5 ms·

>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument? Corporate media outlets exis

>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument? Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of against their masters. That's why "identity politics" has become so resurgent in recent years, as the class divide has sharpened and the middle-class has withered. As long as people are polarized and can be pitted against each other on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexuality, they aren't united against the oligarchs. Its the same exact strategy used by prison guards to maintain control of the prisons. Pit the blacks against the whites against the hispanics and the prison guards can observe safely from the walls. The guards only face a threat from the prisoners when they are united against those who keep them in bondage. Snowden represents the greatest threat in that regards. If you support Snowden's actions, you are explicitly acknowledging not only that the law is dog shit, but that Snowden was justified in breaking it because of how incredibly repressive the government is. He represents the ultimate repudiation of the system that runs the entire country and most of the world. The corporate media is the voice of this system.

andrei_says_ 10y ago
Speaking of media, I can't recommend citizenfour enough. An amazing historical document.
cm2012 10y ago
Corporate media outlets exist to make money. They will (extremely) happily report on government scandals if the public cares enough to watch. The public doesn't care enough about privacy.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  Corporate media outlets are not stand-alone companies that exist to make money. They are owned by massive conglomerates. For example, Sheldon Adelson owns Israel Hayom, the largest newspaper in Israel. He distributes the paper for free and has lost an estimated $50 million dollars on it over the last few years. He recently purchased the Las Vegas-Journal Review, Nevada's largest newspaper (he also owns Sands entertainment/casinos). His first order of business was to replace the editor with one of his cronies. He didn't buy these newspapers to make money. He bought these newspapers to control the media and control the narrative.
slg 10y ago
>Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions... Do you honestly believe this? How do you think an article like this gets written? Do you think that there is some secret puppet master that dictated the talking points of this article or that every journalist including the one who wrote this article is in on some huge conspiracy? Are those options really more likely that some journalists simple have different opinions than you?
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  If you hire David Duke to write about race relations you don't have to tell him what to write. You hire David Duke because you know exactly what you are getting.
  - slg 10y ago
    You are really equating every journalist working for a mainstream media company with the former head of the KKK? I'm not sure how I should even respond to crazy allegations like that. This has been one of the annoying side effects of Snowden. Suddenly one conspiracy theory proved to be true, so now some people think that any conspiracy theory has a chance to be true. Soon we end up with people suggesting that tens of thousands of journalists in American are hand picked by the "masters" solely to "disseminate propaganda".
    - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
      >You are really equating every journalist working for a mainstream media company with the former head of the KKK? I'm not sure how I should even respond to crazy allegations like that. Perhaps the concept of an analogy is alien to your world, so I'll try to make it simpler for you. If you hire someone whose views are well known to write for you, you have a pretty good idea of knowing what you are going to get without having to offer specific instructions. If you hire Robert Kagan to write a foreign policy column in your newspaper, you don't have to send him a secret message urging him to back an invasion. He already backs every invasion. Understand? As far as your vapid conjecture about conspiracy theories go, the media is literally littered with writers who have either been directly paid, or who stand to gain (financially and otherwise) for endorsing certain positions. These are not conspiracies, its standard practice. Whether these media pundits are paid by the White House to endorse their policies: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-wi... Or secretly instructing retired military "analysts" on news networks on how to shape the narrative: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html And when you don't parrot the party line, they get rid of you, like they did to Phil Donahue when he was critical of the Iraq invasion: http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/ http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/ Or when government officials limit press access to only those reporters who are willing to offer the official narrative: http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2013/News-media-protest-White-House-press-access-limits http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2013/News-media-pro... In short, you are delusional or woefully under informed if you don't think that the media narrative is controlled and shaped by the powerful interests that run this country.
tajen 10y ago
We should have a National Whistleblower Day and start holding celebrations for it. I suggest June 10th, if that's the day Snowden left his job. We simply whistle, in every street from Washington to Baghdad, including in Europe. Edit: Got 9 upvotes from this comment, sounds like there is traction.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- WhatsName 10y ago
  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-nsa-files-timeline http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-... According to this timeline it would be 20th May
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
alexandercrohde 10y ago
That's definitely an interesting theory. And intentional or not, I think side-battles do deflect attention from the 1% issue (as you called "oligarchs"). However, I think you do a disservice to your cause when you use blanket remarks like "Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions" without clarifying. I think we can easily rule out that all corporate news organizations (npr, washington post) are propaganda services (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those). Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).
- gizmo 10y ago
  I take issue with the notion that an organization can't serve as a propaganda machine when the people who work there have good intentions. Why? Because practically everybody has good intentions. Even genocidal maniacs believe their actions are merely an "unfortunate necessity" that can be justified by looking at the long run. If the worst of humanity isn't contradicted by "good intentions" then nothing is. It's human nature to rationalize our beliefs, especially when we stand to gain from doing so. Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order. In 'Manufacturing Consent'[1] Chomsky outlines 5 ways in which the media are systematically biased, and end up acting as propaganda machines despite being staffed with honest and well-meaning journalists. It's a very well known model (although certainly controversial). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
  - alexandercrohde 10y ago
    "Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order." This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.
    - gizmo 10y ago

andrei_says_ 10y ago

Speaking of media, I can't recommend citizenfour enough. An amazing historical document.

