3 ms·

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,

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.

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.