|
Probably Magic posted:This is a common rhetorical tactic, though, in terms of hiding a clear bias, usually found in discussions of, for instance, North Korea. When North Korea is discussed in American media, ranging from major cable news television to newspapers with major reading bases to even late night shows that are generally doing softball interviews, then the immediate response to any advocacy for diplomacy is immediately met with prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record. This claim didn't sound quite right to me, so I went to Google News, typed "north korea diplomacy" into the search bar, and it took me mere seconds to find several articles from major American media outlets calling for diplomacy with North Korea, without even a single mention of North Korea's Washington Post, The Kim-Putin summit highlights Biden’s failed North Korea policy, Sept 15 2023 Financial Times, North Korea to restart diplomatic activity after three years of Covid isolation, March 28 2023 National Interest, Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea Is Not Yet Exhausted, Oct 5 2023 Foreign Policy, The U.S. Needs to Talk to North Korea Any Way It Can, April 26 2023 Not only are all those articles advocating a reopening of diplomatic negotiations with North Korea, but I don't think any of them even mention human rights in North Korea at all. Which, of course, directly flies in the face of your claim here! And that really cuts to the heart of my problem with your arguments in general: you're making huge sweeping claims about Western media, but those claims you're making aren't actually true. They range from "dubious at best" to "provably false", and I imagine the only reason they haven't been seriously challenged like this yet is because you're throwing around so many super vague and broad claims that it's honestly kind of a pain in the rear end for people to go digging through Google searching for contradictory evidence to challenge them all. I think it would be nice if you could rein in these vast hyperbolic stories and instead focus on more specific and limited claims that you can back up with actual evidence, so that we can keep this conversation tethered to actual reality. Otherwise, I don't see how this conversation can do anything but fruitlessly go in circles.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 22:58 |
|
Three of those four are specific opinion-editorials advocating for diplomacy. And I can't read the Financial Times one because it's behind a paywall. That is said advocacy, not a response to said advocacy, so that doesn't really address my example at all? Compare these two interviews from Stephen Colbert who, yeah, not a journalist, barely a media, but this is more of what I'm talking about : Interviewing Dennis Rodman About North Korea Compared to this Interviewing War Criminal Donald Rumsfeld Lot more pushback on one than the other.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 01:14 |
|
I think this is very much a "vibes" thing and there's no real way to prove or disprove the degree of bias in a specific media sphere, given that it's almost impossible to do so on even one channel due to the variety of programming.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 01:19 |
|
WarpedLichen posted:I think this is very much a "vibes" thing and there's no real way to prove or disprove the degree of bias in a specific media sphere, given that it's almost impossible to do so on even one channel due to the variety of programming. I'd agree with that, and it's nigh impossible to fetch clips of CNN ragging on Trump on and on for daring to engage in talks with North Korea after weeks of withholding judgement on him blowing up people in the Middle East because it was just something I caught on television in the daytime, so it's impossible to show the specific examples that come to mind. But trust me, it happened, my uncle who works at Nintendo was there and everything.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 01:23 |
|
Probably Magic posted:I'd agree with that, and it's nigh impossible to fetch clips of CNN ragging on Trump on and on for daring to engage in talks with North Korea after weeks of withholding judgement on him blowing up people in the Middle East because it was just something I caught on television in the daytime, so it's impossible to show the specific examples that come to mind. But trust me, it happened, my uncle who works at Nintendo was there and everything. Yeah, but even mainstream US media is a broad category, and there are plenty of more smaller/independent outfits with a different set of biases that you can complain about. Even Russia has other outlets like Meduza which I consider to be worth reading, but they will have flaws too if you read everything they ever put out critically, and that really shouldn't be the bar you use to judge things.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
That was my point though with asking DV directly about what conflicts he does and doesn't consider detached from reality, is not to try to trick him into saying he doesn't support Occupy Wall Street (I assume he does, and if he doesn't, well, lol) but to say that he paints RT with just as much a wide brush as I do "American media." Because sure, RT does stuff like promote anti-vax poo poo, they are, to repeat, a bad news agency, but they're frequently villainized when brought up as a counter to American propaganda, and then it becomes the question, what's being villainized, the Russian nationalism and conservative claptrap, or legitimate leftist views that have been routinely blocked from American media? And that becomes a murky conversation, an intentionally murky conversation, which leads to a lot of red herring arguments that anyone who quotes someone who works for RT saying America is a bad actor in the Ukraine/Russia War must also agree with RT's other dumb viewpoints as well. When the opposite could be argued too, that anyone who hates RT hates leftism. I don't believe that anyone who hates RT hates leftism, but there's a quick resort to dismiss leftist arguments by saying, "Well, it's associated with RT, and therefore-" Just because the US Media that I don't respect covers protests in Iran doesn't mean those protests are illegitimate. But that's literally the gist of this "disinformation" argument: "It's true, but I don't like the person who said it."
