Malleum posted:

So these media empires, who have no agenda and have no direction, are locked in a struggle with the government.... because? Just because?

litany of gulps posted:

No, you loving moron. Like I said, before the election, CNN would simultaneously post both pro-Trump and pro-Clinton articles. Fox news backed its horse. Huffpo did its thing. Nobody said any of these companies had no agenda other than you. They're all competing for segments of the audience.

Malleum posted:

Ah yes, that essential all-encompassing struggle that pits government against media: market shares. It all makes sense now.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

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.

litany of gulps posted:

You say this like you think it's sarcasm, but shockingly your head is firmly implanted in your own rear end.

OwlFancier posted:

It requires a cultural change, the absence of easily available comprehensive understandings of the world on tap from any television or news stand forces people to seek other ways to acquire it, and the wildly variable sources any one person might have access to stands, I think, a better chance of encouraging arguments and collective deliberation of the ideas presented. If you can't realistically hang out with people who watch the same news and read the same papers and think the same things, you're going to have to defend your position more yourself, understand it better, experience criticsm for it.

Malleum posted:

I had no idea fox news was in an existential struggle with the government. Here I was, thinking it was a mouthpiece for the current administration, but no. Forums poster litany of gulps is telling me that actually they are diametrically opposed and the great struggle between fox news and donald trump is allowing smaller, weaker viewpoints to flourish in their shadows.

litany of gulps posted:

I see that you became cognizant of the world within the last two years. Welcome.

Malleum posted:

OwlFancier posted:

You are again inserting this bizzare idea that I am advocating for monopoly on information, I am doing the exact opposite.

OwlFancier posted:

As I recall I said some journos are nazis and they're all scum. And I stand by that yes. The press is a very bad thing for the health of a modern democracy and you should not desire to work in it. I also frankly don't trust the idea of a professional information provider who gets paid to do it.

I'm still not sure what that has to do with being pro information monopoly.

Malleum posted:

I'm glad that we are defending the honor of the right wing media, here, in the right wing media thread. They really do need a champion in these trying times.

litany of gulps posted:

You have yet to explain who you think would enforce your "sea of ideas" nonsense

OwlFancier posted:

What part of "the only thing that can hold a government to account is a motivated populace" escaped you?

litany of gulps posted:

What part of "destroying the media removes the ability of a populace to challenge the government" escaped you?

Malleum posted:

Wow, you think that fox news is currently acting as another organ of the state? Heh, well, gently caress you buddy, at one point they weren't. I am very smart.

litany of gulps posted:

Whoo, the Hammer just nailed it. This guy knows Latin. He made a point! It doesn't really matter, but a point! And he tried to employ sarcasm! That's a thing that educated people do! Latin plus sarcasm! The Hammer!

OwlFancier posted:

... how?

Do you subscribe to some weird inverted great men of history idea where you think the only people who can lead the masses to overthrow the tyrants are the people writing 10 ways to save for a deposit on your house by not eating avocado articles?

What is this bizzare fascination with the notion that only rich media company owners can challenge the government ignoring, like, y'know, the fact that maybe they won't actually challenge it as long as it doesn't affect them?

OwlFancier posted:

The reason you don't get dissenting voices in countries with a state run media monopoly is because the reason the country has a state run media monopoly is because they are actively trying to crush dissenting voices from the state line...

Not because something magical about having several large privately owned media companies magically makes small ones more practical.

Like there's no logical connection there, you're taking correlations and assuming causation between them.

OwlFancier posted:

The government in the US is functionally plutocratic and thus has an extremely incestuous relationship with the media companies. It suppresses dissenting voices to the left extremely well with the support of the media and has no problem encouraging the far right to provide erroneous scapegoats for their policies. It's a modern approach, and quite effective.

OwlFancier posted:

Fundamentally the fight between liberalism and the far right is a seesaw in which the poor and minorities are the perpetual casualties, and the press and government serve to limit the discussion only to this spectrum as much as possible. Basically in the sense of how much overt racism you want in your paup slaughter.

litany of gulps posted:

This requires a degree of unpacking. We do have a plutocratic system here, but the plutocrats are hardly united. The media companies are at war with each other, with battle lines drawn along whatever arbitrary issues the plutocrats disagree upon. Arguably leftist voices are suppressed, but obviously the country is trending to the left. The rise of public acceptance of the far right is relatively new. I would absolutely agree that this far right embrace is both modern and effective. That's a shotgun blast of statements, though.

