2 ms·
>Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright
by StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright enough to pause and wonder if this will ever be used against them.
One of the issues is calling media personalities who read from teleprompters, "journalists". Call them actors, call them media spokespeople, but they aren't engaging in anything that can be construed as, "journalism". Further, it isn't in the interest of corporate media outlets to hire people who are smart. They want people who sound articulate, look good on camera and repeat the talking points that they are told to repeat. What we see on cable outlets these days shouldn't be considered, "news" so much as infotainment. By now, most people, regardless of their political affiliation (if any) understand that society has largely gone off the rails, and in their desperation they are left with an appeal to authority to make things better and restore a patina of "normality". It is dangerously seductive to suggest to people who are desperate to end the chaos that if we just silenced the "bad" people things would be okay (leaving unsaid who determines who is bad and what we are allowed to think and say).
- nostromo 6y agoI'm not talking about cable news anchors, I'm talking about the New York Times, which is defending Twitter and Facebook censoring the Post.
- RonanTheGrey 6y agoIt's really kind of mind boggling really. Does the Times not think they will ever fall afoul of the goodthink, and this weapon will never be used against them?