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 02:13 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is the part where you should think about why Al Jazeera, which is also a state-funded foreign-facing propaganda outlet, wants you to find this model useful. lmao what exactly are you insinuating about AJE here e: don't probe DV for the arguing by insinuation either, i want to see an actual defense of this Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jan 3, 2024 |
# ? Jan 3, 2024 03:20 |
|
Cease to Hope posted:lmao what exactly are you insinuating about AJE here It's not remotely hard to see that the state-funded foreign-facing propaganda outlet finds it useful for their audience to internalize an approach to media that lets them rationalize continued access to sources that tell them what they want to hear. Like, the idea of continuing to promote Chomsky's bullshit at this point should be a giant red flag not only for the deficits of the model but for its own track record in his hands. I'm pretty sure you know all this, though, because both you and Probably Magic actively participated in the media lit thread.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 04:14 |
Main Paineframe posted:The reason is that instead of paying people to produce or moderate content, Reddit and Wikipedia just rely on volunteer armies of obsessive nerds constantly fighting each other for gamified clout. StackOverflow too. I mean, yes. It's pretty terrible. But it seems to be the best available option, largely because it is driven by a nonprofit model. Unless anyone has a better proposal, that's your viable model for modern journalism. Reddit and Wikipedia.
|
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 04:24 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, yes. It's pretty terrible. But it seems to be the best available option, largely because it is driven by a nonprofit model. neither of which actually produces original content insofar you are talking about news, they just aggregate/source existing ones. The entire model of wikipedia relies on sourcing content other people produced journalism presumably involves producing OC, that's media companies (even "new media") pay people whose full time job is to produce news, and signifiacant expenses will be incurred on top of wages paid Typo fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 3, 2024 |
# ? Jan 3, 2024 04:44 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not remotely hard to see that the state-funded foreign-facing propaganda outlet finds it useful for their audience to internalize an approach to media that lets them rationalize continued access to sources that tell them what they want to hear. Like, the idea of continuing to promote Chomsky's bullshit at this point should be a giant red flag not only for the deficits of the model but for its own track record in his hands. I'm pretty sure you know all this, though, because both you and Probably Magic actively participated in the media lit thread. Okay. First, lol, but also lmao. Second, this idea that Chomsky is some obviously discredited crank is laughable. It's hard to argue that someone is a fringe figure when the NYT will take his calls, be it on linguistics or the politics of the day. You are suggesting that AJE must be up to something by "promoting" Chomsky's work; how deep does this conspiracy run? This argument by association doesn't hang together. "Chomsky is a fifth columnist" is a crank belief, and no amount of linking to an old thread is going to make you look less silly when you espouse it. Third, AJE's interest in promoting this is obvious, and much less sinister than you imply: they are arguing that you should seek out news outlets that aren't part of the American consensus because that consensus excludes certain viewpoints (with truthful examples how of that is done). It's somewhat dishonest to imply that any news outlet is immune, but "Trust us, we're the real source for news" isn't a sinister plot to undermine people's confidence in whatever, just an advertising pitch.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 04:49 |
|
Cease to Hope posted:Okay. I have already linked and described at length the problems with Chomsky's views and the propaganda model, which is what the video is mediating. The problem with Chomsky's track record with the model is not that he is a "fifth columnist", nor that he is party to some conspiracy, something I've claimed nowhere; it's that he's repeatedly used it to deny genocides.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 05:40 |
|
I'm not sure what model theory allows for refusing to answer questions directly but always vaguely gesture to some prior response, maybe James Joyce, I don't know, but it's very tiresome. The forum equivalent of "If You Want To Know More, Go To My Website At John Kerry Dot Com."
