5 ms·

To be fair, the exceptions are growing as media is less and less beholden to e.g. government sources for major stories. I can't recall seeing even a single twee

To be fair, the exceptions are growing as media is less and less beholden to e.g. government sources for major stories. I can't recall seeing even a single tweet in favor of America's involvement in Yemen, journalists or no. It's not the world, but it's something.

ejlangev 9y ago
There's still a lie by omission with the Yemen story though. You don't hear news outlets saying the truth which is that the Saudis are bombing Yemen with U.S weapons that we sold them knowing full well what they would be used to do.
- hawkice 9y ago
  Are you kidding me? They might not report on it a lot, but that's almost _all_ I hear about it. I'd like to know more, because I'm aware it has to do with the Arab Spring but I'm not clear on who is involved (aside from the US and the Saudi governments) or what the ideas behind the political factions are. [Edit: It's worth noting that those used to be only details we'd hear: who's a communist, who's a radical and who's a moderate, which individual people are monsters or the best hope for the country. To say the Chomsky critiques apply here is... a stretch. We got one story either essentially right or are making new mistakes.]
- m777z 9y ago
  It took me less than a minute to find this: http://time.com/4787797/donald-trump-yemen-saudi-arabia-arms-deal/ http://time.com/4787797/donald-trump-yemen-saudi-arabia-arms... "When President Donald Trump closed a nearly $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia on Saturday, his deputies’ spirits soared...The weapons sale was one of the largest in history, totaling close to $110 billion worth of tanks, artillery, radar systems, armored personnel carriers, and Blackhawk helicopters. The package also included ships, patrol boats, Patriot missiles, and THAAD missile defense systems. Much of that military hardware will likely be pressed into service in the Saudi fight against its neighbor Yemen, where more than 10,000 people have been killed over more than two years of heavy airstrikes and fighting."
  - koheripbal 9y ago
    ...but the only they ran this story was to target Trump. ...and even still, what's happening in Yemen is barely mentioned. Obama was just as complicit with what was happening and no one published anything about it.
r00fus 9y ago
s/government/major wealthy-corporate interest/ It's for sale, but increasingly the buyers are not the USG anymore. So do we fear the devil we know or the one we don't see yet?
- weberc2 9y ago
  Why stop there? There's tons of progressive bias as well. I don't know if it's a matter of progressive influence from the inside or fear of becoming the newest target of a progressive revolt that causes the major media outlets to toe the progressive line, but progressive bias seems at least as strong as pro-USG or pro-corporate bias. Maybe my vantage point is distorted/limited?
  - r00fus 9y ago
    What do you mean by progressive bias? corporate vs. normal people is orthogonal the progressive vs. conservative. Think of it as a separate axis.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > corporate vs. normal people is orthogonal the progressive vs. conservative. No, it's not. Both are about flattening of power distribution vs. concentration of power distribution.
      - nate_meurer 9y ago
        Progressive and conservative are an odd nomenclature nowadays. Both "sides" have large populist elements that share a hatred (and conspiratorial paranoia) of globalism and "the elites". In this respect, ANTIFA and alt-right white-nationalists have a lot more in common than they'll admit.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        That white nationalists (at the grassroots, even before considering what ends they might be being manipulated to serve) are about concentrating power in a specific subgroup rather than distributing it in an egalitarian manner is, well, painfully obvious from their overt label. It's true that just as both those seeking a broader distribution of power and those seeking to move it from the aristocracy to the mercantile class shared a small degree of common interest in the downfall of feudalism, the anarchocommunists and other leftists at the heart of Antifa and the White Nationalists in Trump's base might have something of a common opponent in at least some segment of the current cosmopolitan corporate elite, but that is a weak and transitory common interest, and their general interests are fundamentally in near-polar opposition.
nostrademons 9y ago
I think you're seeing competition in action. Before the Internet, there were 3 major broadcasting companies (4 after FOX gathered steam in the 80s) and one major newspaper per metro area. Ensuring the media's silence was as simple as making sure that all of the heads of these organizations knew that if they published, they would be the one organization that was shut out of all future news from the government. Now, if the major news organizations don't publish something newsworthy but inconvenient for powerful people, they can be sure that it's going to show up on Twitter, or Facebook, or Wikileaks, or Reddit, or Breitbart, or HuffPo, or Gawker, or Hacker News, or somewhere. And if it's outrageous enough, it'll spread virally and the consequence will be that the media companies that missed it will look stupid, not that the information won't get out there.

