4 ms·

What exactly are you claiming is being censored? The media regularly investigates and reports on itself. The press is far from perfect, but you’re alleging a

What exactly are you claiming is being censored? The media regularly investigates and reports on itself. The press is far from perfect, but you’re alleging a vast and deep conspiracy when reality is likely far simpler: The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sales and business have little impact on editorial. Editorial flies by the whims of a wide variety of strong personalities. Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their inside status and insight (of whatever level of quality that might be). Suggesting those outlets produce a single unified perspective or ideology is a bit much. Which would explain why you might see contradictory ideas. I continually stress media literacy as crucial-especially these days. It’s not a mystery to be solved. Most of is pretty straight forward hum drum. Edited to add: The Atlantic is a very different machine from WP or NYT. It’s magazine whose content has been analysis and ideas and always has been. Their work will always have perspective woven into their articles. It’s not new to them. But it’s not a conspiracy, it’s part of their business model.

jtr1 8y ago
These do not have to be mutually exclusive accounts. There does not have to be a secret cabal of shadowy deep state operatives pushing a unified message, there just needs to be a propensity for the rich and well-connected (by definition a small group) to find their way into positions of influence in rough proximity to major media outlets. As you've said: Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their status and insight. It's not difficult to see that wealth, status, and connection are self-compounding. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that many people in this group hold views that are out of step with the majority of Americans, particularly when you are talking about the pro-military intervention crowd.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Granted, but what’s being implied and not said outright is that those people are somehow influencing entire organizations of strong-willed career professionals and not just given their own post to say what they want alongside the rest. I’m asserting the latter is usually what’s happening. Over the past 100 years there have been many times where North American governments have attempted to rule over the press. That never went well for them (save the inception of Fox News). OP seemed to suggest the large number of contradictory articles was the result of a larger unified conspiracy. I’m suggesting that is highly unlikely. For what it’s worth- people don’t get into working for the media because it pays really well. Not usually anyway. So in that way I’d rule out wealth as a primary motivating factor to sacrificing one’s principles in that business.
  - leftyted 8y ago
    It seems unlikely to me that there is no coordination between left wing media institutions. They say the same things at the same time using the same language. I don't read much right-wing media. I'm not saying there's a shadowy conspiracy (though I'm not ruling out people talking about "messaging" via email). It may be that they read each other's stuff and the demands of the 24 hour news cycle dictate that there's a certain amount of cross pollination and regurgitation. > For what it’s worth- people don’t get into working for the media because it pays really well. Not usually anyway. So in that way I’d rule out wealth as a primary motivating factor to sacrificing one’s principles in that business. Another perspective on this, courtesy of Noam Chomsky in conversation with a journalist: "I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting here." > Over the past 100 years there have been many times where North American governments have attempted to rule over the press. That never went well for them (save the inception of Fox News). I think it's unknown to what degree American intelligence agencies influence the media but I'm willing to bet it's "more than not at all". It may be relatively benign stuff ("Don't use the term 'Islamic terrorism,' Al Qaeda uses that stuff to propagandize") or it may be not so benign. I agree with the original poster. It's absurd that the left-wing media has been agitating for censorship of "hate" and then complaining when "evidence of war crimes" is deleted. There's been shockingly little mainstream questioning of just how quixotic it is to try to "remove hate". I'm fairly concerned about the move toward censorship by internet platforms. The only way tech companies can realistically do this is with algorithms. Lots of people seem to think it's a given that these companies can algorithmically remove "hateful