6 ms·

It always rubs me the wrong way when US media criticizes other countries as if the same things don't happen in the US. Why was Phil Donahue fired? https://www

It always rubs me the wrong way when US media criticizes other countries as if the same things don't happen in the US. Why was Phil Donahue fired? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/phil-donahue-chris-matthews-msnbc-firing_n_2926643 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/phil-donahue-chris-matthews-m... What about Peter Arnett? https://www.foxnews.com/story/nbc-severs-ties-with-journalist-peter-arnett https://www.foxnews.com/story/nbc-severs-ties-with-journalis... But I guess the Americans have 'private' media where 'market forces' prevent criticism of US government policy.

novok 6y ago
Whataboutist arguments do not invalidate an article about something and do not show a form of hypocrisy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism One can be critical of behavior in one country and also not like the behavior of a country you also happen to reside. The linker is not the NY Times :) Edit: And you don't have to profess the dislike of similar behavior in the same article
- m463 6y ago
  However since this is a NYT article, the NYT bestseller list may be relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List In particular the first paragraph under Controversies
  - 9935c101ab17a66 6y ago
    Why? This source indicates that they never pretended that it was truly a literal representation of the number of books that were actually sold (https://books.google.ca/books?id=PEZkkbohbtoC&pg=PA290&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=PEZkkbohbtoC&pg=PA290&redir...). And while you can argue they should reveal their methods, it's not disingenuous because it would be simply impossible to have an exact number of copies a book sold.
    - m463 6y ago
      No that's what they said when pressed in court. (sort of like coca-cola in court coming out with "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage") It's just ironic that the NYT has an article about the polish chart... that behaves just like their book chart.
_visgean 6y ago
The same thing can't really happen in US because US does not have state media. (Apart from funding Radio free Europe which can't operate in US.)
- azinman2 6y ago
  So what’s NPR, PBS, and VOA? Note that Trump is actively trying to reorient VOA to be Trump-friendly right now.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    You might find this spin-job entertaining. https://apnews.com/afs:Content:7064410002 https://apnews.com/afs:Content:7064410002
  - lonelappde 6y ago
    They have editorial independence. At most they have financial dependence. And Trump's attack on VOA is failing because VOA is protected from him by law.
  - mintplant 6y ago
    NPR is an independent nonprofit organization. Most of its funding comes from member station dues, as well as donations, grants, sponsorships, etc. 2% of the parent organization's revenue comes from government grants. Member stations also receive some government grants but most of their funding comes from listener contributions, sponsorships, etc. The situation with PBS is similar but a bit more complicated to tease apart. The majority of PBS's funding comes from member station dues, but it also does receive some tens of millions from the federally-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) each year, and the CPB also supports those member PBS stations. PBS and the CPB also work together on program acquisition and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
- ur-whale 6y ago
  You are deeply deluded. The control isn't exerted in the same way, but it is certainly there.
dpc_pw 6y ago
US is one of the most effectively censored country in the world, and it's funny that it's able to pretend to be a beacon of the free-speach. It's just the censorship is more subtle and soft-handed - and thus way more effective than crude and primitive censorship that minor governments can implement. In Poland an anti-government song disappears from the playlist, and it's a huge scandal. In US a convicted pedophile with own pedo-island, and connections all over the elites, media and government disappears from the prison cell in a dubious suicide where all cameras stopped working and many other "coincidences" happened and not much happens about it. In US the government is the puppet of the ruling class so there's really no need for it to do any fighting. It just does what it was told (paid) to do. And the media have almost full control over the public opinion, so there is no need for any silly black-listing censorship. All they have to do is to gently steer the attention of the public elsewhere.
- ferzul 6y ago
  > In US a convicted pedophile with own pedo-island, and connections all over the elites, media and government disappears from the prison cell in a dubious suicide where all cameras stopped working and many other "coincidences" happened and not much happens about it. i know what you're talking about tho. pretty much, this means the topic is well discussed and not subject to censorship.
  - spockz 6y ago
    That is exactly the parent’s point. Controlling the narrative is way more effective than brutal deletion of a subject for censuring purposes.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      I don't see any signs of that narrative being successfully controlled. In fact, I've yet to see any discussion where "didn't kill himself" didn't manifest immediately.
      - TillE 6y ago
m463 6y ago
There's the New York Times own bestseller list itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List In 1983 (as part of a legal argument) the Times stated that the list is not mathematically objective but rather editorial content.

