4 ms·

>promoting gay rights (however incompetently) is not "US imperialist foreign policy." Pray tell why Pussy Riot got a spot on 60 Minutes, then?

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Is "60 Minutes" now in charge of the US's imperialist foreign policy? I thought it was just a news magazine show on CBS, I didn't know it was owned by the US government.
- R_haterade 10y ago
  It's a distribution channel, same as NPR. Here's how the sausage gets made: "you're in journalism, you want the story? We'll give you access to get the story, but it would be great if alongside that you gave coverage to [topic] with a narrative that helps build support for our diplomatic goals." I only bring up NPR because I can remember feeling sick to my stomach when I realized how outright manipulative their coverage of Syria in 2012 was. I was wondering why we weren't at war with Assad after a week of 'All Things Considered'. Now I'm certain they were manufacturing consent, again. Especially given how nicely a disruptive actor like ISIS gels with the current administration's diplomatic interests in the region.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    I love this how people compare the US system to say Russia's. "The press isn't owned/controlled by the government, but it might as well be!" But in reality, this is just a red herring to prop up crappy despots. Nobody from the state department went to the 60 minutes crew and said: "If you don't interview Pussy Riot, we won't give you stuff." No, no, Russia solidified Pussy Riot's fame when they threw them in jail for...wait, what "premeditated hooliganism performed by an organized group of people motivated by religious hatred or hostility". Ya, because they criticized the church for supporting Putin? It's like China and the Dalai Lama: the popularity of the DL is completely related to the vitriol of the Chinese government. Whenever the Chinese government criticizes the DL, he becomes more popular, simple/easy. Russia makes its own bed, the US media requires no pushing from the state department at all to make these stories interesting to the American public.
    - cryoshon 10y ago
      stories about russian oppression are interesting to the us public because of decades of media coverage... nobody is interested elsewhere because the media doesnt even cover when a neutral or us-aligned country is oppressive.
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        Nobody elsewhere? plenty of countries are more obsessed with Russia than America is. Heck, Ukraine, or even China.
  - cryoshon 10y ago
    it worries me that this spot-on comment has been downvoted... government control of the media has been very well characterized by chomsky et al., among others.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      It's solid taken in isolation. The problem is the context: from his previous post, R_haterade appears to think that journalists covering homophobic oppression is "US imperialist foreign policy"--that a free and honest press should be expected to ignore human rights abuses if they're against groups he doesn't like. That makes his later, more cogent points seem like a mere smokescreen.
      - R_haterade 10y ago
        I should perhaps be more articulate. Coverage of human rights abuses is never much more than propaganda. We do it, China does it, North Korea does it. It's the same everywhere. Now, do human rights abuses give me the warm and fuzzies? No. But when someone is trying to tell me how reprehensible a regime is because of their human rights record, I'm reduced to rolling my eyes because the agenda is never about human rights.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Because it's news. I don't understand why you guys bother going through these contortions to vilify anyone pro-gay while pretending that you're not actually anti-gay. Suppressing gay rights and gay issues is never about homophobia, it's always about free speech or imperialism or journalistic bias some other buzzword. Do you think you're fooling anyone?
- R_haterade 10y ago
  Why do I have to be pro- or anti- anything? I'm ambivalent about homosexuals. And that's on days when I even think about homosexuals. Why can't I observe that it's convenient for a propaganda machine to highlight an enemy's mistreatment of a marginalized class? Your comment typifies the mental short-circuiting that identity politics encourages. I suggest you not take everything so personally, and stop defaulting to the supposition that anything you don't agree with must be bigoted.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Or, to put it another way: If the CIA had set out to slander the poor, unappreciated Syrian public servants who kidnap and murder gay people, their sinister propaganda operative wouldn't have pulled "Amina's" picture off of Google Images. He wouldn't have gotten her "hometown pictures" from his own vacation photos on his public Facebook. McMaster is too stupid to be a government agent. You are seriously underestimating your enemy if you think the US intelligence system is that dim.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

Is "60 Minutes" now in charge of the US's imperialist foreign policy? I thought it was just a news magazine show on CBS, I didn't know it was owned by the US government.