ejlangev 9y ago

There's still a lie by omission with the Yemen story though. You don't hear news outlets saying the truth which is that the Saudis are bombing Yemen with U.S weapons that we sold them knowing full well what they would be used to do.

hawkice 9y ago
Are you kidding me? They might not report on it a lot, but that's almost _all_ I hear about it. I'd like to know more, because I'm aware it has to do with the Arab Spring but I'm not clear on who is involved (aside from the US and the Saudi governments) or what the ideas behind the political factions are. [Edit: It's worth noting that those used to be only details we'd hear: who's a communist, who's a radical and who's a moderate, which individual people are monsters or the best hope for the country. To say the Chomsky critiques apply here is... a stretch. We got one story either essentially right or are making new mistakes.]
m777z 9y ago
It took me less than a minute to find this: http://time.com/4787797/donald-trump-yemen-saudi-arabia-arms-deal/ http://time.com/4787797/donald-trump-yemen-saudi-arabia-arms... "When President Donald Trump closed a nearly $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia on Saturday, his deputies’ spirits soared...The weapons sale was one of the largest in history, totaling close to $110 billion worth of tanks, artillery, radar systems, armored personnel carriers, and Blackhawk helicopters. The package also included ships, patrol boats, Patriot missiles, and THAAD missile defense systems. Much of that military hardware will likely be pressed into service in the Saudi fight against its neighbor Yemen, where more than 10,000 people have been killed over more than two years of heavy airstrikes and fighting."
- koheripbal 9y ago
  ...but the only they ran this story was to target Trump. ...and even still, what's happening in Yemen is barely mentioned. Obama was just as complicit with what was happening and no one published anything about it.

r00fus 9y ago

s/government/major wealthy-corporate interest/ It's for sale, but increasingly the buyers are not the USG anymore. So do we fear the devil we know or the one we don't see yet?

weberc2 9y ago
Why stop there? There's tons of progressive bias as well. I don't know if it's a matter of progressive influence from the inside or fear of becoming the newest target of a progressive revolt that causes the major media outlets to toe the progressive line, but progressive bias seems at least as strong as pro-USG or pro-corporate bias. Maybe my vantage point is distorted/limited?
- r00fus 9y ago
  What do you mean by progressive bias? corporate vs. normal people is orthogonal the progressive vs. conservative. Think of it as a separate axis.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > corporate vs. normal people is orthogonal the progressive vs. conservative. No, it's not. Both are about flattening of power distribution vs. concentration of power distribution.
    - nate_meurer 9y ago
      Progressive and conservative are an odd nomenclature nowadays. Both "sides" have large populist elements that share a hatred (and conspiratorial paranoia) of globalism and "the elites". In this respect, ANTIFA and alt-right white-nationalists have a lot more in common than they'll admit.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        That white nationalists (at the grassroots, even before considering what ends they might be being manipulated to serve) are about concentrating power in a specific subgroup rather than distributing it in an egalitarian manner is, well, painfully obvious from their overt label. It's true that just as both those seeking a broader distribution of power and those seeking to move it from the aristocracy to the mercantile class shared a small degree of common interest in the downfall of feudalism, the anarchocommunists and other leftists at the heart of Antifa and the White Nationalists in Trump's base might have something of a common opponent in at least some segment of the current cosmopolitan corporate elite, but that is a weak and transitory common interest, and their general interests are fundamentally in near-polar opposition.

nostrademons 9y ago

I think you're seeing competition in action. Before the Internet, there were 3 major broadcasting companies (4 after FOX gathered steam in the 80s) and one major newspaper per metro area. Ensuring the media's silence was as simple as making sure that all of the heads of these organizations knew that if they published, they would be the one organization that was shut out of all future news from the government. Now, if the major news organizations don't publish something newsworthy but inconvenient for powerful people, they can be sure that it's going to show up on Twitter, or Facebook, or Wikileaks, or Reddit, or Breitbart, or HuffPo, or Gawker, or Hacker News, or somewhere. And if it's outrageous enough, it'll spread virally and the consequence will be that the media companies that missed it will look stupid, not that the information won't get out there.