4 ms·

Turns out nearly all mainstream media everywhere in the West are more or less socially progressive if not left-wing; generally capitalist, pro-free-market (alth

Turns out nearly all mainstream media everywhere in the West are more or less socially progressive if not left-wing; generally capitalist, pro-free-market (although sometimes affecting a vaguely socialist façade[0]); and effectively if not avowedly neo-conservative w.r.t. to foreign relations. This also happens to be the dominant ideology of American elites and the editorial policy of the NYT. [0]: An eye-opening piece: https://palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale-is-not-free-speech/ https://palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale... Cf. this thread: https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1443327471806521344 https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1443327471806521344

woodpanel 5y ago
Exactly. Just because Bertelsmann isn't as left as oneself might want them to be, doesn't mean they aren't left-leaning
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  I'd rather call them clear-right-to-center opportunistic free-market conservatives, with slight streaks of "leftness" when it profits them, either directly or when it's free positive PR that will make "small" people" think Bertelmann or Springer cares about them. They do not care about tradition, and can read polls, that's e.g. why they suddenly were pro same-sex marriage when public opinion swung that way (e.g. before that Axel Springer/Bild was against it, now they are in favor). Bertelsmann isn't in "housing", so their foundation is pro affordable housing when they noticed the polls show that a topic that concerns a LOT of people. They are not even real free-market, only when it suits them (which is a lot of times). When regulation and/or regulatory capture suits them instead, they are all for regulation all of a sudden, like laws to force Google to pay them money for linking to them instead of treating that as matter of contract law[2]. But don't you dare change anything about the status quo that negatively affects them, then they will show you how "conservative" they can be, in the sense of conservation of their power and wealth. Some regulation or deregulation to generate more wealth for them at the expense of their own employees or at least poor people? Some lawyer working for the Bertelsmann foundation probably wrote the draft bill. That's why they regularly (as in: always) support the CDU/CSU, always bash the SPD (social-democrats) and Green party[1], and were initially a little bit torn about the AfD when it still was a party of free-market eurosceptics instead of the racist and xenophobic wannabe neo-fascists with a victim complex screaming Lügenpresse (basically "fake news/fake media") they are now. That goes for both Bertelsmann and Springer, by the way. The only real ideological thing I can find with Axel Springer is their plea to support Israel and fight antisemitism, and a good "Trans-Atlantic relationship". You actually have to agree to do both if you want to work with them, it's in their company wide policy/code of conduct, ever since Alex Springer (the founder of the company) put it there. So really, they are just opportunists, who lean right because leaning right is what conserves their power and influence. [1] Except they are playing a little nice right now, because the SPD and Greens will likely be part of the next government, with the SPD leading the coalition. [2] If Springer didn't want Google to "profit" from linking to their sites, they could have just blocked google. Instead they opted to lobby the government to redistribute Google's wealth... to them.

woodpanel 5y ago

Exactly. Just because Bertelsmann isn't as left as oneself might want them to be, doesn't mean they aren't left-leaning

rndgermandude 5y ago
I'd rather call them clear-right-to-center opportunistic free-market conservatives, with slight streaks of "leftness" when it profits them, either directly or when it's free positive PR that will make "small" people" think Bertelmann or Springer cares about them. They do not care about tradition, and can read polls, that's e.g. why they suddenly were pro same-sex marriage when public opinion swung that way (e.g. before that Axel Springer/Bild was against it, now they are in favor). Bertelsmann isn't in "housing", so their foundation is pro affordable housing when they noticed the polls show that a topic that concerns a LOT of people. They are not even real free-market, only when it suits them (which is a lot of times). When regulation and/or regulatory capture suits them instead, they are all for regulation all of a sudden, like laws to force Google to pay them money for linking to them instead of treating that as matter of contract law[2]. But don't you dare change anything about the status quo that negatively affects them, then they will show you how "conservative" they can be, in the sense of conservation of their power and wealth. Some regulation or deregulation to generate more wealth for them at the expense of their own employees or at least poor people? Some lawyer working for the Bertelsmann foundation probably wrote the draft bill. That's why they regularly (as in: always) support the CDU/CSU, always bash the SPD (social-democrats) and Green party[1], and were initially a little bit torn about the AfD when it still was a party of free-market eurosceptics instead of the racist and xenophobic wannabe neo-fascists with a victim complex screaming Lügenpresse (basically "fake news/fake media") they are now. That goes for both Bertelsmann and Springer, by the way. The only real ideological thing I can find with Axel Springer is their plea to support Israel and fight antisemitism, and a good "Trans-Atlantic relationship". You actually have to agree to do both if you want to work with them, it's in their company wide policy/code of conduct, ever since Alex Springer (the founder of the company) put it there. So really, they are just opportunists, who lean right because leaning right is what conserves their power and influence. [1] Except they are playing a little nice right now, because the SPD and Greens will likely be part of the next government, with the SPD leading the coalition. [2] If Springer didn't want Google to "profit" from linking to their sites, they could have just blocked google. Instead they opted to lobby the government to redistribute Google's wealth... to them.