R_haterade 10y ago
It's a distribution channel, same as NPR. Here's how the sausage gets made: "you're in journalism, you want the story? We'll give you access to get the story, but it would be great if alongside that you gave coverage to [topic] with a narrative that helps build support for our diplomatic goals." I only bring up NPR because I can remember feeling sick to my stomach when I realized how outright manipulative their coverage of Syria in 2012 was. I was wondering why we weren't at war with Assad after a week of 'All Things Considered'. Now I'm certain they were manufacturing consent, again. Especially given how nicely a disruptive actor like ISIS gels with the current administration's diplomatic interests in the region.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  I love this how people compare the US system to say Russia's. "The press isn't owned/controlled by the government, but it might as well be!" But in reality, this is just a red herring to prop up crappy despots. Nobody from the state department went to the 60 minutes crew and said: "If you don't interview Pussy Riot, we won't give you stuff." No, no, Russia solidified Pussy Riot's fame when they threw them in jail for...wait, what "premeditated hooliganism performed by an organized group of people motivated by religious hatred or hostility". Ya, because they criticized the church for supporting Putin? It's like China and the Dalai Lama: the popularity of the DL is completely related to the vitriol of the Chinese government. Whenever the Chinese government criticizes the DL, he becomes more popular, simple/easy. Russia makes its own bed, the US media requires no pushing from the state department at all to make these stories interesting to the American public.
  - cryoshon 10y ago
    stories about russian oppression are interesting to the us public because of decades of media coverage... nobody is interested elsewhere because the media doesnt even cover when a neutral or us-aligned country is oppressive.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Nobody elsewhere? plenty of countries are more obsessed with Russia than America is. Heck, Ukraine, or even China.
- cryoshon 10y ago
  it worries me that this spot-on comment has been downvoted... government control of the media has been very well characterized by chomsky et al., among others.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    It's solid taken in isolation. The problem is the context: from his previous post, R_haterade appears to think that journalists covering homophobic oppression is "US imperialist foreign policy"--that a free and honest press should be expected to ignore human rights abuses if they're against groups he doesn't like. That makes his later, more cogent points seem like a mere smokescreen.
    - R_haterade 10y ago
      I should perhaps be more articulate. Coverage of human rights abuses is never much more than propaganda. We do it, China does it, North Korea does it. It's the same everywhere. Now, do human rights abuses give me the warm and fuzzies? No. But when someone is trying to tell me how reprehensible a regime is because of their human rights record, I'm reduced to rolling my eyes because the agenda is never about human rights.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

Because it's news. I don't understand why you guys bother going through these contortions to vilify anyone pro-gay while pretending that you're not actually anti-gay. Suppressing gay rights and gay issues is never about homophobia, it's always about free speech or imperialism or journalistic bias some other buzzword. Do you think you're fooling anyone?

R_haterade 10y ago
Why do I have to be pro- or anti- anything? I'm ambivalent about homosexuals. And that's on days when I even think about homosexuals. Why can't I observe that it's convenient for a propaganda machine to highlight an enemy's mistreatment of a marginalized class? Your comment typifies the mental short-circuiting that identity politics encourages. I suggest you not take everything so personally, and stop defaulting to the supposition that anything you don't agree with must be bigoted.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

Or, to put it another way: If the CIA had set out to slander the poor, unappreciated Syrian public servants who kidnap and murder gay people, their sinister propaganda operative wouldn't have pulled "Amina's" picture off of Google Images. He wouldn't have gotten her "hometown pictures" from his own vacation photos on his public Facebook. McMaster is too stupid to be a government agent. You are seriously underestimating your enemy if you think the US intelligence system is that dim.