6 ms·

As much as I despise all "news" organizations, I say good. Considering that most of the media has been fawning over musk and spacex and everything musk does, p

As much as I despise all "news" organizations, I say good. Considering that most of the media has been fawning over musk and spacex and everything musk does, perhaps some criticism of musk is required in a free and democratic system. I just don't like how so much of media are pretty much colluding with each other to spread the same narrative. On almost all topics, it seems like most of the media is pushing a particular narrative. I wish we had a media environment where about a third is pro-musk, a third is anti-musk and a third is neutral. The same with trump/obama/clinton, politics, technology, business, globalization, economics, international relations, etc. All we seem to get is cheerleading by the media for one particular agenda. I'm a believer in diversity and I think we need diversity in the media. And I don't believe in saints. Musk has done a lot of good things, but he isn't a saint. He has done plenty of things that can be criticized. How most of his business lives off government subsidies. How much in bed he is with wall street. How he really hasn't invented or created anything new. Most of his proclamations and "inventions" are decades old technologies. None of his grandiose proposals have born fruit yet. If all the media seems to do is praise or criticize, then I know something is wrong. Edit: Wow, that was a swift and quick number of downvotes. I know that pay to play is a big thing in news ( both arstechnica and brietbart and everyone else does ). But I wonder if musk has pr firms working the social media scene?

barrystaes 9y ago
In the US are only two political parties. Yet North Korea and Russia only have one, so its not that bad. And diversity does exists.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > In the US are only two political parties. No. We have more than two political parties. It's just that two are dominant and they both work for the same people. > Yet North Korea and Russia only have one, so its not that bad. What? We are comparing ourselves to russia and nk? Is that how low we have sunk as a nation? > And diversity does exists. What? 2 isn't diversity. And as I pointed out, it doesn't exist in news media.
- corpMaverick 9y ago
  AFAIK, China only has one. And it seems to work remarkably well. At least they seem to have very smart people at the top.
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    I would say the bottom quintile Americans is doing orders of magnitude better than the bottom quintile of Chinese. Maybe even bottom half. This is probably true when comparing any developed nation to a developing nation.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      It seems the bottom quintile Americans (WRT intelligence) took over the government... Burn, karma, burn!
tclancy 9y ago
> But I wonder if musk has pr firms working the social media scene? I would say the downvotes are more due to the fact you're commenting on an article that says a certain section of what we are still calling "The Right" has incorrectly demonized Musk in this case and you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. In addition, your extended ad hominem in response to an article you didn't read is disappointing.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > I would say the downvotes are more due to the fact you're commenting on an article that says a certain section of what we are still calling "The Right" has incorrectly demonized Musk in this case and you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. Okay. But why is arstechnica even defending musk. Is arstechnica musk's PR firm? Isn't that strange in and of itself? Lots of bad things get said about everyone and yet arstechnica decided to jump in on musk's defense. That seems pretty odd to me. > you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. I've criticized musk. And I've also praised him too. But the problem is that I get attacked for criticizing musk. I just find it odd how any criticism of musk gets a swarmed response. That isn't an ad hominem. That's just wondering how strange things are. I would be interested if arstechnica or their employees have any direct or indirect financial stake in musk's enterprises. I also would be interested if breitbart/et al have any financial stake in having musk's companies fail ( ie short positions or interests in musk's competitors ).
  - orf 9y ago
    > Is arstechnica musk's PR firm? Isn't that strange in and of itself? Nope. Why is it strange? I expect there is a large intersection between people who like Musk and the things he is working on and people who read Ars. In fact there is likely a large intersection between people who like Musk and his companies and people working in tech. But hey, if global media conspiracies are your thing then sure, it's that.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    You think paid shills are giving you the down votes? Ron Paul criticized Space X for getting John McCain to put a provision into the Senate Bill that favored Space X. 1) This provision is not IN the Senate bill. 2) The provision doesn't hurt Space X, but it doesn't directly do anything for them either. 3) The provision is in a House bill, and was put there by a congressman from Alabama, not John McCain. People don't like blatant factual errors. You can criticize Musk all you want, but it must be for things that are actually happening in reality. Because of the factual errors in the criticism of Space X, and the fact that they appear to be coordinated, if there are any PR firms influencing this debate nefariously, its likely on the other side.
aqme28 9y ago
>I wish we had a media environment where about a third is pro-musk, a third is anti-musk and a third is neutral. The same with trump/obama/clinton, politics, technology, business, globalization, economics, international relations, etc. Why? I'm legitimately curious. Why must all issues be represented with equal coverage? Does this apply to all issues? Should moon-conspiracy theorists get one-third positive coverage?
donkeyd 9y ago
> If all the media seems to do is praise or criticize, then I know something is wrong. This is an odd baseline. I'm pretty sure most media criticize animal abuse and praise people who help others. If something is (mostly) objectively good or bad for most of the world, I'm not surprised that media will agree on that. There's no need to always have a devil's advocate, especially not a third of the media.

