5 ms·

Yeah lots of documentaries they won't show. Documentaries that tell the truth about Palestine or Saudi Arabia. You won't read about the UK's co-ordination with

Yeah lots of documentaries they won't show. Documentaries that tell the truth about Palestine or Saudi Arabia. You won't read about the UK's co-ordination with Saudi Arabia in their war on Yemen, in any media there, except for UK declassified run by Mark Curtis. This is why democratic and independent media is important.

pmiller2 6y ago
Netflix et al. may not be "democratic," but, in what sense are they not independent? This is just showing that "independent" media isn't sufficient for these types of uncomfortable truths. Nor do I believe democratic media would be sufficient, as we've seen that almost half the US wanted to vote for a delusional, racist, fascist again, after actually seeing the results of doing so the first time. I agree with you that what we're doing right now isn't working. I don't have a solution or a proposal, but I just don't see how there's any way for media in general to get this sort of stuff out onto the airwaves.
- AriaMinaei 6y ago
  > but, in what sense are they not independent? Netflix is available in 190 countries [0]. That's an advantage over a traditional distributor. But it ties their hands on what kind of content they can make. A large enough country will certainly hold sway over what's allowed to be on Netflix, even if they only air it elsewhere. Apple TV+ is an even bigger problem because of Apple's dependence on China. Doesn't matter if Apple TV+ is even available there. It simply cannot produce content that China finds objectionable. China has chastised companies for much less [1] [2]. [0] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14164 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14164 though it is blocked by some of those countries [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/there-are-definitely-tradeoffs-there-commissioner-defends-nbas-continued-presence-in-china/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/there-are-definitely-tra... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/mercedes-daimler-dalai-lama-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/mercedes-daimler...
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    You do realize we're on an American website, talking about an article in an American publication about how American streaming services won't play this film, and which references the decline of "American film culture," right? I don't think 189 of those countries particularly matter for purposes of this discussion, and I don't see anyone claiming that, say, China, has any independent and democratic institutions at all, much less media.
    - dependsontheq 6y ago
      I think he was trying to say that the NYTimes has no relevant Chinese market so it can’t be coerced by chinese regulations or threatened with a destruction of that part of their business. Global platforms can be threatened, so they adapt their content strategy.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I don't see where NYT was mentioned at all, and, as I mentioned, what Netflix and Amazon do in the other 189 countries doesn't have much to do with what they can and do do in the US.
        alistairSH 6y ago
        I believe you're wrong on that last point. The Chinese market is large enough that it absolutely does impact what American media companies do, both in China and elsewhere (including within the US).
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I didn't say "American media companies." I said "Netflix and Amazon." Both are perfectly capable of, and, in fact, do block certain titles in certain countries for political reasons. They certainly do it for licensing reasons, which, I suppose you can interpret as political, in a way. If they wanted to, Hulu and Disney and all the other streaming services could do the exact same thing. That was my entire point.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  They're not independent in the sense that they say things like "We’re not in the truth to power business" when defending their censorship decisions (https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-hastings-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia-episode-remove https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-has...). They don't feel they're free to say things powerful people wouldn't like.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    No, that just says they don't want to speak truth to power. Netflix is perfectly free to do so, at least in the US. If I had to guess as to their reasoning, I would say it's probably because they don't think it would be profitable enough.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > after actually seeing the results of doing so the first time It may just be me, but I get the impression that most people that voted for again have been pleased with the result of these last 4 years.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That's the problem.
swiley 6y ago
Youtube was great for this...
joe_the_user 6y ago
Indeed, the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi is distinctly horrific, the mass starvation and other horrors in Yemen merit mention too and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself is home to many abuses of its immigrant workforce. Still, one has to note that attention to the horrific abuse of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is also related to him being in an extremely powerful Saudi family (he was the nephew of Adnan Khashoggi, once the world's large arms dealer, just for one data point). Notably a family also with strong ties to Turkey (where he was murdered). Khashoggi's murder was a logic part of the campaign of the current effective ruler of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, to establish himself as absolute ruler of the kingdom, a campaign that also included kidnapping the various billionaire princes who'd looted the Saudi treasury and literally torturing their billions out of them (given the billionaires had no doubt engaged in similar to violence to whatever underlings, one might be tempted to enjoy such violence but one should avoid such temptation). And indeed, some might look to MBS as being in the tradition of earlier "enlightened despots" as he also pushes some degree of modernizing measures. I'd tend to just point out the fundamental rottenness of the Saudi regime as well as the general power structure of the entire area.
AzzieElbab 6y ago
Why do people always assume that any narrative that opposes mainstream one is automatically "the truth"?
- krapp 6y ago
  Because people have been trained to believe the mainstream produces nothing but lies and propaganda, and that the truth can only be found elsewhere, and because modern social-media driven culture doesn't allow for the nuance necessary for proper critical thought and honest skepticism.
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
    What you said about social media is absolutely true wrt to trying to have nuanced conversations. It is not true when it comes to fact gathering. For example, my own opinion of Khashoggi changed when I read twitter posts from people I follow for completely unrelated reasons but who happen to have known him personally.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      What do you mean "changed?" What was your opinion before and then after reading these Twitter posts?
      - AzzieElbab 6y ago
        Before - saudis murdered a martyr for journalistic freedom. After - barbaric power struggle spilled out of Saudi Arabia and claimed one of the players as victim
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Fair enough. Kashoggi most definitely was not just any journalist. Either interpretation reflects pretty horrible on the Saudi royal family though.
    - 6y ago
Veen 6y ago
Nonsense. I was listening to an episode of Radio Four's Moral Maze about the UK's arms sales to Saudi just yesterday. I found three stories in the Guardian with about two seconds of searching: - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/27/uk-faces-new-legal-challenge-over-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/27/uk-faces-ne... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/britain-to-resume-sale-of-arms-to-saudi-arabia-despite-yemen-fears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/britain-to-res... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/21/uk-accused-of-selling-arms-to-saudi-arabia-a-year-after-court-ban https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/21/uk-accused-of-... It's no great secret that the British government are backing the Saudis against Iranian-funded fighters in Yemen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paulnechifor 6y ago
> tell the truth about Palestine I don't know why, but my dogwhistlemetre for antisemitism is spinning out of control.
- aaron_m04 6y ago
  One can be opposed to the Israeli government without being antisemitic.
  - O_H_E 6y ago
    Yes indeed. One can criticize a government without talking bad about a race, ethnicity, or religion.

