive cynicism", it's actual savvy. I would say that being willing to ignore such fundamental problems because their positions align with yours, as you are doing, makes you a mark. What is so different about a teleSUR reporter getting told what to say outright by Maduro's government than some credulous NYT reporter uncritically relaying the message some State Department "source" has for them? I mean they could try to be critical, but that would mean they would get fired, and it wouldn't get past the editors - that means they are forced to spread state propaganda, with the purpose of lying, misleading and controlling its targets. I certainly don't trust teleSUR to be objective, especially with regards to Venezuela, but that's because they have a specific easily identifiable bias - they are pro PSUV. That they exist entirely to lie is a dumb sensationalist exaggeration - their work, just like that of the NYT, RT, WaPo, Al Jazeera, Fox News or Democracy Now is generally based on factual occurrences, which they all interpret in a manner that serves to further their cause, be it making money, serving an owner/owners or state to which they are subordinate by strategically deceiving people, serving the journalistic needs of the people by relaying the actual facts, or most likely a combination of all of these. I mean in this very thread the NYT had misrepresented the facts with regards to the aid truck burnings. Who are the marks, the people who mistrusted them in the first place, or the people who believed them right away, because it aligned with their "Maduro bad" view? Sure they later had to retract, but the fact that some people were able not to fall for it in the first place indicates that they must have been savvy consumers. Don't you think that it's totalising and reductive to automatically dismiss all anti-establishment reporting as ideological liars?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Zidrooner posted:The specific biases of the NYT are the worst kind possible - biases in the favour of the US bourgeoise, who are the most destructive economic actors on a global scale, and in favour of the US state & establishment, especially with regards to foreign policy, on which they have an atrocious record, which is obviously a highly relevant factor in this thread. I mean I honestly used to think highly of the NYT, they seemed so professional and seemed to put so much work into their articles, and I still think they do good work sometimes, like relatively recently when they aired out Google's workplace sexual harassment issues. But after coming down on the wrong side of history on basically every important foreign policy issue I would have to be terribly stupid to take anything they have to say on Venezuela seriously. Being skeptical of publications that have proven themselves time and time again to publish bullshit isn't "reductive cynicism", it's actual savvy. I would say that being willing to ignore such fundamental problems because their positions align with yours, as you are doing, makes you a mark. TeleSUR are a state-established, state-funded media organisation. Calling them 'anti-establishment' seems like a teeny bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Do you have a source for this? The Kingfish posted:Read Manufacturing Consent. for those who haven't read it, here's the best example of it. remember that time Dick Cheney told the New York Times "we've got proof Iraq's got WMDs, but don't tell them I said so" the New York Times printed "NYT reporting suggests there's proof Iraq has WMDs" and then Dick Cheney went out and said "hey, it's not just us saying this, it's the New York Times saying it too. independent corroboration." now, the NYT could have responded to that by crying "bullshit, you were the one who said that in the first place, and are lying to try to throw us into war." or, alternately, they could eat poo poo while smiling about it in the name of preserving more sweet, delicious Cheney exclusives. after all. what's the worst that could happen if they just happily helped the administration launder pro-war talking points? anything had to be better than Saddam, right? ~oops~ which brings us back around to the daughter of a pre-Chavez official getting NYT space (bylined as a "venezuelan-american comic," loving lol. yeah, awful lot of comedians getting foreign policy op-ed space in the NYT, can't open up the paper without seeing what the cast of Second City have to say about Syria) to say "my country, Venezuela, yearns for freedom, do not listen to the useful idiots saying things like 'nobody who actually lives there is stupid enough to think Guaido will be an improvement,' anything has to be better than Maduro." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/contributors/venezuela-us-hands-off-joanna-hausmann.html
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:TeleSUR are a state-established, state-funded media organisation. Calling them 'anti-establishment' seems like a teeny bit of a stretch. Technically correct, sidestepping the entire substantive point.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
The monsters who work for and own the NYT, WP, Fox, NBC, and other American media concerns helped kill sum 400,000 people less than a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
wrt maduro i'm not sure how to feel, because there's a lot of US backed propaganda vilifying him (which is kinda to be expected when talking about any country the US is trying to regime change). what's true and what's false wrt him is p hard to grasp. guaido on the other hand has made it patently clear from the start what kind of shitbag he is by allying with the trump admin Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. Malcolm X said it best about newspapers like the NYT: quote:“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” The fact that most Americans swallow what the private media tell them is fairly remarkable, just two generations ago union newspapers were a fairly common thing that people read to get their news. Would you say that newspapers like the Labor Tribune are legitimate sources of original journalism? Or is that reserved for court stenographers like the NYT? Darth Walrus posted:TeleSUR are a state-established, state-funded media organisation. Calling them 'anti-establishment' seems like a teeny bit of a stretch. No worse than the BBC or even NPR's charity beg-a-thon radio in the US. Who is state established and who gets to be called a "public broadcaster" seems mostly a matter of who is a US ally or not.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
