5 ms·

That's a rather naive point of view. Yes free press as an ideal is great, but that rests on the premise that press' goal is for the betterment of the country. B

That's a rather naive point of view. Yes free press as an ideal is great, but that rests on the premise that press' goal is for the betterment of the country. But in reality, press is effectively weaponized as a propaganda tool that's trying tirelessly to push their own agenda. I think of limited press freedom in China as a measure of protectionism, it knows it does not have the level of sophistication when it comes to pushing out their own narrative, so it blocks it off. And I have no doubt that there will be free press when the parity in sophistication is reached.

chillwaves 7y ago
What point are you trying to make? That state propaganda is superior to free press? I do not agree. The press has its faults but the idea of openly accepting state propaganda seems like a low value proposition.
- hungryhobo 7y ago
  I'm saying free press can also be free propaganda, it's not a matter of which is superior because fundamentally they all have an agenda to serve. Also I'm not sure what you are referring to when you are talking about state propaganda. Do you mean BBC or abc or what?
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Free press can be free propaganda. State press is free propaganda. Free press also has a check-and-balance in that other journalists can call out its abuses. State press has no check-and-balance, because everyone who contradicts it gets thrown in prison. Even if someone distrusts literally everything that modern press is putting out, they'd still prefer to live in a world where they're legally allowed to publish blog posts talking about how bad the press is. More to the point, if someone assumes the BBC is propaganda because it's publicly funded, why would they want to live in a world where only the BBC is allowed to broadcast? Saying that one system has faults doesn't imply that it's a good idea for us to switch to a system that is strictly worse on nearly every axis.
    - hungryhobo 7y ago
      You are still not getting it, how likely would a British journalist have the best interest of China at heart? So if BBC were to publish propaganda against China, how likely would they act as the check and balance that you talk about?
      - danShumway 7y ago
        No, I get what you're saying. It's just that I think the solution you've proposed is unhelpful. > how likely would a British journalist have the best interest of China at heart? More likely than the British government. Additionally, under a free press, anyone in Britain can publish anything criticizing the BBC, and anyone can claim that it doesn't have China's best interests at heart. Heck, even China can publish information in Britain that criticizes the BBC. Under a state-propaganda system, only state approved actors get to publish information, which means that however slight you think it is that someone would call out the BBC, a free press is still the more-likely system for that to happen. China is better off because Britain has a free press. In regards to China itself, the idea I gather you're putting forward is that China can't counter the BBC's propaganda on its own and therefore has to protect its citizens by shielding their ears. There are a lot of problems with this idea that boil down to, 'every time a nation has tried it, it's been awful for the citizens involved.' But a more general argument against this idea is that it doesn't scale -- it is always easier to win an argument when you control what the other person is and isn't allowed to say. If China doesn't trust its citizens to hear news from other countries, there's not going to be a point in the future where it suddenly starts trusting them. It will always be easier to make the argument that we have to protect stupid people from hearing stupid things. An indefinite state-propaganda system is in the long run almost universally worse for the world as a whole, and almost universally worse for the citizens of individual countries. We also have a lot of examples in the past of it being worse for citizens in the short term. But the fact that there is no off-ramp for state propaganda, and no check-and-balance system to prevent it from going bad -- that would be enough to make it dangerous even if that short-term data didn't exist.
        hungryhobo 7y ago
- entropea 7y ago
  Most mainstream pess is propaganda in the USA. You cannot have free press when the majority of media is for-profit and colsolidated into the hands of fewer companies than ever. The filters keep the truth from being told and you don't even need a conspiracy for it, it's just the outcome of capital control. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    Then propose a better system. State censorship is not it.
    - entropea 7y ago
      Private censorship is OK though? I wasn't proposing anything, just pointing out that USA isn't a land of press freedom. Americans love to criticize others, but never self reflect. Only on Hacker News can you say something true with evidence and get downvoted. Edit: Downvoted immediately at 7:20AM on an old topic that didn't garner much interest in the first place, but pushed more propaganda about China. Really fishy, almost as if keywords and sentiment are scanned.
    - fragmede 7y ago
      Transition media conglomerates over a certain size/revenue to run as some new category of non-profit (imo 503 doesn't have enough categories) Limit the number of boards any one person is allowed to sit on. Those five media conglomerates that control the US media aren't even really all that distinct. Hell, break up the media conglomerates. Update the sherman anti-trust in order to do so. Give the FCC more power. The lack of power is partially to blame for our sad state of affairs. Fewer regulations haven't resulted in a good system, and I'll be bold - I think more regulations will. I'm with you that state censorship of political views is right out, but there are some standards of decency that I do think we should keep such as gore, and hardcore pornography on TV even on cable. Especially right after school. Fund the hell out of PBS. More Mister Rogers, fewer 20-minute toy commercials.