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 05:55 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:I have already linked and described at length the problems with Chomsky's views and the propaganda model yes, chomsky denied the evidence of the khmer rouge massacres for far too long, and it serves as a valuable lesson that while it is reasonable to be skeptical of the american media consensus, that isn't the same as always believing the opposite. regardless, he's still not some sort of fringe figure and your posts on somethingawful have not convinced anyone to stop treating his views as respected political criticism. but what does this have to do with AJE? you responded to my post by citing previous posts, none of which had any points relevant to AJE. you need a whole lot more than the fact that they made a video about chomsky's political theory to justify calling AJE a "propaganda outlet." did you have anything else, or was this weak tea nonsense it? Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jan 3, 2024 |
# ? Jan 3, 2024 06:18 |
|
Cease to Hope posted:yes, chomsky denied the evidence of the khmer rouge massacres for far too long, and it serves as a valuable lesson that while it is reasonable to be skeptical of the american media consensus, that isn't the same as always believing the opposite. You do not actually speak for everyone on this subject; I and others have described, at length, the numerous reasons why the propaganda model of media is less than worthless, and why Chomsky's subsequent which, again, I have already linked for your convenience. Here, let me save you some additional time. evilweasel posted:It seems to be that there is a distinction between what the "propaganda model" purports to claim or prove, and how it is used in practice. Discendo Vox posted:evilweasel and others already repeatedly articulated the problems of the PM, which were also given at the beginning of the thread when some of the same users trying to promote it now made similar generalized attacks on media literacy. I'm going to summarize some these issues as they appear to me. This is not exhaustive, but it articulates many of the root problems with a model of “everything and nothing”, including its harm to good faith discussion. Similarly, Al Jazeera is literally a state-funded foreign-facing apparatus that promotes coverage in alignment with the state that funds them, to the point of extensive criticism of their claims and, hey presto, the promotion of bullshit like the propaganda model of media as a way of enclosing their audience. The fact that Al Jazeera doesn't engage in the sort of active disinformation or conspiracy theory that RT does, does not mean their material is not propaganda. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 3, 2024 |
# ? Jan 3, 2024 06:31 |
|
copypasta filibustering isn't going to make the argument that citing chomsky one time makes AJE a propaganda outlet any less ridiculous, man.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 06:35 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:Similarly, Al Jazeera is literally a state-funded foreign-facing apparatus that promotes coverage in alignment with the state that funds them, to the point of extensive criticism of their claims and, hey presto, the promotion of bullshit like the propaganda model of media as a way of enclosing their audience. The fact that Al Jazeera doesn't engage in the sort of active disinformation or conspiracy theory that RT does, does not mean their material is not propaganda. Which of their material is propaganda? Was it only the Chomsky bit? Or is it their coverage of the war in Gaza?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 06:57 |
|
Imagine how loving funny it would be if real academic citations sometimes included papers that ended with
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 07:10 |
|
An actual case for AJ being propaganda is they were critical of vandalizers having their faces shown during the Ferguson riots, but by this standard, CNN and MSNBC refusing to cover certain Trump speeches is also propaganda.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 07:13 |
|
Discussions about whether Al Jazeera get to be called propagandistic or not (or if they're only propaganda if an imperfect comparison is also called propaganda) are less useful to me than potentially analyzing a history about how Al Jazeera really did become a disappointment, with the worst of the decline in their usefulness as a source happening some time ago now and getting no better under the current emir. But it's not exactly surprising, given the priorities of the government of qatar.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 08:09 |
|
12 out of the current 16 reports in the report queue are from this thread. It is this kind of poo poo that got the media lit thread closed. Instead of wasting my time going one-by-one through all of the reports, I am giving a one time forgiveness for all of them in the belated spirit of Festivus. If this thread continues generating tons of reports, that forgiveness will be rescinded, and there will be plenty of bans and multi-day probations to go around, and this thread will also be closed. Do better and post less poo poo. Quoting a closed thread as a workaround to it being closed will going forward be punished harshly. You have been warned.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 12:23 |
Typo posted:neither of which actually produces original content insofar you are talking about news, they just aggregate/source existing ones. The entire model of wikipedia relies on sourcing content other people produced That's a fair point, but there is a certain amount of original content produced on Reddit (hell, virtually everything on Buzzfeed is cannibalized Reddit threads from AmItheAsshole or other popular subs). Similarly, before it was captured, Twitter often functioned as an aggregator of on the ground first hand reports from bystanders or volunteers. So it's not impossible to imagine other models of viable journalism along those lines. Deeply flawed and problematic in many ways, sure, but checking the threshold boxes of minimally viable and minimally journalistic. Again the test threshold posited for the thread is "viable" not "good."
