7 ms·

The most infuriating among all of them has been our media - specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga down and in many cases many mainstre

The most infuriating among all of them has been our media - specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga down and in many cases many mainstream media pundits actively espoused for Assanges punishment [1]. I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea? [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal-british https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal...

ceejayoz 5y ago
> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. That, uh, might be a bit of an overcorrection.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally guaranteed way for billionaires to control the narratives - in addition to the power they already have been wielding through owning politicians using lobbyists and having protection through section 230 in all the stakes they own in the social media companies. That’s what has been happening in the media space - Murdochs, Turners and Bezos now own vast sum of media sphere. And social medias just use them as proxy for “fact checks”.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope. Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.
    - mercy_dude 5y ago
      My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. I am not speaking of first amendment of individuals which I think is also under attack by the same group of people, look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        The idea that people who lived in a time of tarring-and-feathering people couldn't anticipate cancel culture is a bit silly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) > Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The crowd seized him and struck him with the butt of a musket, fracturing his skull. Taken prisoner, he was tied to a tree where he was roasted by fire and scalped before being tarred and feathered. Brown was then carted through a number of nearby settlements and forced to verbally pledge himself to the Patriot cause before being released. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two toes and lifelong headaches. Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association. edit: Media stirring shit up was a thing pre-Revolution, too, including at least two Founding Fathers participating themselves! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        Not to mention fairly regular extrajudicial lynchings. The rule of law is respected far more today than it was in the 1770s.
        njarboe 5y ago
        What I find inspiring about the Boston massacre is that founding father, John Adams, defended the British soldiers involved in it and doing so did not prevent him from becoming president in the future. The values of the electorate were quite a bit different in those days and really are knowing about and emulating the better parts.
- fredstarr 5y ago
  Overcorrection? No it is not. They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. Just take a look at these lawsuits: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow... https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case... Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. All they spew is lies, propaganda and downplay the things that are really happening. Unfortunately they have a willing audience in the majority of Americans who cannot see through all the bullshit. I personally cannot recall when last I tuned in to any of the mainstream media outlets. So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. Trust me, that'll make them sit up.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. Entertainers have First Amendment rights, too. > They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. If I feel your argument does that, do I get to revoke your rights? > So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. We, the People, are similarly protected by the First Amendment. Weakening it would impact us, too.
    - fredstarr 5y ago
      Wow! You actually took my shit serious! LOL. Of course, I'm just being overly dramatic and would never support censorship in any way, shape or form. If you can't sense the sarcasm in my comment, I don't know what else to say :)
      - krapp 5y ago
        Joke's on you - Hacker News is into that shit.
      - 5y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  There seems to be a push reject all news as of late. It's scary.
Mezzie 5y ago
Nah, they should keep the 1st Amendment for the journalists. The medias' marketing departments and execs, however, should be regulated to within an inch of their lives. If they let their journos spout shit, they should be legally on the hook if they EVER claim truth. If they lie, don't allow them to take advertiser or subscriber money. You can say whatever you want, but you can't charge people for it and you can't lie and pretend you're selling one thing (truth) when you're selling another (self-righteous feelings). Won't ever happen because the government and media are in bed with one another, but that's what I'd like to see.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Who decides who is lying? If the media and government are in bed today, won't that get worse when the government can arbitrate what truth is harming the not mainstream media?
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    At this point I think the best chance of implementation would be something like the Board of Labor, OSHA, or some open source bug reporting where specific lies can be be reported and fined/punished for. Maybe random audits like the IRS. I'd like the determination to lie with the public, but the issue is coupling determination from enforcement given how intertwined information control is with power. Right now? It wouldn't work. It's an angry pipe dream.
    - dotnet00 5y ago
      A ministry that decides on truths? I wonder what that could be called!
      - Mezzie 5y ago
        The Ministry of Lies, obviously. Point taken.
        5y ago
justbored123 5y ago
Dude google "Operation Mockingbird" and Chomsky's "Controlled opposition" talks (don't do it in google, the term "Controlled opposition" is shadow banned because is heavily used by the "fake news" crowd. Compare googles result's to Duck Duck Go, you'll love it). The main media is a main target in the information wars so both local and foreign power players (mainly intelligence agencies) are going to fight to compromise the people in charge of it, so they can set the agenda and control information and perception. That is a given. That is the purpose of places like "Epstein's Island" and it has always been like that, at least from the time of J Edgar Hoover. Any time that you have a strategically important target like that (for example Google or any similar key information hub) the power players are going to strive to control it and a simple way to control it is to get to the people in charge of those organizations. So that is what they do.
brightstep 5y ago
You have to remember that the first amendment was written to protect people like the founders - wealthy, bourgeois, powerful men. It was never intended to create a press that challenges state power.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  Source? I'm pretty sure that state challenges were accounted for in 1a's derivations. The entire point of three branches was to keep the gov in check with itself. 1a helps to ensure it can be in check with its citizens as well.
rendall 5y ago
> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing Constitutionally recognized, inalienable rights, you wouldn't say this. Let's assume it is done, the press is now stripped of its rights, and ask some questions about the world and political reality thereupon: Do individuals still have this right to free speech or is it only media that no longer does? Does an individual who becomes a journalist still have the right to free speech? Who would oversee the speech of journalists? Would it be you or right-thinking people like you who decide what is acceptable for the media to say? Or would it be whichever political party were in power at the time? Or billionaire oligarchs? How would this oversight work? A "free speech oversight" committee? How does one get into the committee? Appointment? By whom? Election? If I want to run for election in the committee, can I say unpleasant things about my incumbent opponents? Or will the committee declare this speech to be out of bounds? What if they become corrupt? Who can report the truth about that corruption? If I dislike the committee for some reason, can the committee oversee my criticism, declare it out of bounds? Could the legal precedence of overriding the inalienable right to free speech also be used to override other inalienable rights? My right not to have to barracks soldiers in my house, for instance.
nextaccountic 5y ago
> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Free speech is the only thing that makes it slightly possible to not parrot the official government narrative.
Imnimo 5y ago
>I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea? If you take away the first amendment protection, doesn't that just mean that the government controls 100% of the media instead of 70% or whatever you think the number is?
Der_Einzige 5y ago
The mass holding of such a view is exactly what's going to end up with me as an American refugee in Canada sometime in the next 10 years. I grew up in Democracy and I plan to die in it. Watching the USA backslide and imagining the very real risk of Trump refusing to give up power when he inevitably gets it in 2024 is sobering... to say the least
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. I think the Assange case is an excellent reminder that "our media" doesn't really have any First Amendment protection. You don't need First Amendment protection if you are spewing DC blob talking points all day. And if you challenge the DC blob, like Assange did (or Gary Webb and others), it very quickly becomes clear that those protections don't exist at all.
themself 5y ago
I mostly feel contempt for the mainstream media nowdays, but that does nothing to diminish my support for their right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is most important for those whose speech we think is harmful and don't want to be spoken. Nothing would be more dangerous than letting those with the greatest capacity for and willingness to use violence (e.g. governments) decide what speech should be allowed. Anyone who cares about freedom of speech for anyone should defend it for everyone because if nazis, tankies, and journalists can't have freedom of speech, none of us can. First they came for... you know how the rest goes.
gentleman11 5y ago
> no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. You think the oligarchs should hold the media they allegedly control accountable for the things they say so that we can get less biased media? What?