things". No one seems to be saying that rules and laws need to have precedent in order to be intelligible. For example, in the US, there are incitement laws but what actually constitutes "incitement of imminent lawless action" is something that has been defined in the courtroom. You can't just say "delete hate" without precisely defining hate. It's a blank check. I find censorship via algorithms extremely scary. There will be false positives and false negatives and there is absolutely zero recourse. Censorship by algorithms is a perfect expression of bureaucracy. In perfect bureaucracies, responsibilty is spread so thinly that it's impossible to determine who is responsible for a mistake. With algorithms, there's actually no human on the hook at all. Are you going to blame the programmers? By all means, use machine learning to flag posts so humans can look at them. But automating the removal of content and the banning of human users is a road I strongly suspect we will regret going down. If the volume of content is sufficient so that you need to use algorithms to remove human-generated content then I'd say it's time to reconsider whether that content should be removed at all.
- wybiral 8y ago
  > It's not difficult to see that wealth, status, and connection are self-compounding. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that many people in this group hold views that are out of step with the majority of Americans, particularly when you are talking about the pro-military intervention crowd. Yes, the wealthy certainly rig the system to stay wealthy and get more wealth. That's an easy thing to assert. But to then make vague connections to intelligence and relatives of presidents as though they posed some unseen censorship apparatus on media with some specific goals is where it gets into conspiracy theory zone.
ataturk 8y ago
It doesn't bother you at all that we only get slightly warmed over variations of the party line? I'm not that old, but I grew up in the 1980s and I very distinctly remember the media NOT being like this! Today, no matter what "news" source you visit, it pretty much all has the same narrative. It is as though they all receive the talking points and are told what to do from a central committee. To me, it's very bad. You don't even realize it because if you grew up without any other perspective on the matter, you would have no way of knowing about it. What is going on in the West today is extremely alarming, and I'm not the alarmist type. It is like all our safeguards are down now and what is going on politically is extremely bad for the average citizen, and yet we do nothing because everyone is being confused, sent in all different directions, and thus not enough people are unified behind any particular ideas and the media is making very sure that cognitive dissonance is all we get. Worse yet, millions of people are being conditioned to hate. It makes utterly no sense unless you wish to start a war--you can't go on demonizing and pissing off the people who actually do the work. Hard-working people don't complain, they just keep working as hard as they can. They think this will pass. I'm sure the average Austrian Jew thought so, too. It's not going to. Honestly, I have no idea if there is a conspiracy or not. I can only point to the poor quality of today's "news" sources and wonder how this can possibly play out in any good way. What I am weary of is the constant demonizing of anyone holding traditional values, anyone who speaks out against the idiocy, the waste, and the total lack of accountability in government. Being a journalist used to mean you were duty bound to stand up for ideas no matter what direction the story took you, it was your job to follow the story and not deviate from objectivity. Today's journalists are part of a machine that controls the narrative. They don't get to think or they are banished. Why does anyone bother going to Journalism School anymore? What a waste of time to just be some dumb cog in a totalitarian machine.
billfruit 8y ago
Journalists and the press has their self interest to protect too. That is why it is hard to take criticism of Facebook, Google, etc from them, because their criticism is tainted by conflict of interest. One does not go to the Pope to get an impartial view about atheism. I do not say that what Atlantic/NY times/etc says on this topic is without value. Only that what they say should not be regarded as final or defenitive word, rather only as claims in argument.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  > Only that what they say should not be regarded as final or defenitive word, rather only as claims in argument. I'd agree with that. It's the claim that they're in on a massive conspiracy because of a select set of articles on the subject is the line I've taken to issue.