|
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 13:56 |
|
Inferior Third Season posted:
Does this clemency mean I get one (1) called shot of an 18-hour probation of my choosing as a matter of making me whole in light of this new attitude of clemency, ITS?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 16:46 |
|
Lib and let die posted:Does this clemency mean I get one (1) called shot of an 18-hour probation of my choosing as a matter of making me whole in light of this new attitude of clemency, ITS?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 18:07 |
|
Probably Magic posted:Three of those four are specific opinion-editorials advocating for diplomacy. And I can't read the Financial Times one because it's behind a paywall. That is said advocacy, not a response to said advocacy, so that doesn't really address my example at all? This is confusing the hell out of me. You're saying that when some Western media figures express one position, some other Western media figures express a different position? I thought you were expressing complaints about Western media as a whole. In fact, you were! You were talking about "when North Korea is discussed in American media", and went so far to suggest that following up any pro-diplomacy talk with "prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record" was mandatory in the Western media environment. If you think Stephen Colbert is a hypocrite, sure, you've provided enough evidence that you could reasonably accuse Stephen Colbert of being a hypocrite. If you're going to issue a sweeping condemnation of the entire American media as a whole, you need more than two clips from a political satire talk show. As WarpedLichen said, your criticism feels very based on "vibes", where individual instances of coverage from individual figures or outlets appear to have colored your views toward American media as a whole. Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, yes. It's pretty terrible. But it seems to be the best available option, largely because it is driven by a nonprofit model. Just because it's driven by a nonprofit model doesn't mean it's accurate, reliable, unbiased, or any of many other important things. That also doesn't mean that it's good at doing original research or finding information nobody else knew. The only advantage it really gains from being nonprofit is that it still exists, while for-profit information has largely retreated behind paywalls, leaving the nonprofit model to compete only with content farms and SEO nonsense generators. The real solution, honestly, is for people to accept that we have to either pay for information ourselves or accept the demands of the people who pay for it on our behalf. That's the only viable course for journalism: convincing people that information is actually worth something.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 20:23 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:As WarpedLichen said, your criticism feels very based on "vibes", where individual instances of coverage from individual figures or outlets appear to have colored your views toward American media as a whole. At the end of the day, we are all describing the elephant. I'm not going to wade into the specifics of whatever this nonsense about NK is - I'm not stupid, my posts notwithstanding - but it's important to remember that what a news report or editorial means is not an exact science. At least, not until SA's politics forums all acknowledge the perfect truth of the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 21:33 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:Like, the idea of continuing to promote Chomsky's bullshit at this point should be a giant red flag not only for the deficits of the model but for its own track record in his hands. Chomsky is one of the most respect public intellectuals in the world, for good reason.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2024 23:11 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's a fair point, but there is a certain amount of original content produced on Reddit (hell, virtually everything on Buzzfeed is cannibalized Reddit threads from AmItheAsshole or other popular subs). I think journalism consists more than just passing along first degree accounts from people claiming to be witnesses to a particular event The other problem I see (and I"m sure you do too) is that the twitter/reddit model involves a lot of unpaid volunteer work. Good example would be the OSINT community who publishes their content on twitter: very few of whom are paid. Which means a lot of people contributing value are not being compensated for the work they put in. Whatever you say about a journalist working for CNN or NYT or RT, at very least they are drawing a paycheque that pays rent. The utimate profiteers of said unpaid work are owners of platforms, or people who copy/paste their work, in the form of views/ad revenue. Typo fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 4, 2024 |
# ? Jan 4, 2024 00:01 |
|
Chomsky has done some of that transition to 'historical figure' rather than valued for his present day public commentary or intellectual analysis, mostly from his taking on (or having ascribed to him as a simplification of his views) some pretty unfortunate takes that just aren't going to do well historically, but will probably be asterisked as "well, you know, he was like in his mid 90s by then"
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 00:13 |
|
I like this one quote which basically goes "Aristotle was one of the greatest scientists in human history, he was wrong about almost everything, but that doesn't stop making him a great scientist"
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 00:16 |
|
