6 ms·

I think CNN liked the brother vs. brother angle purely for entertainment value. The only activism they practice is what drives traffic.

by dtjb 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago
I don't doubt they make good money off of their activism, but let's not diminish the extent to which they are activist rather than journalist. These are the OG "mostly peaceful protest" folks[0], and this is only one of the more conspicuous on a long list of egregiously activist takes that they've produced in the last few years. [0]: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protests-parodies https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful...
- dtjb 5y ago
  I think activism implies service to an idealistic cause. I don't believe CNN has any idealistic causes, they're a capitalist firm servicing their market. I don't mean this as a defense of CNN in any way. They're clearly giving their audience what they want to hear which drives revenue, making them more of an entertainment company than a news company. But the problem of for-profit news is bigger than CNN.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I'm not sure we can really separate activism from corporate greed in the context of the media. Typically you have a lot of rank and file journalists and editors who are activist and corporate leadership who have figured out how to monetize their employees ideological fervor. Moreover, as "activists" are rewarded financially for their commitment, they become greedy grifters rather than mere devotees of a toxic ideology (consider prominent activist-grifters such as Kendi or DiAngelo). Which is all to say that it seems not particularly worthwhile to try to distinguish between activists and grifters because it seems more like a spectrum than distinct categories and all positions on the spectrum are pretty equally toxic as far as I can tell (you're either propagating misinformation out of zeal or greed and one doesn't seem strictly better than the other).
- irrational 5y ago
  If you are taking about Portland, it really was mostly peaceful protest. It probably would have been completely peaceful if trump hadn’t sent in his fascist anonymous SS shock troops (against the express wishes of both the city and state governments).
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > fascist anonymous SS shock troops Can you try again without going full Godwin's Law on your first post in the thread? How can we have any hope of productive conversation with rhetoric like this? (I'm far from a Trump supporter, but there's valid Trump criticism--and plenty of it--and then there's absurd hyperbole).
    - SauciestGNU 5y ago
      I'm not who you're responding to, but I'm not sure how else to reasonably characterize unmarked, unidentified armed and armored personnel snatching people off the streets into unmarked vehicles.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Is it more charitable to assume you genuinely can’t tell the difference between the US Marshals and SS troops or that you’re arguing in bad faith?
        SauciestGNU 5y ago
        I don't believe those were US Marshalls, iirc they were volunteers from a collection of federal agencies that were the most loyal to Trump. However, they way they acted, in refusing to identify themselves, the agency for which they worked, where they were taking their abductees, etc makes me inclined to liken them more to a notorious fascist unit than a legitimate law enforcement agency.
        throwaway894345 5y ago

I think CNN liked the brother vs. brother angle purely for entertainment value. The only activism they practice is what drives traffic.

by dtjb 5y ago

I think CNN liked the brother vs. brother angle purely for entertainment value. The only activism they practice is what drives traffic.

throwaway894345 5y ago

I don't doubt they make good money off of their activism, but let's not diminish the extent to which they are activist rather than journalist. These are the OG "mostly peaceful protest" folks[0], and this is only one of the more conspicuous on a long list of egregiously activist takes that they've produced in the last few years. [0]: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protests-parodies https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful...

dtjb 5y ago
I think activism implies service to an idealistic cause. I don't believe CNN has any idealistic causes, they're a capitalist firm servicing their market. I don't mean this as a defense of CNN in any way. They're clearly giving their audience what they want to hear which drives revenue, making them more of an entertainment company than a news company. But the problem of for-profit news is bigger than CNN.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'm not sure we can really separate activism from corporate greed in the context of the media. Typically you have a lot of rank and file journalists and editors who are activist and corporate leadership who have figured out how to monetize their employees ideological fervor. Moreover, as "activists" are rewarded financially for their commitment, they become greedy grifters rather than mere devotees of a toxic ideology (consider prominent activist-grifters such as Kendi or DiAngelo). Which is all to say that it seems not particularly worthwhile to try to distinguish between activists and grifters because it seems more like a spectrum than distinct categories and all positions on the spectrum are pretty equally toxic as far as I can tell (you're either propagating misinformation out of zeal or greed and one doesn't seem strictly better than the other).
irrational 5y ago
If you are taking about Portland, it really was mostly peaceful protest. It probably would have been completely peaceful if trump hadn’t sent in his fascist anonymous SS shock troops (against the express wishes of both the city and state governments).
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > fascist anonymous SS shock troops Can you try again without going full Godwin's Law on your first post in the thread? How can we have any hope of productive conversation with rhetoric like this? (I'm far from a Trump supporter, but there's valid Trump criticism--and plenty of it--and then there's absurd hyperbole).
  - SauciestGNU 5y ago
    I'm not who you're responding to, but I'm not sure how else to reasonably characterize unmarked, unidentified armed and armored personnel snatching people off the streets into unmarked vehicles.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Is it more charitable to assume you genuinely can’t tell the difference between the US Marshals and SS troops or that you’re arguing in bad faith?
      - SauciestGNU 5y ago
        I don't believe those were US Marshalls, iirc they were volunteers from a collection of federal agencies that were the most loyal to Trump. However, they way they acted, in refusing to identify themselves, the agency for which they worked, where they were taking their abductees, etc makes me inclined to liken them more to a notorious fascist unit than a legitimate law enforcement agency.
        throwaway894345 5y ago