7 ms·

"Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat," There have been a virtually uncountable number o

"Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat," There have been a virtually uncountable number of high-profile investigative pieces that criticise people in power published in the last 6 months! This argument is nonsense.

nwienert 6y ago
There’s two social groups, they don’t want to critique their social group.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Many more than two social groups.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Sure, pedantically.
    - justnotworthit 6y ago
      Alternatively, us & them = 2
andrewflnr 6y ago
This is an oversimplification. There's a difference between rocking someone else's boat and rocking the one you're riding on.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
It's not nonsense, because you're missing that if you criticize someone who you are allowed to criticize, there is no risk to yourself. It's going against the herd and criticizing someone like Joe Biden that will get you thrown out of the club. So, if it's a high-profile investigative piece on a senior trump admin official, everyone will applaud you. But as soon as you start investigating the Biden family or, on the other hand, write something positive about Trump & Co, then you'll quickly find yourself out of the club.
- Veen 6y ago
  You are right, but it goes both ways. If a writer at the Federalist or Breibart tried to publish a piece arguing AOC's economics actually had some merit, they would not be met with an enthusiastic response from their professional and social circles. Polarization and factionalism on both sides of the media is the problem.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    The right doesn't try to get people fired for saying they like AOC. They will just hit back with their own points. That's the way it's supposed to go in a civil society.
koolba 6y ago
Can you say with a straight face that the NY Times or WaPo has done that with liberals or Democratic candidates? Outside of tearing down Bernie Sanders I'd say it's a firm no. Prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-marthas-vineyard.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha... Even being "neutral" is apparently not enough. It's easy to see why journalists and editors would succumb to that social pressure.
- Pils 6y ago
  > Prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha... Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team!
  - koolba 6y ago
    > Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team! That article is dated a year and half prior to Trump’s impeachment. Dershowitz disagrees with Trump on policy matters on just about everything. What he doesn’t do is let his political disagreements pervert his legal opinions on constitutional matters. And hence he gets blacklisted for not joining the hate.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > he doesn’t do is let his political disagreements pervert his legal opinions on constitutional matters I think the idea of the "apolitical" constitution is more myth than reality. Dershowitz is perhaps a liberal in the classic political philosophy sense, but I would not call him a "prominent liberal" in the American sense. He also might have been 'blacklisted' because he was at least somewhat credibly accused of pedophilia.
disown 6y ago
> There have been a virtually uncountable number of high-profile investigative pieces that criticise people in power published in the last 6 months! This argument is nonsense. They have been attack dogs of one political party or the other. But its always been this way. Social media ( especially twitter ) has shown people that journalists are political actors, not dispensers of "truth". They are part of the power structure, not a counterweight to the power structure. At this point most newspapers should just be part of the democratic, republican or intelligence agency because that's all they are. I can almost guarantee that most of the people here attacking greenwald and partaking in the downvote brigade are news employees or members of a particular political party. It's hilarious.
- r-w 6y ago
  A nihilist regarding truth, I see. You might want to watch this video to see why that's a dangerous attitude, and one that plays into the hands of morally unscrupulous actors and foreign adversaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0
  - seppin 6y ago
    "Everything is shit and everyone is guilty" is the exact thing an autocrat needs the majority of his citizens to believe to remain in power.
  - disown 6y ago
    > A nihilist regarding truth Nope. I believe in truth. My point is that the news industry isn't in the business of truth. They have never been. The news is in the propaganda business. They exist to form opinions. It's why pretty much every news company around the world was formed by a politician, banker, industrialist or government. If trump created "Real News Company", I'm sure you'd say only the naive would view such a company as a purveyor of truth right? > You might want to watch this video to see why that's a dangerous attitude, and one that plays into the hands of morally unscrupulous actors You might also look up the history of the news industry, manufacturing consent, etc. And the morally unscrupulous actors are the major news companies. The real danger is not from those who question the news, it's from those who blindly view it as the truth.
pvarangot 6y ago
Yeah, and they are published either by socialites from a group that hates the group being exposed, or by "freaks" like Greenwald that no one with a public persona wants near them because they know he's a time bomb.
- fredguth 6y ago
  Long live the freaks of the world. We need them more than ever.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    A-men
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Here's to the rebels...
cambalache 6y ago
Please show me a high-profile investigative piece from the mainstream media against Biden.
- noelsusman 6y ago
  It was the New York Times that originally broke the Biden Ukraine story back in 2015. Recent iterations of it are mostly just rehashing the original article. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u...
  - cambalache 6y ago
    Come on. This was not what OP implied. Of Biden as a candidate, L6M. Impossible.
    - noelsusman 6y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr...
      - cambalache 6y ago
        May 1st, 2019

nwienert 6y ago

There’s two social groups, they don’t want to critique their social group.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Many more than two social groups.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Sure, pedantically.
  - justnotworthit 6y ago
    Alternatively, us & them = 2

andrewflnr 6y ago

This is an oversimplification. There's a difference between rocking someone else's boat and rocking the one you're riding on.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