Kavros posted:Chomsky has done some of that transition to 'historical figure' rather than valued for his present day public commentary or intellectual analysis, mostly from his taking on (or having ascribed to him as a simplification of his views) some pretty unfortunate takes that just aren't going to do well historically, but will probably be asterisked as "well, you know, he was like in his mid 90s by then" The Cambodian genocide denial was contemporaneous and he was in his 50s.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 00:18 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Cambodian genocide denial was contemporaneous and he was in his 50s. Yeah, and he rode that out, ultimately, so I wouldn't call that what I'm talking about. Whether from a changed media environment or from the vulnerability of his recent advocacy and commentary to withering critique (his 'russia realism' reads, in particular, had an incredibly short turnaround to having been repudiated by history) the transition came about recently. The cambodian genocide denial sounds at this point more like an argument that that transition was wholly overdue.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 00:45 |
|
Campism is the mirror reflection of the way that overall liberal consensus is enforced. Chomsky was right in describing the way that consensus is formed and forced. There's a trap, however, in thinking that a consensus that is enforced must be unsupportable without that force. That's the logic of a Holocaust denier, in the most extreme case. The enforcement isn't a product of absolute truth, nor the strict need to cover up lies. Instead, you need to be able to identify that consensus and identify how it is being enforced, as preconditions to finding out the truth. And part of the enforcement of that consensus is that being wrong but in agreement is generally held blameless in your lifetime. There's a bleak humor in Chomsky (fairly!) being criticized for "but you gently caress one pig..." WRT Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge while nobody at all faces any approbation at all for saying that Palestine isn't genocide, merely a very complicated subject. A perfect model of journalism would still require that enforcement, though. At some point, you do actually have to kick out tendentious arguers, your Holocaust deniers and your race realists and your flat earthers. As we do not have access to truth uncorrupted by observation, we are left with trust in authorities, consensus building, some combination of the two, or some not-yet-invented new way of doing things.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 00:58 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is confusing the hell out of me. You're saying that when some Western media figures express one position, some other Western media figures express a different position? I thought you were expressing complaints about Western media as a whole. You posted op-eds, I think context clues can be used that I'm talking about interviews or conversations, that interviewers will feel it necessary to bring up NK crimes as "necessary information," the same way even style magazines will mention Kanye West's antisemitism even if they're just talking about his recent marriage. You're not going to see similar disclaimers about articles on American military operations as "the country that famously invaded Iraq on false pretenses" because it isn't tagged as essential information. It's more the omission of disclaimers that ends up being the problem than addition of them, the same way RT got tagged as "state media" on Twitter for awhile until they started doing it with BBC and NPR which promptly lead to freakouts despite it being an honest tag. But maybe the fault lies with me and I should just limit my discussion to televised media, where I definitely perceive that mandate. Of course, television media is one of the lowest common denominators of communication, so I can understand if that just inspires an eye roll and dismissal. But I still feel like that misses my central point, which is of exotification. The ratio of reaction to North Korea's crimes compared to America's crimes is going to be lopsided, and that's a, "Yeah, no duh, America has its own cultural perspective" moment, but those culturally internal biases should be recognized instead of assumed as natural.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 04:53 |
|
it would be helpful to have some examples, in any case. not because of some imaginary standard of sources cited to make a Good Post, but because it's kind of hard to tell what point you're trying to make sometimes
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 06:42 |
|
Probably Magic posted:You posted op-eds, I think context clues can be used that I'm talking about interviews or conversations, that interviewers will feel it necessary to bring up NK crimes as "necessary information," the same way even style magazines will mention Kanye West's antisemitism even if they're just talking about his recent marriage. You're not going to see similar disclaimers about articles on American military operations as "the country that famously invaded Iraq on false pretenses" because it isn't tagged as essential information. It's more the omission of disclaimers that ends up being the problem than addition of them, the same way RT got tagged as "state media" on Twitter for awhile until they started doing it with BBC and NPR which promptly lead to freakouts despite it being an honest tag. I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with how fast these goalposts are moving. In the post I originally responded to, you were definitely not just talking about "interviews or conversations". To recap where our conversation started, here's what I was originally responding to: Probably Magic posted:This is a common rhetorical tactic, though, in terms of hiding a clear bias, usually found in discussions of, for instance, North Korea. When North Korea is discussed in American media, ranging from major cable news television to newspapers with major reading bases to even late night shows that are generally doing softball interviews, then the immediate response to any advocacy for diplomacy is immediately met with prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record. To me, that looks like it covers a lot more than just "interviews or conversations", whatever that means. Only when you were challenged on the original claim did you start whittling it down, shaving off any portion that was challenged until you'd cut it down from "in American media, ranging from major cable news television to newspapers with major reading bases to even late night shows" to just merely "interviews or conversations". And aside from that, we've pretty much gone