novok 6y ago

Whataboutist arguments do not invalidate an article about something and do not show a form of hypocrisy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism One can be critical of behavior in one country and also not like the behavior of a country you also happen to reside. The linker is not the NY Times :) Edit: And you don't have to profess the dislike of similar behavior in the same article

m463 6y ago
However since this is a NYT article, the NYT bestseller list may be relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List In particular the first paragraph under Controversies
- 9935c101ab17a66 6y ago
  Why? This source indicates that they never pretended that it was truly a literal representation of the number of books that were actually sold (https://books.google.ca/books?id=PEZkkbohbtoC&pg=PA290&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=PEZkkbohbtoC&pg=PA290&redir...). And while you can argue they should reveal their methods, it's not disingenuous because it would be simply impossible to have an exact number of copies a book sold.
  - m463 6y ago
    No that's what they said when pressed in court. (sort of like coca-cola in court coming out with "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage") It's just ironic that the NYT has an article about the polish chart... that behaves just like their book chart.

_visgean 6y ago

The same thing can't really happen in US because US does not have state media. (Apart from funding Radio free Europe which can't operate in US.)

azinman2 6y ago
So what’s NPR, PBS, and VOA? Note that Trump is actively trying to reorient VOA to be Trump-friendly right now.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  You might find this spin-job entertaining. https://apnews.com/afs:Content:7064410002 https://apnews.com/afs:Content:7064410002
- lonelappde 6y ago
  They have editorial independence. At most they have financial dependence. And Trump's attack on VOA is failing because VOA is protected from him by law.
- mintplant 6y ago
  NPR is an independent nonprofit organization. Most of its funding comes from member station dues, as well as donations, grants, sponsorships, etc. 2% of the parent organization's revenue comes from government grants. Member stations also receive some government grants but most of their funding comes from listener contributions, sponsorships, etc. The situation with PBS is similar but a bit more complicated to tease apart. The majority of PBS's funding comes from member station dues, but it also does receive some tens of millions from the federally-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) each year, and the CPB also supports those member PBS stations. PBS and the CPB also work together on program acquisition and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
ur-whale 6y ago
You are deeply deluded. The control isn't exerted in the same way, but it is certainly there.

dpc_pw 6y ago

US is one of the most effectively censored country in the world, and it's funny that it's able to pretend to be a beacon of the free-speach. It's just the censorship is more subtle and soft-handed - and thus way more effective than crude and primitive censorship that minor governments can implement. In Poland an anti-government song disappears from the playlist, and it's a huge scandal. In US a convicted pedophile with own pedo-island, and connections all over the elites, media and government disappears from the prison cell in a dubious suicide where all cameras stopped working and many other "coincidences" happened and not much happens about it. In US the government is the puppet of the ruling class so there's really no need for it to do any fighting. It just does what it was told (paid) to do. And the media have almost full control over the public opinion, so there is no need for any silly black-listing censorship. All they have to do is to gently steer the attention of the public elsewhere.

ferzul 6y ago
> In US a convicted pedophile with own pedo-island, and connections all over the elites, media and government disappears from the prison cell in a dubious suicide where all cameras stopped working and many other "coincidences" happened and not much happens about it. i know what you're talking about tho. pretty much, this means the topic is well discussed and not subject to censorship.
- spockz 6y ago
  That is exactly the parent’s point. Controlling the narrative is way more effective than brutal deletion of a subject for censuring purposes.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    I don't see any signs of that narrative being successfully controlled. In fact, I've yet to see any discussion where "didn't kill himself" didn't manifest immediately.
    - TillE 6y ago

m463 6y ago

There's the New York Times own bestseller list itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List In 1983 (as part of a legal argument) the Times stated that the list is not mathematically objective but rather editorial content.