I have no doubt Maduro is a corrupt, anti-democratic dictator. But I have yet to see convincing evidence that he is any more brutal than the St. Louis police department.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
I think the biggest hurdle we face in Americans discussing this kind of stuff is getting enough politicians who are willing to just meet 'Maduro is a bad leader though! Even if he's not actually oppressing people and all he's still just running the country badly!' with 'ok so what about that is our problem though'. Like, we don't actually need to get involved in 'bad leader exists' but so much even among anti-interventionists frames it around 'but we all agree Maduro is bad though' as if that matters in the conversation of 'there's a coup going on backed by the US'
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:TeleSUR are a state-established, state-funded media organisation. Calling them 'anti-establishment' seems like a teeny bit of a stretch. Yes, they themselves aren't, even if they do on occasion employ anti-establishment figures like Abby Martin. I was referring specifically to DV's constant dismissal of any and all anti-establishment sources when they are posted in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:wrt maduro i'm not sure how to feel, because there's a lot of US backed propaganda vilifying him (which is kinda to be expected when talking about any country the US is trying to regime change). what's true and what's false wrt him is p hard to grasp. i personally have zero problem saying the guy's a fucker and not doing a good job, and if you gave me the power to snap my fingers and replace him with someone better at it he would not last the minute. in the absence of that ability, and in the world where prospective replacements are being vetted by a brain trust that includes Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Elliot "The Sledgehammering Toddlers To Death Will Continue Until Morale Improves" Abrams, I find it very difficult to argue in good faith that the replacements will be an improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. Yeah and one of the most specific identifiable bias is their coverage of foreign countries controlled by governments that the state department wants to overthrow. In fact the New York Times did such a terrible job of covering Iraq that they had to release a full blown apology (full of qualifications and attempts to weasel out of the full weight of their failure) which I think is more than a little relevant to the topic of this thread: The New York Times posted:FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido on Saturday said he has instructed his political envoy in Washington to immediately open relations with the US military, in an attempt to put more pressure on President Nicolás Maduro to resign. quote:In past days, Padrino also denounced what he said were attempts by the US military to sow discord inside Venezuela’s barracks, inviting an angry response from Adm Craig Faller, head of Southern Command, who said he “stands ready” to assist Guaido. Definitely not a coup, Guaido is definitely not conspiring with the US to overthrow the government!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:
"It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country... such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself."
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Read Manufacturing Consent. Or don't, read Parenti's Inventing Reality instead.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:"It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country... such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself." 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Yeah, no one read the Discourses, they all prefer the Prince. even Machiavelli thought the Prince was bullshit, he just wrote it to desperately suck up to the noble that had hosed him over.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The New York Times is not TeleSUR, not is it equivalent to pseudojournalists shuttled around by the regime, being staged in front of “fully stocked” stores and “US-supplied weapons”. Discendo Vox posted:I can’t watch this where I am, but you are equivocating between an op-ed and a literal state-owned regional propaganda program that has trafficked in conspiracy theories and lies for years, both directly and through cut outs. Why would you think these things are comparable? What does it say about how you are selecting and consuming information? quote:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. Seraphic Sphere fucked around with this message at 06:57 on May 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What did you make of his criticism of Chavez for not amassing sufficient reserves of foreign currency? It's highly relevant to the austerity that has afflicted Venezuela since 2014.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Seraphic Sphere posted:You don't think any of this is politicized at all, do you? There's no amount of foreign currency Venezuela could amass that wouldn't make them a target for austerity. The western banks take all this into account in advance and adjust the lending terms to be as punitive as possible no matter what, it's war. I'm not sure I follow. Venezuela entered a period of severe austerity after 2013 necessitated by the crash in oil prices. Venezuela was not made "a target for austerity" whatever that means. Austerity was the product of their own budgeting process. Spending on almost all of Chavez's social programs came from the discretionary budget, and when revenue dried up that spending was cut pretty much automatically. If Venezuela had had larger reserves of foreign currency it could have spent them down after prices fell to buffer and cushion the decrease in revenue. Few nations manage to balance this kind of saving/spending perfectly but Venezuela did an especially terrible job. Meanwhile if you look at what financial analysts were saying and publishing at the time, the finance people were mostly acting as if they were oblivious to sanctions. They were very concerned that Venezuela was going to end up defaulting however. Reading what they were saying in 2016 they appear extremely concerned that Venezuelan debt payments were not sustainable long before financial sanctions began in 2017. When they were enacted they definitely hurt though, its just hard to disentangle their effect from other concurrent issues.