3 ms·

I am giving you the important data point. 2010. Lady Barbara Judge in Astana. 2015 UK is building 5 new nuclear power stations, and public is generally unaware

I am giving you the important data point. 2010. Lady Barbara Judge in Astana. 2015 UK is building 5 new nuclear power stations, and public is generally unaware of the fact.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Her background is like a whose-who of scheming companies and groups. She was apparently pretty effective, too. Not that great an example, though, given people only care about nuclear so much. Our best example in recent times is still 2008. In this case, the elites crash the whole system, get paid off for it, and get criminal immunity. This kind of event and resulting deal should be non-existent in a democracy. Whereas, in Iceland, they overthrew the dirty politicians, jailed them, jailed the bankers involved, seized banks, and reoriented their banks and news to prevent such things in future. Healthy democracy in action. The media's role in keeping elite's schemes going is pivotal. I think the strategy has to be on them. Anyone doing a revolution should hit the media rather than just the government. Make sure each side gets a say with reporters digging into root problems and potential solutions. People can then push for what they believe will work through regular, government structures. They can't act without being informed. So, corporate media is root problem here. Note: I've observed the same thing in Russia. Their media, at least RT, is even worse as it's basically a government spokespiece. Ours still compete with each other with at least several calling out government in big ways without anyone getting shot. The times they self-censor and are pervasively corrupt are protecting capitalist class that funds them. So, huge problem, but enough media protection here to maybe accomplish something. I'm more worried for Russians given Putin's recent laws on bloggers, etc plus risk journalists face in general.
- ommunist 10y ago
  In Russia censorship was always the cage. In the US it was always a skeleton.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    That's an interesting way to state it. Could you elaborate to make sure I'm understanding the metaphor?
    - ommunist 10y ago
      In the US professional media participants are literally trained not to touch sensitive parts of the social discourse. Hence the political correctness - the modern doublespeak, and natural avoidance of entire massive sets of facts underlying important social problems and drivers. E.g. no reports in the U.S. media on French toxic waste dumping to the sea within Somalian territorial waters. But! A hell lot of publications about 'somalian pirates' afterwards. When these poor fishermen were literally left without source of food not only for them, but for their next generations. Just in case I am too thin, the US journalist will rarely if ever publish fact that will cost him a career prospect, or give him label of 'red'. Even if he or she has certain sympathies. This is self-censorship and it is very effective.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Appreciate the clarification and very interesting example with Somalia situation. I hadn't heard of that one despite avoiding corporate media where possible. That was kind of your point, though. ;) So, I guess you're analogy means that the Russians in power (eg government) force the journalists to shut-up whereas in America the corporations and journalists do it themselves on sensitive topics for selfish gain? I'd agree with that if it's what your metaphor meant.

I am giving you the important data point. 2010. Lady Barbara Judge in Astana. 2015 UK is building 5 new nuclear power stations, and public is generally unaware of the fact.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Her background is like a whose-who of scheming companies and groups. She was apparently pretty effective, too. Not that great an example, though, given people only care about nuclear so much. Our best example in recent times is still 2008. In this case, the elites crash the whole system, get paid off for it, and get criminal immunity. This kind of event and resulting deal should be non-existent in a democracy. Whereas, in Iceland, they overthrew the dirty politicians, jailed them, jailed the bankers involved, seized banks, and reoriented their banks and news to prevent such things in future. Healthy democracy in action. The media's role in keeping elite's schemes going is pivotal. I think the strategy has to be on them. Anyone doing a revolution should hit the media rather than just the government. Make sure each side gets a say with reporters digging into root problems and potential solutions. People can then push for what they believe will work through regular, government structures. They can't act without being informed. So, corporate media is root problem here. Note: I've observed the same thing in Russia. Their media, at least RT, is even worse as it's basically a government spokespiece. Ours still compete with each other with at least several calling out government in big ways without anyone getting shot. The times they self-censor and are pervasively corrupt are protecting capitalist class that funds them. So, huge problem, but enough media protection here to maybe accomplish something. I'm more worried for Russians given Putin's recent laws on bloggers, etc plus risk journalists face in general.

ommunist 10y ago
In Russia censorship was always the cage. In the US it was always a skeleton.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  That's an interesting way to state it. Could you elaborate to make sure I'm understanding the metaphor?
  - ommunist 10y ago
    In the US professional media participants are literally trained not to touch sensitive parts of the social discourse. Hence the political correctness - the modern doublespeak, and natural avoidance of entire massive sets of facts underlying important social problems and drivers. E.g. no reports in the U.S. media on French toxic waste dumping to the sea within Somalian territorial waters. But! A hell lot of publications about 'somalian pirates' afterwards. When these poor fishermen were literally left without source of food not only for them, but for their next generations. Just in case I am too thin, the US journalist will rarely if ever publish fact that will cost him a career prospect, or give him label of 'red'. Even if he or she has certain sympathies. This is self-censorship and it is very effective.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Appreciate the clarification and very interesting example with Somalia situation. I hadn't heard of that one despite avoiding corporate media where possible. That was kind of your point, though. ;) So, I guess you're analogy means that the Russians in power (eg government) force the journalists to shut-up whereas in America the corporations and journalists do it themselves on sensitive topics for selfish gain? I'd agree with that if it's what your metaphor meant.