pmiller2 6y ago

Netflix et al. may not be "democratic," but, in what sense are they not independent? This is just showing that "independent" media isn't sufficient for these types of uncomfortable truths. Nor do I believe democratic media would be sufficient, as we've seen that almost half the US wanted to vote for a delusional, racist, fascist again, after actually seeing the results of doing so the first time. I agree with you that what we're doing right now isn't working. I don't have a solution or a proposal, but I just don't see how there's any way for media in general to get this sort of stuff out onto the airwaves.

AriaMinaei 6y ago
> but, in what sense are they not independent? Netflix is available in 190 countries [0]. That's an advantage over a traditional distributor. But it ties their hands on what kind of content they can make. A large enough country will certainly hold sway over what's allowed to be on Netflix, even if they only air it elsewhere. Apple TV+ is an even bigger problem because of Apple's dependence on China. Doesn't matter if Apple TV+ is even available there. It simply cannot produce content that China finds objectionable. China has chastised companies for much less [1] [2]. [0] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14164 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14164 though it is blocked by some of those countries [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/there-are-definitely-tradeoffs-there-commissioner-defends-nbas-continued-presence-in-china/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/there-are-definitely-tra... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/mercedes-daimler-dalai-lama-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/mercedes-daimler...
- pmiller2 6y ago
  You do realize we're on an American website, talking about an article in an American publication about how American streaming services won't play this film, and which references the decline of "American film culture," right? I don't think 189 of those countries particularly matter for purposes of this discussion, and I don't see anyone claiming that, say, China, has any independent and democratic institutions at all, much less media.
  - dependsontheq 6y ago
    I think he was trying to say that the NYTimes has no relevant Chinese market so it can’t be coerced by chinese regulations or threatened with a destruction of that part of their business. Global platforms can be threatened, so they adapt their content strategy.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      I don't see where NYT was mentioned at all, and, as I mentioned, what Netflix and Amazon do in the other 189 countries doesn't have much to do with what they can and do do in the US.
      - alistairSH 6y ago
        I believe you're wrong on that last point. The Chinese market is large enough that it absolutely does impact what American media companies do, both in China and elsewhere (including within the US).
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I didn't say "American media companies." I said "Netflix and Amazon." Both are perfectly capable of, and, in fact, do block certain titles in certain countries for political reasons. They certainly do it for licensing reasons, which, I suppose you can interpret as political, in a way. If they wanted to, Hulu and Disney and all the other streaming services could do the exact same thing. That was my entire point.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
They're not independent in the sense that they say things like "We’re not in the truth to power business" when defending their censorship decisions (https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-hastings-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia-episode-remove https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-has...). They don't feel they're free to say things powerful people wouldn't like.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  No, that just says they don't want to speak truth to power. Netflix is perfectly free to do so, at least in the US. If I had to guess as to their reasoning, I would say it's probably because they don't think it would be profitable enough.
Aeolun 6y ago
> after actually seeing the results of doing so the first time It may just be me, but I get the impression that most people that voted for again have been pleased with the result of these last 4 years.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  That's the problem.