jtr1 8y ago

These do not have to be mutually exclusive accounts. There does not have to be a secret cabal of shadowy deep state operatives pushing a unified message, there just needs to be a propensity for the rich and well-connected (by definition a small group) to find their way into positions of influence in rough proximity to major media outlets. As you've said: Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their status and insight. It's not difficult to see that wealth, status, and connection are self-compounding. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that many people in this group hold views that are out of step with the majority of Americans, particularly when you are talking about the pro-military intervention crowd.

52-6F-62 8y ago
Granted, but what’s being implied and not said outright is that those people are somehow influencing entire organizations of strong-willed career professionals and not just given their own post to say what they want alongside the rest. I’m asserting the latter is usually what’s happening. Over the past 100 years there have been many times where North American governments have attempted to rule over the press. That never went well for them (save the inception of Fox News). OP seemed to suggest the large number of contradictory articles was the result of a larger unified conspiracy. I’m suggesting that is highly unlikely. For what it’s worth- people don’t get into working for the media because it pays really well. Not usually anyway. So in that way I’d rule out wealth as a primary motivating factor to sacrificing one’s principles in that business.
- leftyted 8y ago
  It seems unlikely to me that there is no coordination between left wing media institutions. They say the same things at the same time using the same language. I don't read much right-wing media. I'm not saying there's a shadowy conspiracy (though I'm not ruling out people talking about "messaging" via email). It may be that they read each other's stuff and the demands of the 24 hour news cycle dictate that there's a certain amount of cross pollination and regurgitation. > For what it’s worth- people don’t get into working for the media because it pays really well. Not usually anyway. So in that way I’d rule out wealth as a primary motivating factor to sacrificing one’s principles in that business. Another perspective on this, courtesy of Noam Chomsky in conversation with a journalist: "I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting here." > Over the past 100 years there have been many times where North American governments have attempted to rule over the press. That never went well for them (save the inception of Fox News). I think it's unknown to what degree American intelligence agencies influence the media but I'm willing to bet it's "more than not at all". It may be relatively benign stuff ("Don't use the term 'Islamic terrorism,' Al Qaeda uses that stuff to propagandize") or it may be not so benign. I agree with the original poster. It's absurd that the left-wing media has been agitating for censorship of "hate" and then complaining when "evidence of war crimes" is deleted. There's been shockingly little mainstream questioning of just how quixotic it is to try to "remove hate". I'm fairly concerned about the move toward censorship by internet platforms. The only way tech companies can realistically do this is with algorithms. Lots of people seem to think it's a given that these companies can algorithmically remove "hateful things". No one seems to be saying that rules and laws need to have precedent in order to be intelligible. For example, in the US, there are incitement laws but what actually constitutes "incitement of imminent lawless action" is something that has been defined in the courtroom. You can't just say "delete hate" without precisely defining hate. It's a blank check. I find censorship via algorithms extremely scary. There will be false positives and false negatives and there is absolutely zero recourse. Censorship by algorithms is a perfect expression of bureaucracy. In perfect bureaucracies, responsibilty is spread so thinly that it's impossible to determine who is responsible for a mistake. With algorithms, there's actually no human on the hook at all. Are you going to blame the programmers? By all means, use machine learning to flag posts so humans can look at them. But automating the removal of content and the banning of human users is a road I strongly suspect we will regret going down. If the volume of content is sufficient so that you need to use algorithms to remove human-generated content then I'd say it's time to reconsider whether that content should be removed at all.
wybiral 8y ago
> It's not difficult to see that wealth, status, and connection are self-compounding. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that many people in this group hold views that are out of step with the majority of Americans, particularly when you are talking about the pro-military intervention crowd. Yes, the wealthy certainly rig the system to stay wealthy and get more wealth. That's an easy thing to assert. But to then make vague connections to intelligence and relatives of presidents as though they posed some unseen censorship apparatus on media with some specific goals is where it gets into conspiracy theory zone.

ataturk 8y ago

It doesn't bother you at all that we only get slightly warmed over variations of the party line? I'm not that old, but I grew up in the 1980s and I very distinctly remember the media NOT being like this! Today, no matter what "news" source you visit, it pretty much all has the same narrative. It is as though they all receive the talking points and are told what to do from a central committee. To me, it's very bad. You don't even realize it because if you grew up without any other perspective on the matter, you would have no way of knowing about it. What is going on in the West today is extremely alarming, and I'm not the alarmist type. It is like all our safeguards are down now and what is going on politically is extremely bad for the average citizen, and yet we do nothing because everyone is being confused, sent in all different directions, and thus not enough people are unified behind any particular ideas and the media is making very sure that cognitive dissonance is all we get. Worse yet, millions of people are being conditioned to hate. It makes utterly no sense unless you wish to start a war--you can't go on demonizing and pissing off the people who actually do the work. Hard-working people don't complain, they just keep working as hard as they can. They think this will pass. I'm sure the average Austrian Jew thought so, too. It's not going to. Honestly, I have no idea if there is a conspiracy or not. I can only point to the poor quality of today's "news" sources and wonder how this can possibly play out in any good way. What I am weary of is the constant demonizing of anyone holding traditional values, anyone who speaks out against the idiocy, the waste, and the total lack of accountability in government. Being a journalist used to mean you were duty bound to stand up for ideas no matter what direction the story took you, it was your job to follow the story and not deviate from objectivity. Today's journalists are part of a machine that controls the narrative. They don't get to think or they are banished. Why does anyone bother going to Journalism School anymore? What a waste of time to just be some dumb cog in a totalitarian machine.

billfruit 8y ago

Journalists and the press has their self interest to protect too. That is why it is hard to take criticism of Facebook, Google, etc from them, because their criticism is tainted by conflict of interest. One does not go to the Pope to get an impartial view about atheism. I do not say that what Atlantic/NY times/etc says on this topic is without value. Only that what they say should not be regarded as final or defenitive word, rather only as claims in argument.

52-6F-62 8y ago
> Only that what they say should not be regarded as final or defenitive word, rather only as claims in argument. I'd agree with that. It's the claim that they're in on a massive conspiracy because of a select set of articles on the subject is the line I've taken to issue.