barrystaes 9y ago

In the US are only two political parties. Yet North Korea and Russia only have one, so its not that bad. And diversity does exists.

eighthnate 9y ago
> In the US are only two political parties. No. We have more than two political parties. It's just that two are dominant and they both work for the same people. > Yet North Korea and Russia only have one, so its not that bad. What? We are comparing ourselves to russia and nk? Is that how low we have sunk as a nation? > And diversity does exists. What? 2 isn't diversity. And as I pointed out, it doesn't exist in news media.
corpMaverick 9y ago
AFAIK, China only has one. And it seems to work remarkably well. At least they seem to have very smart people at the top.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  I would say the bottom quintile Americans is doing orders of magnitude better than the bottom quintile of Chinese. Maybe even bottom half. This is probably true when comparing any developed nation to a developing nation.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    It seems the bottom quintile Americans (WRT intelligence) took over the government... Burn, karma, burn!

tclancy 9y ago

> But I wonder if musk has pr firms working the social media scene? I would say the downvotes are more due to the fact you're commenting on an article that says a certain section of what we are still calling "The Right" has incorrectly demonized Musk in this case and you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. In addition, your extended ad hominem in response to an article you didn't read is disappointing.

eighthnate 9y ago
> I would say the downvotes are more due to the fact you're commenting on an article that says a certain section of what we are still calling "The Right" has incorrectly demonized Musk in this case and you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. Okay. But why is arstechnica even defending musk. Is arstechnica musk's PR firm? Isn't that strange in and of itself? Lots of bad things get said about everyone and yet arstechnica decided to jump in on musk's defense. That seems pretty odd to me. > you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. I've criticized musk. And I've also praised him too. But the problem is that I get attacked for criticizing musk. I just find it odd how any criticism of musk gets a swarmed response. That isn't an ad hominem. That's just wondering how strange things are. I would be interested if arstechnica or their employees have any direct or indirect financial stake in musk's enterprises. I also would be interested if breitbart/et al have any financial stake in having musk's companies fail ( ie short positions or interests in musk's competitors ).
- orf 9y ago
  > Is arstechnica musk's PR firm? Isn't that strange in and of itself? Nope. Why is it strange? I expect there is a large intersection between people who like Musk and the things he is working on and people who read Ars. In fact there is likely a large intersection between people who like Musk and his companies and people working in tech. But hey, if global media conspiracies are your thing then sure, it's that.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  You think paid shills are giving you the down votes? Ron Paul criticized Space X for getting John McCain to put a provision into the Senate Bill that favored Space X. 1) This provision is not IN the Senate bill. 2) The provision doesn't hurt Space X, but it doesn't directly do anything for them either. 3) The provision is in a House bill, and was put there by a congressman from Alabama, not John McCain. People don't like blatant factual errors. You can criticize Musk all you want, but it must be for things that are actually happening in reality. Because of the factual errors in the criticism of Space X, and the fact that they appear to be coordinated, if there are any PR firms influencing this debate nefariously, its likely on the other side.

aqme28 9y ago

>I wish we had a media environment where about a third is pro-musk, a third is anti-musk and a third is neutral. The same with trump/obama/clinton, politics, technology, business, globalization, economics, international relations, etc. Why? I'm legitimately curious. Why must all issues be represented with equal coverage? Does this apply to all issues? Should moon-conspiracy theorists get one-third positive coverage?

donkeyd 9y ago

> If all the media seems to do is praise or criticize, then I know something is wrong. This is an odd baseline. I'm pretty sure most media criticize animal abuse and praise people who help others. If something is (mostly) objectively good or bad for most of the world, I'm not surprised that media will agree on that. There's no need to always have a devil's advocate, especially not a third of the media.