It's not nonsense, because you're missing that if you criticize someone who you are allowed to criticize, there is no risk to yourself. It's going against the herd and criticizing someone like Joe Biden that will get you thrown out of the club. So, if it's a high-profile investigative piece on a senior trump admin official, everyone will applaud you. But as soon as you start investigating the Biden family or, on the other hand, write something positive about Trump & Co, then you'll quickly find yourself out of the club.

Veen 6y ago
You are right, but it goes both ways. If a writer at the Federalist or Breibart tried to publish a piece arguing AOC's economics actually had some merit, they would not be met with an enthusiastic response from their professional and social circles. Polarization and factionalism on both sides of the media is the problem.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  The right doesn't try to get people fired for saying they like AOC. They will just hit back with their own points. That's the way it's supposed to go in a civil society.

koolba 6y ago

Can you say with a straight face that the NY Times or WaPo has done that with liberals or Democratic candidates? Outside of tearing down Bernie Sanders I'd say it's a firm no. Prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-marthas-vineyard.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha... Even being "neutral" is apparently not enough. It's easy to see why journalists and editors would succumb to that social pressure.

Pils 6y ago
> Prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha... Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team!
- koolba 6y ago
  > Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team! That article is dated a year and half prior to Trump’s impeachment. Dershowitz disagrees with Trump on policy matters on just about everything. What he doesn’t do is let his political disagreements pervert his legal opinions on constitutional matters. And hence he gets blacklisted for not joining the hate.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > he doesn’t do is let his political disagreements pervert his legal opinions on constitutional matters I think the idea of the "apolitical" constitution is more myth than reality. Dershowitz is perhaps a liberal in the classic political philosophy sense, but I would not call him a "prominent liberal" in the American sense. He also might have been 'blacklisted' because he was at least somewhat credibly accused of pedophilia.

disown 6y ago

> There have been a virtually uncountable number of high-profile investigative pieces that criticise people in power published in the last 6 months! This argument is nonsense. They have been attack dogs of one political party or the other. But its always been this way. Social media ( especially twitter ) has shown people that journalists are political actors, not dispensers of "truth". They are part of the power structure, not a counterweight to the power structure. At this point most newspapers should just be part of the democratic, republican or intelligence agency because that's all they are. I can almost guarantee that most of the people here attacking greenwald and partaking in the downvote brigade are news employees or members of a particular political party. It's hilarious.

r-w 6y ago
A nihilist regarding truth, I see. You might want to watch this video to see why that's a dangerous attitude, and one that plays into the hands of morally unscrupulous actors and foreign adversaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0
- seppin 6y ago
  "Everything is shit and everyone is guilty" is the exact thing an autocrat needs the majority of his citizens to believe to remain in power.
- disown 6y ago
  > A nihilist regarding truth Nope. I believe in truth. My point is that the news industry isn't in the business of truth. They have never been. The news is in the propaganda business. They exist to form opinions. It's why pretty much every news company around the world was formed by a politician, banker, industrialist or government. If trump created "Real News Company", I'm sure you'd say only the naive would view such a company as a purveyor of truth right? > You might want to watch this video to see why that's a dangerous attitude, and one that plays into the hands of morally unscrupulous actors You might also look up the history of the news industry, manufacturing consent, etc. And the morally unscrupulous actors are the major news companies. The real danger is not from those who question the news, it's from those who blindly view it as the truth.

pvarangot 6y ago

Yeah, and they are published either by socialites from a group that hates the group being exposed, or by "freaks" like Greenwald that no one with a public persona wants near them because they know he's a time bomb.

fredguth 6y ago
Long live the freaks of the world. We need them more than ever.
- cambalache 6y ago
  A-men
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Here's to the rebels...

cambalache 6y ago

Please show me a high-profile investigative piece from the mainstream media against Biden.

noelsusman 6y ago
It was the New York Times that originally broke the Biden Ukraine story back in 2015. Recent iterations of it are mostly just rehashing the original article. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u...
- cambalache 6y ago
  Come on. This was not what OP implied. Of Biden as a candidate, L6M. Impossible.
  - noelsusman 6y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr...
    - cambalache 6y ago
      May 1st, 2019