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark. No it's not lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Not diversifying the economy was arguably PSUV's biggest issue. This is literally the dumbest loving criticism, you've lifted wholesale from someone else. No poo poo they should have diversified. Guess they should have clicked their fingers and just diversified.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The New York Times is effectively a propaganda outlet for the US State Department and should be treated as such. I’m curious, do you actually believe this? That there is literally no difference between a US newspaper and a propaganda division of an authoritarian state? Or are you just making a rhetorical point that the NYT is usually going to see the world the same way the state department does?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 08:45
|
|
|
As it turns out, diversifying a petrostate's economy is a tad bit difficult, as there are a series of constraints that access to oil itself imposes that are insanely difficult to overcome. As it turns out, petrostate institutions tend to, whether formally or informally, revolve around the biggest revenue generator, the oil industry. Major power figures come from the elites of the extractive company, access to oil revenues means better financial coverage for those who ally themselves with the oil industry, and most of all, since they are the power constituency of choice for anyone who would like to stay in power, they command where most of the oil revenue in the economy goes. Combine this with the natural institutional inertia of large organizations, (and there's several separate ones involved here) a heaping of corruption, as it is unavoidable there will be when sums of money that large are involved, and you get a system that's very strongly biased towards keeping on like it is. It's easy to say that you need to divert oil revenues into other sectors of the economy, but good luck convincing all the oil exec power brokers who are essentially the gatekeepers of power that that money would not be better spent on the oil company itself. The oil industry tends to just unsustainably grow and eat the whole loving economy, and it is hard to stop it from doing so even in an institutionally sound, advanced capitalist economy like Norway, let alone anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:I’m curious, do you actually believe this? That there is literally no difference between a US newspaper and a propaganda division of an authoritarian state? Or are you just making a rhetorical point that the NYT is usually going to see the world the same way the state department does? There is a literal difference. There is no effective difference in terms of what gets published on certain topics. The topic of American Imperialism for example.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:I’m curious, do you actually believe this? That there is literally no difference between a US newspaper and a propaganda division of an authoritarian state? Or are you just making a rhetorical point that the NYT is usually going to see the world the same way the state department does? it's reasoning like this that lets NYT support every american butchery while still keeping its status as respected it's a rag and it's always been a rag, but it has "prestige" so people are taught to consider it something more than that
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 09:34
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:As it turns out, diversifying a petrostate's economy is a tad bit difficult, as there are a series of constraints that access to oil itself imposes that are insanely difficult to overcome. As it turns out, petrostate institutions tend to, whether formally or informally, revolve around the biggest revenue generator, the oil industry. Major power figures come from the elites of the extractive company, access to oil revenues means better financial coverage for those who ally themselves with the oil industry, and most of all, since they are the power constituency of choice for anyone who would like to stay in power, they command where most of the oil revenue in the economy goes. Combine this with the natural institutional inertia of large organizations, (and there's several separate ones involved here) a heaping of corruption, as it is unavoidable there will be when sums of money that large are involved, and you get a system that's very strongly biased towards keeping on like it is. It's easy to say that you need to divert oil revenues into other sectors of the economy, but good luck convincing all the oil exec power brokers who are essentially the gatekeepers of power that that money would not be better spent on the oil company itself. The oil industry tends to just unsustainably grow and eat the whole loving economy, and it is hard to stop it from doing so even in an institutionally sound, advanced capitalist economy like Norway, let alone anywhere else. This super hard. I think I wrote a post on the same theme back in February, the resource curse is a very real thing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
C'mon, the NYT is great on foreign policy  Check out that super cool first author. While I'm shelling out by  for archives I should see what the galaxybrains at the NYT foreign affairs office had to say about our other greatest hits not just my personal bugaboos.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
I think Chomsky said they supported every single military action, coup etc. that the US has been involved in in the last 100+ years. Spotless record.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 10:13
|
|
|
quote:Demonstrations against price increases across Venezuela turned violent today as thousands of protesters threw stones at the police, broke store windows and looted businesses. Hundreds of people were reported injured.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
The New York Times worked with the government to launder evidence to invade a country and resulted in a catastrophic war. Even if the rest of their paper is totally on the level their reporting on the topic of foreign policy, specifically that which could result in military action, has so right to say people shouldn't be at the very least skeptical of it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 14:28
|
|