OwlFancier posted:

Fundamentally the fight between liberalism and the far right is a seesaw in which the poor and minorities are the perpetual casualties, and the press and government serve to limit the discussion only to this spectrum as much as possible. Basically in the sense of how much overt racism you want in your paup slaughter.

OwlFancier posted:

The failure of liberalism causes radicalization which elicits the rise of the far right, because the liberal press will never conscience the left. The two are hand in hand, and will forever be the two points between which you ricochet as long as you trust in the rich to save you. Because they don't care about the people the right blame for the failings of the liberals.

As long as the press survive and wield influence you will never have anything but those. You have to get rid of them eventually.

litany of gulps posted:

Why the focus on the press as the first group to destroy? Why not reform the government instead of attacking the media?

litany of gulps posted:

Why the focus on the press as the first group to destroy? Why not reform the government instead of attacking the media?

OwlFancier posted:

Because the government and the media are not separate things. They're both in the pocket of the rich. The media discredits the left who would seek to reform the government.

Malleum posted:

"The government and conglomerates are always opposed!" I holler in the fox news thread. "It is impossible for them to collude! News is Zero Sum!" My voice gets hoarse as James O'Keefe readies a clown costume to shut down all polling locations in new york city. "Oligopolies allow for small businesses to thrive!" Sinclair writes another check and my voice cracks. "The Free Market Of Ideas can never fail!" Alex Jones is interviewing a sitting republican senator as my throat begins to bleed. "Meeting the dapper white nationalists is good for the discourse!"

OwlFancier posted:

They all own media outlets that discredit the left, some of those media outlets discredit the extremities of the right some of the time.

Sure, occasionall the rich get it into their heads they can make money off of being seen to be socially progressive, but that again is what I said, your choice is between how racist you want your oppression of the poor to be, and as long as you don't actually fix that problem, you breed the extreme right.

OwlFancier posted:

Shutting down the power of the media is going to be a necessary part of any successful leftist movement, because the media will be nothing but hostile to it. Even if it isn't your actual goal, in order to put a leftist in government you will, by definition, have severely damaged the ability of the media to actually be listened to.

Malleum posted:

It's really wild, that in TYOOL 2018, there is still someone out there, that I assume has a pulse, and I assume lived through yesterday, and the day before it, and the day before it, and so on and so forth that believes in the inherent dignity of the rich. That believes they have convictions outside of their continued wealth, and who apparently has not been reading the same right wing media thread that I have where none of these fucks have lifted a finger to help a poor or downtrodden person in their life and get constant blowjobs by dipshits that they cultivate in media environments that they own. An unironic corporatist, in This Modern Day.

What a time to be alive.

nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:

Now I see, this is not normal use of media. For reason I miss, you pretend media you like isn't "media", "media" is just evil opponent media. You should be more clear of speaking.

Or maybe you do mean 3 men can provide information if 2 are dead.

OwlFancier posted:

Shutting down the power of the media is going to be a necessary part of any successful leftist movement, because the media will be nothing but hostile to it. Even if it isn't your actual goal, in order to put a leftist in government you will, by definition, have severely damaged the ability of the media to actually be listened to.

That gap is unavoidable, and my suggestion for filling it, rather than making a new Pravda, is to take a more anarchist approach and look to empower distributed and not for profit information provision, and I think this approach may resonate with a lot of young leftists because we live in an age of social media as a communications platform and the left is insurgent in that area, we all get information that way, by reading stuff on the internet and runnnng it through our lefty mates in order to make sense of it, because it's the only route available to us.

Malleum posted:

What a time to be alive.

nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:

What part of the concept of journalist, requires believe in society that is governed by interest groups for each of society? You will need to explain.

litany of gulps posted:

This is fair, but I still would argue that attempting to empower distributed media by attacking media conglomerates is ultimately an approach that would backfire. You would only serve to further consolidate the established media and increasingly shut out the ability for individuals to take advantage of technology's greater ability to distribute information. Again, reducing competition among the media does not somehow allow smaller media groups to function, it stifles exactly that. You continue to promote anti-media talking points, but you are carefully avoiding acknowledging that in countries that have restricted media, you certainly don't have increased freedom.