cm2012 10y ago

Corporate media outlets exist to make money. They will (extremely) happily report on government scandals if the public cares enough to watch. The public doesn't care enough about privacy.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
Corporate media outlets are not stand-alone companies that exist to make money. They are owned by massive conglomerates. For example, Sheldon Adelson owns Israel Hayom, the largest newspaper in Israel. He distributes the paper for free and has lost an estimated $50 million dollars on it over the last few years. He recently purchased the Las Vegas-Journal Review, Nevada's largest newspaper (he also owns Sands entertainment/casinos). His first order of business was to replace the editor with one of his cronies. He didn't buy these newspapers to make money. He bought these newspapers to control the media and control the narrative.

slg 10y ago

>Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions... Do you honestly believe this? How do you think an article like this gets written? Do you think that there is some secret puppet master that dictated the talking points of this article or that every journalist including the one who wrote this article is in on some huge conspiracy? Are those options really more likely that some journalists simple have different opinions than you?

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
If you hire David Duke to write about race relations you don't have to tell him what to write. You hire David Duke because you know exactly what you are getting.
- slg 10y ago
  You are really equating every journalist working for a mainstream media company with the former head of the KKK? I'm not sure how I should even respond to crazy allegations like that. This has been one of the annoying side effects of Snowden. Suddenly one conspiracy theory proved to be true, so now some people think that any conspiracy theory has a chance to be true. Soon we end up with people suggesting that tens of thousands of journalists in American are hand picked by the "masters" solely to "disseminate propaganda".
  - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
    >You are really equating every journalist working for a mainstream media company with the former head of the KKK? I'm not sure how I should even respond to crazy allegations like that. Perhaps the concept of an analogy is alien to your world, so I'll try to make it simpler for you. If you hire someone whose views are well known to write for you, you have a pretty good idea of knowing what you are going to get without having to offer specific instructions. If you hire Robert Kagan to write a foreign policy column in your newspaper, you don't have to send him a secret message urging him to back an invasion. He already backs every invasion. Understand? As far as your vapid conjecture about conspiracy theories go, the media is literally littered with writers who have either been directly paid, or who stand to gain (financially and otherwise) for endorsing certain positions. These are not conspiracies, its standard practice. Whether these media pundits are paid by the White House to endorse their policies: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-wi... Or secretly instructing retired military "analysts" on news networks on how to shape the narrative: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html And when you don't parrot the party line, they get rid of you, like they did to Phil Donahue when he was critical of the Iraq invasion: http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/ http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/ Or when government officials limit press access to only those reporters who are willing to offer the official narrative: http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2013/News-media-protest-White-House-press-access-limits http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2013/News-media-pro... In short, you are delusional or woefully under informed if you don't think that the media narrative is controlled and shaped by the powerful interests that run this country.

tajen 10y ago

We should have a National Whistleblower Day and start holding celebrations for it. I suggest June 10th, if that's the day Snowden left his job. We simply whistle, in every street from Washington to Baghdad, including in Europe. Edit: Got 9 upvotes from this comment, sounds like there is traction.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
WhatsName 10y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-nsa-files-timeline http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-... According to this timeline it would be 20th May

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

alexandercrohde 10y ago

That's definitely an interesting theory. And intentional or not, I think side-battles do deflect attention from the 1% issue (as you called "oligarchs"). However, I think you do a disservice to your cause when you use blanket remarks like "Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions" without clarifying. I think we can easily rule out that all corporate news organizations (npr, washington post) are propaganda services (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those). Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).

gizmo 10y ago
I take issue with the notion that an organization can't serve as a propaganda machine when the people who work there have good intentions. Why? Because practically everybody has good intentions. Even genocidal maniacs believe their actions are merely an "unfortunate necessity" that can be justified by looking at the long run. If the worst of humanity isn't contradicted by "good intentions" then nothing is. It's human nature to rationalize our beliefs, especially when we stand to gain from doing so. Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order. In 'Manufacturing Consent'[1] Chomsky outlines 5 ways in which the media are systematically biased, and end up acting as propaganda machines despite being staffed with honest and well-meaning journalists. It's a very well known model (although certainly controversial). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
- alexandercrohde 10y ago
  "Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order." This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.
  - gizmo 10y ago