4 ms·

I would argue that the US invasion of Iraq (WMD), the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin), or the Spanish-American War (remember the Maine) have exposed the fallibilit

by ethbro 8y ago

I would argue that the US invasion of Iraq (WMD), the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin), or the Spanish-American War (remember the Maine) have exposed the fallibility and blindness of mainstream press to counter-naratives in pursuit of being first / having an article about the issue of the day. The broader point about clicks is that the economic model behind the US press changed from a subsidized press to a for-profit press... and yet everyone expected the work product to remain the same?

jakeogh 8y ago
And there's the nearly 20 year old elephant in the room...
- deogeo 8y ago
  ...September 11th, 2001? How is that involved? Or did you mean something else?
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    America does propaganda better than probably any other country on earth, because it’s so interwoven into the fabric of society. Freedom of the press, of speech, of creators is espoused at every opportunity. And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits [1]. Military officials and commentators helped shape the narrative of the Iraq war, often with roles at the media outlets themselves. I’ll dig up the article I was thinking of when I get a chance. They helped shape the presentation after — any embeds had to run their footage by military editors before airing too. What US propaganda does better than Chinese state propaganda for instance is that they don’t just tell the truth they want directly to your face even though it’s obviously and visibly wrong. They shape narratives. It’s an elegant, soft-touch approach. They make you want to hear and buy into their version of the truth. The press here hasn’t really been independent in a long time. I respect the game, tbh. It’s a free press so propaganda is impossible! Nothing to see here haha. It’s also why I get my news from a couple of foreign sources and ideally it cancels out each providers biases. If you get a chance watch some Fox and CNN (I watch both) then compare to CBC and Al Jazeera English. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/n...
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      >And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits. You're omitting a crucial detail and by doing so you make the situation you describe sound much more totalitarian. You're required to get the military to sign off on your script IF you want to use free or discounted military personal, equipment, or locations in your film. If you're making a movie where the heroes of the US military blow up some aliens, you'll be able to negotiate to use real tanks and planes for a reasonable cost in your fee. If you're talking about how the government kills people and is evil, you'll have to find another way to get your props. What you don't have to do is get government approval to make your film.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        I think that’s the crux of my point. Yes of course it’s optional to make a movie with the White House in it. It’s optional to use war footage to report on the war. It’s optional to interview officials in your coverage. However if you don’t, nobody’s going to pay attention so your only choice in effect is to play ball. Who would watch media coverage of the war from the only network without footage/boots on the ground/military subject matter experts? You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t matter if nobody’s listening. In a true free country these would be available to you to do as you wish, wouldn’t they, with equal access provisions? (That’s not rhetorical I’m curious your thoughts) That’s what I respect about it, and what makes it so powerful — the result is the same as under a totalitarian government but without the threats. And it’s still got freedom!
        ALittleLight 8y ago
        Either you have misunderstood something or I have. You absolutely do not need government permission to show the White House or to show war footage. You need government permission to get to use their hardware for free. If I want b-roll of the White House I can just walk over there and record or buy some online. I don't have to ask anybody anything and the government doesn't get to see my script. If I want tanks or planes in a movie that has a script the government doesn't like, I can always use the hardware from a different country, from a state militia, or private owner - or CGI or get the props department to build one, etc. The government does have a subtle influence. If it's not important to your film, you may as well except minor edits and make the military look good - that way you get some expensive props for free (or for a small price). It's not as insidious as what you're describing though.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    Like the older examples, the media narrative on 9/11 is fascinating: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...
skookumchuck 8y ago
When was the US press subsidized?
- ethbro 8y ago
  As a first approximation, about 20 years before the end of each century: pre-1880 for newsprint & pre-1980 for television. All that is required for the press to function is that someone foots the bill. They can do so for a variety of reasons. Supported by a political party (Fox is actually returning to earlier times here). Supported as a charity / pet project (the news barons, Bezos). And supported commercially from sales (CNN). Generally, every news media form in the US has eventually moved to the last.

by ethbro 8y ago

jakeogh 8y ago

And there's the nearly 20 year old elephant in the room...

deogeo 8y ago
...September 11th, 2001? How is that involved? Or did you mean something else?
- arcticbull 8y ago
  America does propaganda better than probably any other country on earth, because it’s so interwoven into the fabric of society. Freedom of the press, of speech, of creators is espoused at every opportunity. And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits [1]. Military officials and commentators helped shape the narrative of the Iraq war, often with roles at the media outlets themselves. I’ll dig up the article I was thinking of when I get a chance. They helped shape the presentation after — any embeds had to run their footage by military editors before airing too. What US propaganda does better than Chinese state propaganda for instance is that they don’t just tell the truth they want directly to your face even though it’s obviously and visibly wrong. They shape narratives. It’s an elegant, soft-touch approach. They make you want to hear and buy into their version of the truth. The press here hasn’t really been independent in a long time. I respect the game, tbh. It’s a free press so propaganda is impossible! Nothing to see here haha. It’s also why I get my news from a couple of foreign sources and ideally it cancels out each providers biases. If you get a chance watch some Fox and CNN (I watch both) then compare to CBC and Al Jazeera English. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/n...
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    >And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits. You're omitting a crucial detail and by doing so you make the situation you describe sound much more totalitarian. You're required to get the military to sign off on your script IF you want to use free or discounted military personal, equipment, or locations in your film. If you're making a movie where the heroes of the US military blow up some aliens, you'll be able to negotiate to use real tanks and planes for a reasonable cost in your fee. If you're talking about how the government kills people and is evil, you'll have to find another way to get your props. What you don't have to do is get government approval to make your film.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      I think that’s the crux of my point. Yes of course it’s optional to make a movie with the White House in it. It’s optional to use war footage to report on the war. It’s optional to interview officials in your coverage. However if you don’t, nobody’s going to pay attention so your only choice in effect is to play ball. Who would watch media coverage of the war from the only network without footage/boots on the ground/military subject matter experts? You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t matter if nobody’s listening. In a true free country these would be available to you to do as you wish, wouldn’t they, with equal access provisions? (That’s not rhetorical I’m curious your thoughts) That’s what I respect about it, and what makes it so powerful — the result is the same as under a totalitarian government but without the threats. And it’s still got freedom!
      - ALittleLight 8y ago
        Either you have misunderstood something or I have. You absolutely do not need government permission to show the White House or to show war footage. You need government permission to get to use their hardware for free. If I want b-roll of the White House I can just walk over there and record or buy some online. I don't have to ask anybody anything and the government doesn't get to see my script. If I want tanks or planes in a movie that has a script the government doesn't like, I can always use the hardware from a different country, from a state militia, or private owner - or CGI or get the props department to build one, etc. The government does have a subtle influence. If it's not important to your film, you may as well except minor edits and make the military look good - that way you get some expensive props for free (or for a small price). It's not as insidious as what you're describing though.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  Like the older examples, the media narrative on 9/11 is fascinating: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...

skookumchuck 8y ago

When was the US press subsidized?

ethbro 8y ago
As a first approximation, about 20 years before the end of each century: pre-1880 for newsprint & pre-1980 for television. All that is required for the press to function is that someone foots the bill. They can do so for a variety of reasons. Supported by a political party (Fox is actually returning to earlier times here). Supported as a charity / pet project (the news barons, Bezos). And supported commercially from sales (CNN). Generally, every news media form in the US has eventually moved to the last.