swiley 6y ago

Youtube was great for this...

joe_the_user 6y ago

Indeed, the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi is distinctly horrific, the mass starvation and other horrors in Yemen merit mention too and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself is home to many abuses of its immigrant workforce. Still, one has to note that attention to the horrific abuse of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is also related to him being in an extremely powerful Saudi family (he was the nephew of Adnan Khashoggi, once the world's large arms dealer, just for one data point). Notably a family also with strong ties to Turkey (where he was murdered). Khashoggi's murder was a logic part of the campaign of the current effective ruler of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, to establish himself as absolute ruler of the kingdom, a campaign that also included kidnapping the various billionaire princes who'd looted the Saudi treasury and literally torturing their billions out of them (given the billionaires had no doubt engaged in similar to violence to whatever underlings, one might be tempted to enjoy such violence but one should avoid such temptation). And indeed, some might look to MBS as being in the tradition of earlier "enlightened despots" as he also pushes some degree of modernizing measures. I'd tend to just point out the fundamental rottenness of the Saudi regime as well as the general power structure of the entire area.

AzzieElbab 6y ago

Why do people always assume that any narrative that opposes mainstream one is automatically "the truth"?

krapp 6y ago
Because people have been trained to believe the mainstream produces nothing but lies and propaganda, and that the truth can only be found elsewhere, and because modern social-media driven culture doesn't allow for the nuance necessary for proper critical thought and honest skepticism.
- AzzieElbab 6y ago
  What you said about social media is absolutely true wrt to trying to have nuanced conversations. It is not true when it comes to fact gathering. For example, my own opinion of Khashoggi changed when I read twitter posts from people I follow for completely unrelated reasons but who happen to have known him personally.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    What do you mean "changed?" What was your opinion before and then after reading these Twitter posts?
    - AzzieElbab 6y ago
      Before - saudis murdered a martyr for journalistic freedom. After - barbaric power struggle spilled out of Saudi Arabia and claimed one of the players as victim
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Fair enough. Kashoggi most definitely was not just any journalist. Either interpretation reflects pretty horrible on the Saudi royal family though.
  - 6y ago

Veen 6y ago

Nonsense. I was listening to an episode of Radio Four's Moral Maze about the UK's arms sales to Saudi just yesterday. I found three stories in the Guardian with about two seconds of searching: - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/27/uk-faces-new-legal-challenge-over-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/27/uk-faces-ne... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/britain-to-resume-sale-of-arms-to-saudi-arabia-despite-yemen-fears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/britain-to-res... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/21/uk-accused-of-selling-arms-to-saudi-arabia-a-year-after-court-ban https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/21/uk-accused-of-... It's no great secret that the British government are backing the Saudis against Iranian-funded fighters in Yemen.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

paulnechifor 6y ago

> tell the truth about Palestine I don't know why, but my dogwhistlemetre for antisemitism is spinning out of control.

aaron_m04 6y ago
One can be opposed to the Israeli government without being antisemitic.
- O_H_E 6y ago
  Yes indeed. One can criticize a government without talking bad about a race, ethnicity, or religion.