7 ms·

Indeed, how will he? Those correspondents are middle-men between him and his audience, that get to choose how to portray what he actually said. That's what's s

Indeed, how will he? Those correspondents are middle-men between him and his audience, that get to choose how to portray what he actually said. That's what's so revolutionary about tools like email and websites, compared to the status quo. Notably, during the status quo, postal mail - the main alternative that avoided middle-men - faced very little censorship. It's a felony to even open mail that isn't addressed to you in many countries, including the US: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/is-it-illegal-to-shred-previous-tenants-mail.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/is-it-illegal-...

redisman 6y ago
As you can see from today, websites don't exist in the ether. There are even more middlemen since the internet is a lot more layered than TV.
dragontamer 6y ago
> Notably, during the status quo, postal mail - the main alternative that avoided middle-men - faced very little censorship. You might want to double-check your history there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_censorship#American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_censorship#American_Civ... https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-216.html https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civi...
- petertodd 6y ago
  Along with the occasional censorship on obscenity grounds, those examples of wartime censorship were precisely why I said "very little" rather than "none". "The closure of the Office of Censorship in November 1945 corresponded with the ending of World War II." If only other emergency measures were ended so promptly.
peteretep 6y ago
> Those correspondents are middle-men between him and his audience, that get to choose how to portray what he actually said. This is true but also a bit of a reach. Firstly, whatever they report, people can just go straight to the Whitehouse Newsroom website and confirm and get the news straight from the horse’s mouth. Secondly, of the news orgs, several are legally bound to report neutrally (BBC), several just will because that’s their business model (AP, Reuters), and then there’s enough there with polar opposite agendas that you’ll be able to determine an accurate picture pretty quickly.
- petertodd 6y ago
  > Firstly, whatever they report, people can just go straight to the Whitehouse Newsroom website and confirm and get the news straight from the horse’s mouth. ...and as you can see, I did mention websites. But the fact is, that extra step significantly decreases engagement. Especially for current events. Also it's just a fact of psychology that the order in which you are presented information matters a lot. > Secondly, of the news orgs, several are legally bound to report neutrally (BBC), several just will because that’s their business model (AP, Reuters) I've personally worked with both BBC and AP/Reuters reporters on multiple occasions as both the subject of a story, and for background research. Based on my experience, I do not believe they consistently portrayed the facts neutrally. Not to mention, it's hard to even define what "neutral" is in a lot of cases. > and then there’s enough there with polar opposite agendas that you’ll be able to determine an accurate picture pretty quickly. ...which goes back to my point re: effort: you're asking _much_ more of the audience than just letting them receive an email. Not to mention, reporters of all political persuasion consistently neglect to cover certain types of stories. For example, getting reporters to report on "feel good" stories is quite hard - especially feel good stories relevant to smaller audiences - as it just doesn't fit their narrative/business models.

redisman 6y ago

As you can see from today, websites don't exist in the ether. There are even more middlemen since the internet is a lot more layered than TV.

dragontamer 6y ago

> Notably, during the status quo, postal mail - the main alternative that avoided middle-men - faced very little censorship. You might want to double-check your history there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_censorship#American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_censorship#American_Civ... https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-216.html https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civi...

petertodd 6y ago
Along with the occasional censorship on obscenity grounds, those examples of wartime censorship were precisely why I said "very little" rather than "none". "The closure of the Office of Censorship in November 1945 corresponded with the ending of World War II." If only other emergency measures were ended so promptly.

peteretep 6y ago

> Those correspondents are middle-men between him and his audience, that get to choose how to portray what he actually said. This is true but also a bit of a reach. Firstly, whatever they report, people can just go straight to the Whitehouse Newsroom website and confirm and get the news straight from the horse’s mouth. Secondly, of the news orgs, several are legally bound to report neutrally (BBC), several just will because that’s their business model (AP, Reuters), and then there’s enough there with polar opposite agendas that you’ll be able to determine an accurate picture pretty quickly.

petertodd 6y ago
> Firstly, whatever they report, people can just go straight to the Whitehouse Newsroom website and confirm and get the news straight from the horse’s mouth. ...and as you can see, I did mention websites. But the fact is, that extra step significantly decreases engagement. Especially for current events. Also it's just a fact of psychology that the order in which you are presented information matters a lot. > Secondly, of the news orgs, several are legally bound to report neutrally (BBC), several just will because that’s their business model (AP, Reuters) I've personally worked with both BBC and AP/Reuters reporters on multiple occasions as both the subject of a story, and for background research. Based on my experience, I do not believe they consistently portrayed the facts neutrally. Not to mention, it's hard to even define what "neutral" is in a lot of cases. > and then there’s enough there with polar opposite agendas that you’ll be able to determine an accurate picture pretty quickly. ...which goes back to my point re: effort: you're asking _much_ more of the audience than just letting them receive an email. Not to mention, reporters of all political persuasion consistently neglect to cover certain types of stories. For example, getting reporters to report on "feel good" stories is quite hard - especially feel good stories relevant to smaller audiences - as it just doesn't fit their narrative/business models.