nowhere. You're just restating your initial claim with some exceptions added, and so far, literally the only evidence you've posted is a seven-minute clip of Stephen Colbert interviewing a basketball player who's declared himself to be Kim Jong-un's "friend for life". I don't think you've really given a meaningful response to this: Main Paineframe posted:And that really cuts to the heart of my problem with your arguments in general: you're making huge sweeping claims about Western media, but those claims you're making aren't actually true. They range from "dubious at best" to "provably false", and I imagine the only reason they haven't been seriously challenged like this yet is because you're throwing around so many super vague and broad claims that it's honestly kind of a pain in the rear end for people to go digging through Google searching for contradictory evidence to challenge them all. I'm not just being pedantic for the hell of it or to make your life miserable here. I'm seriously trying to establish a very important point: whether the things you're saying are actually objectively true, or just biased perception and opinion. You've made some enormously broad and extremely radical claims about American media as a whole, and actually backing up those claims about the entirety of the American media industry requires a bit more backing than posting a couple of Daily Show clips and calling Stephen Colbert a hypocrite. It's annoying to have to go dig for evidence that contradicts your statements when you don't provide any evidence supporting your statements in the first place, and even moreso when you just respond to the evidence by changing your statements and claiming you were never saying the thing that was contradicted.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 06:57 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with how fast these goalposts are moving. In the post I originally responded to, you were definitely not just talking about "interviews or conversations". To recap where our conversation started, here's what I was originally responding to: come on man. Main Paineframe posted:I think it would be nice if you could rein in these vast hyperbolic stories and instead focus on more specific and limited claims that you can back up with actual evidence my brother in christ, you asked for him to narrow and clarify.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 07:05 |
|
Do I... really need sources for "the United States media is much harsher when talking about North Korea than when they talk about their own media?" That seemed like common knowledge, but there's much harsher examples than even what I was alluding to: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/5/6/why-the-western-media-keeps-getting-north-korea-wrong This is a bit more fluffier of a piece, but it's literally mirroring what I'm saying, something that is apparently completely insubstantial and contrived. https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/columns/on-western-medias-coverage-of-north-korea/ quote:Western media often focuses on negative news and events in North Korea, including human rights abuses, nuclear threats and missile tests, while ignoring positive developments or avoiding the coverage of other topics altogether. When topics such as the culture of the country or the plight of North Korean defectors are overlooked and unaddressed, North Korea will not be understood in a comprehensive, rational manner. A lack of sufficient context and historical background of a nation-state can be extremely harmful, as it can lead to a distorted understanding of the country and its political situation. It's... not a perspective that came out of thin air.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 07:35 |
|
For what its worth, as someone who has constant exposure to both American and international news about north korea either from my newsfeeds or anything forwarded over from family and friends, the initial claim of "the immediate response to any advocacy for diplomacy is immediately met with prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record" is fairly straightforwardly false. Best you can stretch it is as follows: 1. if the primary source of the news story is official declarations by the governments that are in negotiations or running feelers for diplomatic overtures, then the article will discuss the conditions and concerns relevant to the diplomatic efforts, which usually (incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unsurprisingly) involve declarations involving north korea's human rights issues and how they are potentially conditional to diplomatic solutions. 2. Especially if it is a neutral newswire article and/or if the primary source, if the popular or official calls for diplomacy is prompted by concern about economic pressures currently faced in the country, you are likely to have attached to the story, explanatory run-throughs of nk's status as a heavily sanctioned country, and can detail reasons given for sanctions which often (again, unsurprisingly) include human rights issues. But nothing resembling what was initially claimed.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 22:58 |
|
For the record, my original argument wasn't that negative coverage of North Korea wasn't warranted, it's that America covers itself far softer than it does North Korea. I can find any article discussing American plans of military action in, say, the Middle East, that do not find America's larger role in the area worthy of note. Here's an example: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/politics/us-troops-deploying-middle-east/index.html Nothing is brought up about America's historical antagonist of Iran, their assassination of their generals, their support of Iraq in attacking Iran, breaking of nuclear treaties with Iran, etc., because that's not viewed as "relevant information," even though anything North Korea is viewed as relevant information. This is the essence of my argument, and if I've resorted to categorical imperative when it comes to mandates of addressal, I apologize, but as I've already stated, that is not a concern or a generalized dissatisfaction that is isolated to me.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2024 08:01 |