chillwaves 7y ago

What point are you trying to make? That state propaganda is superior to free press? I do not agree. The press has its faults but the idea of openly accepting state propaganda seems like a low value proposition.

hungryhobo 7y ago
I'm saying free press can also be free propaganda, it's not a matter of which is superior because fundamentally they all have an agenda to serve. Also I'm not sure what you are referring to when you are talking about state propaganda. Do you mean BBC or abc or what?
- danShumway 7y ago
  Free press can be free propaganda. State press is free propaganda. Free press also has a check-and-balance in that other journalists can call out its abuses. State press has no check-and-balance, because everyone who contradicts it gets thrown in prison. Even if someone distrusts literally everything that modern press is putting out, they'd still prefer to live in a world where they're legally allowed to publish blog posts talking about how bad the press is. More to the point, if someone assumes the BBC is propaganda because it's publicly funded, why would they want to live in a world where only the BBC is allowed to broadcast? Saying that one system has faults doesn't imply that it's a good idea for us to switch to a system that is strictly worse on nearly every axis.
  - hungryhobo 7y ago
    You are still not getting it, how likely would a British journalist have the best interest of China at heart? So if BBC were to publish propaganda against China, how likely would they act as the check and balance that you talk about?
    - danShumway 7y ago
      No, I get what you're saying. It's just that I think the solution you've proposed is unhelpful. > how likely would a British journalist have the best interest of China at heart? More likely than the British government. Additionally, under a free press, anyone in Britain can publish anything criticizing the BBC, and anyone can claim that it doesn't have China's best interests at heart. Heck, even China can publish information in Britain that criticizes the BBC. Under a state-propaganda system, only state approved actors get to publish information, which means that however slight you think it is that someone would call out the BBC, a free press is still the more-likely system for that to happen. China is better off because Britain has a free press. In regards to China itself, the idea I gather you're putting forward is that China can't counter the BBC's propaganda on its own and therefore has to protect its citizens by shielding their ears. There are a lot of problems with this idea that boil down to, 'every time a nation has tried it, it's been awful for the citizens involved.' But a more general argument against this idea is that it doesn't scale -- it is always easier to win an argument when you control what the other person is and isn't allowed to say. If China doesn't trust its citizens to hear news from other countries, there's not going to be a point in the future where it suddenly starts trusting them. It will always be easier to make the argument that we have to protect stupid people from hearing stupid things. An indefinite state-propaganda system is in the long run almost universally worse for the world as a whole, and almost universally worse for the citizens of individual countries. We also have a lot of examples in the past of it being worse for citizens in the short term. But the fact that there is no off-ramp for state propaganda, and no check-and-balance system to prevent it from going bad -- that would be enough to make it dangerous even if that short-term data didn't exist.
      - hungryhobo 7y ago
entropea 7y ago
Most mainstream pess is propaganda in the USA. You cannot have free press when the majority of media is for-profit and colsolidated into the hands of fewer companies than ever. The filters keep the truth from being told and you don't even need a conspiracy for it, it's just the outcome of capital control. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Then propose a better system. State censorship is not it.
  - entropea 7y ago
    Private censorship is OK though? I wasn't proposing anything, just pointing out that USA isn't a land of press freedom. Americans love to criticize others, but never self reflect. Only on Hacker News can you say something true with evidence and get downvoted. Edit: Downvoted immediately at 7:20AM on an old topic that didn't garner much interest in the first place, but pushed more propaganda about China. Really fishy, almost as if keywords and sentiment are scanned.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    Transition media conglomerates over a certain size/revenue to run as some new category of non-profit (imo 503 doesn't have enough categories) Limit the number of boards any one person is allowed to sit on. Those five media conglomerates that control the US media aren't even really all that distinct. Hell, break up the media conglomerates. Update the sherman anti-trust in order to do so. Give the FCC more power. The lack of power is partially to blame for our sad state of affairs. Fewer regulations haven't resulted in a good system, and I'll be bold - I think more regulations will. I'm with you that state censorship of political views is right out, but there are some standards of decency that I do think we should keep such as gore, and hardcore pornography on TV even on cable. Especially right after school. Fund the hell out of PBS. More Mister Rogers, fewer 20-minute toy commercials.