4 ms·

A bit naive to assume there isn't quite a bit of centralized control of media in the West. Not only are the media largely owned by a scant few large conglomerat

by qqtt 5y ago

A bit naive to assume there isn't quite a bit of centralized control of media in the West. Not only are the media largely owned by a scant few large conglomerates - the government itself also gets routinely involved in controlling the narrative. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

ralusek 5y ago
The west increasingly has completely independent news sources via places like YouTube.
- ffwszgf 5y ago
  A lot of these channels will have to leave the platform as anti fake news and disinformation laws get tougher
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    I guess its already happening. Many channels were complaining of shadow bans & demonetization.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Maybe that's the silver lining. Anyone who's opinion exists outside of the current groupthink is forced to leave these big platforms. It makes it harder for the average person within this group to express themselves because these platforms make it easy. But many will and new platforms will form outside of big tech. These new platforms will have time and space to rethink how they operate and perhaps they will bring in a new era of consumer control.
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  These are all corporate sources that openly brag about censoring content. My favorite is when they censored an academic conference on censorship. Straight out of a Monty Python skit. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce... The HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217
neltnerb 5y ago
The seemingly obvious middle ground is that there cannot be too much concentration of news station ownership. Which used to be the rule, but the rules weren't quite bulletproof enough so now Sinclair and a handful of others own far more news outlets than they should by a better metric. I'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, but I think it should be fixed. But I also think that if someone made their fortune in industry, they probably shouldn't own newspapers. It's so much conflict of interest... it seems like sometimes it can be okay, but only if there's a really well enforced legal firewall between the interests of the owner and the news reporting. That's hard to manage if the owner isn't disconnected from decisions about what to fund or whether to promote staff critical of them. There could be a middle ground, but if we can't define what rules constitute a fair middle ground it seems to just get worked around until effectively a few private voices dictate an awful lot of the spin applied to stories.
andreilys 5y ago
Thankfully we live in a society now where “the media” does not have carte Blanche on controlling the narrative. Plenty of dissenting folks using non-traditional outlets like podcasts and YouTube that have an audience that rivals or is larger than legacy media. Of course, this would not be possible in China where any dissenting voices would quickly be extinguished.

by qqtt 5y ago

ralusek 5y ago

The west increasingly has completely independent news sources via places like YouTube.

ffwszgf 5y ago
A lot of these channels will have to leave the platform as anti fake news and disinformation laws get tougher
- cute_boi 5y ago
  I guess its already happening. Many channels were complaining of shadow bans & demonetization.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Maybe that's the silver lining. Anyone who's opinion exists outside of the current groupthink is forced to leave these big platforms. It makes it harder for the average person within this group to express themselves because these platforms make it easy. But many will and new platforms will form outside of big tech. These new platforms will have time and space to rethink how they operate and perhaps they will bring in a new era of consumer control.
1cvmask 5y ago
These are all corporate sources that openly brag about censoring content. My favorite is when they censored an academic conference on censorship. Straight out of a Monty Python skit. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce... The HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217

neltnerb 5y ago

The seemingly obvious middle ground is that there cannot be too much concentration of news station ownership. Which used to be the rule, but the rules weren't quite bulletproof enough so now Sinclair and a handful of others own far more news outlets than they should by a better metric. I'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, but I think it should be fixed. But I also think that if someone made their fortune in industry, they probably shouldn't own newspapers. It's so much conflict of interest... it seems like sometimes it can be okay, but only if there's a really well enforced legal firewall between the interests of the owner and the news reporting. That's hard to manage if the owner isn't disconnected from decisions about what to fund or whether to promote staff critical of them. There could be a middle ground, but if we can't define what rules constitute a fair middle ground it seems to just get worked around until effectively a few private voices dictate an awful lot of the spin applied to stories.

andreilys 5y ago

Thankfully we live in a society now where “the media” does not have carte Blanche on controlling the narrative. Plenty of dissenting folks using non-traditional outlets like podcasts and YouTube that have an audience that rivals or is larger than legacy media. Of course, this would not be possible in China where any dissenting voices would quickly be extinguished.