ceejayoz 5y ago

> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. That, uh, might be a bit of an overcorrection.

mercy_dude 5y ago
Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally guaranteed way for billionaires to control the narratives - in addition to the power they already have been wielding through owning politicians using lobbyists and having protection through section 230 in all the stakes they own in the social media companies. That’s what has been happening in the media space - Murdochs, Turners and Bezos now own vast sum of media sphere. And social medias just use them as proxy for “fact checks”.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope. Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.
  - mercy_dude 5y ago
    My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. I am not speaking of first amendment of individuals which I think is also under attack by the same group of people, look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The idea that people who lived in a time of tarring-and-feathering people couldn't anticipate cancel culture is a bit silly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) > Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The crowd seized him and struck him with the butt of a musket, fracturing his skull. Taken prisoner, he was tied to a tree where he was roasted by fire and scalped before being tarred and feathered. Brown was then carted through a number of nearby settlements and forced to verbally pledge himself to the Patriot cause before being released. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two toes and lifelong headaches. Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association. edit: Media stirring shit up was a thing pre-Revolution, too, including at least two Founding Fathers participating themselves! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        Not to mention fairly regular extrajudicial lynchings. The rule of law is respected far more today than it was in the 1770s.
      - njarboe 5y ago
        What I find inspiring about the Boston massacre is that founding father, John Adams, defended the British soldiers involved in it and doing so did not prevent him from becoming president in the future. The values of the electorate were quite a bit different in those days and really are knowing about and emulating the better parts.
fredstarr 5y ago
Overcorrection? No it is not. They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. Just take a look at these lawsuits: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow... https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case... Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. All they spew is lies, propaganda and downplay the things that are really happening. Unfortunately they have a willing audience in the majority of Americans who cannot see through all the bullshit. I personally cannot recall when last I tuned in to any of the mainstream media outlets. So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. Trust me, that'll make them sit up.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. Entertainers have First Amendment rights, too. > They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. If I feel your argument does that, do I get to revoke your rights? > So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. We, the People, are similarly protected by the First Amendment. Weakening it would impact us, too.
  - fredstarr 5y ago
    Wow! You actually took my shit serious! LOL. Of course, I'm just being overly dramatic and would never support censorship in any way, shape or form. If you can't sense the sarcasm in my comment, I don't know what else to say :)
    - krapp 5y ago
      Joke's on you - Hacker News is into that shit.
    - 5y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
There seems to be a push reject all news as of late. It's scary.

