3 ms·

Personally, I disagree with the first sentence, which to me invalidates the premise. There are numerous examples, just from the last 20 years, even excluding t

Personally, I disagree with the first sentence, which to me invalidates the premise. There are numerous examples, just from the last 20 years, even excluding the last few years, where journalists have willingly silenced opposition, or even refused, with the consent of their own editors or even at editors behest, to not write or report on certain stories. Then that begs the question, once you go back past 20 years you find more, fairly regular, examples of this behavior, which obviously comes with the silencing or exclusion of journalists who buck the cart, and their subsequent blackballing from the industry. Unattributed quote "History is written by the victors" comes to mind. How would you know if you have not always been at war with Eastasia, thats what the journalists have said for decades, and the microfiche from their reporting in 1980s is missing (hyperbole).

db48x 6y ago
Historically if one news organization wouldn't cover a story, its competitors might, or you could talk about it yourself. Now the most vocal "journalists" seem to be uniformly in favor of preventing anyone with a dissenting opinion from speaking. That's quite a shift.
- yeuxardents 6y ago
  My point is that its not as new as people think it is at all. The internet, however, has reached a point where being able to point it out en masse, has obviated journalists need to do it slyly under the table. If the game is called out and you still hold the cards, why not just be frank about it, like they are doing now.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    The left and the right used to both agree on free speech as a fundamental inalienable principle, even as late as the early 2010s. That has only changed in recent times and I do think the game has changed in journalism as well, as a result of that trend. See http://campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-threat-polling-finds/ http://campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-thre...
    - yeuxardents 6y ago
      Has it accelerated in the last ten years? sure. Point still stands it was pretty common the past fifty years at least, just occurred in backrooms and editorial boards. Plenty of examples of this. NYT might as well have had the snowden leak information as far back as 2004 I believe it was, but they withheld it.

db48x 6y ago

Historically if one news organization wouldn't cover a story, its competitors might, or you could talk about it yourself. Now the most vocal "journalists" seem to be uniformly in favor of preventing anyone with a dissenting opinion from speaking. That's quite a shift.

yeuxardents 6y ago
My point is that its not as new as people think it is at all. The internet, however, has reached a point where being able to point it out en masse, has obviated journalists need to do it slyly under the table. If the game is called out and you still hold the cards, why not just be frank about it, like they are doing now.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  The left and the right used to both agree on free speech as a fundamental inalienable principle, even as late as the early 2010s. That has only changed in recent times and I do think the game has changed in journalism as well, as a result of that trend. See http://campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-threat-polling-finds/ http://campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-thre...
  - yeuxardents 6y ago
    Has it accelerated in the last ten years? sure. Point still stands it was pretty common the past fifty years at least, just occurred in backrooms and editorial boards. Plenty of examples of this. NYT might as well have had the snowden leak information as far back as 2004 I believe it was, but they withheld it.