Mezzie 5y ago

Nah, they should keep the 1st Amendment for the journalists. The medias' marketing departments and execs, however, should be regulated to within an inch of their lives. If they let their journos spout shit, they should be legally on the hook if they EVER claim truth. If they lie, don't allow them to take advertiser or subscriber money. You can say whatever you want, but you can't charge people for it and you can't lie and pretend you're selling one thing (truth) when you're selling another (self-righteous feelings). Won't ever happen because the government and media are in bed with one another, but that's what I'd like to see.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Who decides who is lying? If the media and government are in bed today, won't that get worse when the government can arbitrate what truth is harming the not mainstream media?
- Mezzie 5y ago
  At this point I think the best chance of implementation would be something like the Board of Labor, OSHA, or some open source bug reporting where specific lies can be be reported and fined/punished for. Maybe random audits like the IRS. I'd like the determination to lie with the public, but the issue is coupling determination from enforcement given how intertwined information control is with power. Right now? It wouldn't work. It's an angry pipe dream.
  - dotnet00 5y ago
    A ministry that decides on truths? I wonder what that could be called!
    - Mezzie 5y ago
      The Ministry of Lies, obviously. Point taken.
      - 5y ago

justbored123 5y ago

Dude google "Operation Mockingbird" and Chomsky's "Controlled opposition" talks (don't do it in google, the term "Controlled opposition" is shadow banned because is heavily used by the "fake news" crowd. Compare googles result's to Duck Duck Go, you'll love it). The main media is a main target in the information wars so both local and foreign power players (mainly intelligence agencies) are going to fight to compromise the people in charge of it, so they can set the agenda and control information and perception. That is a given. That is the purpose of places like "Epstein's Island" and it has always been like that, at least from the time of J Edgar Hoover. Any time that you have a strategically important target like that (for example Google or any similar key information hub) the power players are going to strive to control it and a simple way to control it is to get to the people in charge of those organizations. So that is what they do.

brightstep 5y ago

You have to remember that the first amendment was written to protect people like the founders - wealthy, bourgeois, powerful men. It was never intended to create a press that challenges state power.

hellojesus 5y ago
Source? I'm pretty sure that state challenges were accounted for in 1a's derivations. The entire point of three branches was to keep the gov in check with itself. 1a helps to ensure it can be in check with its citizens as well.

rendall 5y ago

> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing Constitutionally recognized, inalienable rights, you wouldn't say this. Let's assume it is done, the press is now stripped of its rights, and ask some questions about the world and political reality thereupon: Do individuals still have this right to free speech or is it only media that no longer does? Does an individual who becomes a journalist still have the right to free speech? Who would oversee the speech of journalists? Would it be you or right-thinking people like you who decide what is acceptable for the media to say? Or would it be whichever political party were in power at the time? Or billionaire oligarchs? How would this oversight work? A "free speech oversight" committee? How does one get into the committee? Appointment? By whom? Election? If I want to run for election in the committee, can I say unpleasant things about my incumbent opponents? Or will the committee declare this speech to be out of bounds? What if they become corrupt? Who can report the truth about that corruption? If I dislike the committee for some reason, can the committee oversee my criticism, declare it out of bounds? Could the legal precedence of overriding the inalienable right to free speech also be used to override other inalienable rights? My right not to have to barracks soldiers in my house, for instance.

nextaccountic 5y ago

> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Free speech is the only thing that makes it slightly possible to not parrot the official government narrative.

Imnimo 5y ago

>I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea? If you take away the first amendment protection, doesn't that just mean that the government controls 100% of the media instead of 70% or whatever you think the number is?

Der_Einzige 5y ago

The mass holding of such a view is exactly what's going to end up with me as an American refugee in Canada sometime in the next 10 years. I grew up in Democracy and I plan to die in it. Watching the USA backslide and imagining the very real risk of Trump refusing to give up power when he inevitably gets it in 2024 is sobering... to say the least

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. I think the Assange case is an excellent reminder that "our media" doesn't really have any First Amendment protection. You don't need First Amendment protection if you are spewing DC blob talking points all day. And if you challenge the DC blob, like Assange did (or Gary Webb and others), it very quickly becomes clear that those protections don't exist at all.

themself 5y ago

I mostly feel contempt for the mainstream media nowdays, but that does nothing to diminish my support for their right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is most important for those whose speech we think is harmful and don't want to be spoken. Nothing would be more dangerous than letting those with the greatest capacity for and willingness to use violence (e.g. governments) decide what speech should be allowed. Anyone who cares about freedom of speech for anyone should defend it for everyone because if nazis, tankies, and journalists can't have freedom of speech, none of us can. First they came for... you know how the rest goes.

gentleman11 5y ago

> no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. You think the oligarchs should hold the media they allegedly control accountable for the things they say so that we can get less biased media? What?