3 ms·

This makes complete sense. Corporate journalists have many incentives to not publish the truth or to be stenographers for the establishment. That is why corpora

This makes complete sense. Corporate journalists have many incentives to not publish the truth or to be stenographers for the establishment. That is why corporate media and journalists hate truth tellers and fearless journalists like Julian Assange and demand censorship on Internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebok with their corporate "factcheckers" in tow as muzzlers. Access journalism wants to censor all other voices.

namdnay 5y ago
> Corporate journalists have many incentives to not publish the truth or to be stenographers for the establishment Agreed, if the establishment locks you out it’s impossible to do your job, so it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you > journalists hate truth tellers and fearless journalists like Julian Assange Huh? Assange and Snowden published with the help of several major newspapers > demand censorship on Internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebok with their corporate "factcheckers" in tow as muzzlers Journalists asking for censoring other journalists from YouTube? Where!?
- barbacoa 5y ago
  >Journalists asking for censoring other journalists from YouTube? Where!? There is a constant drumbeat from the NYT, WASPO, corporate media crowd for platforms to "do more to combat misinformation".
  - namdnay 5y ago
    Yes, such as fact checking from real journalists. They’re not asking for less journalism, they’re asking for more
jmrm 5y ago
I don't know where you are from, but in Europe fact checker are actually only face up (and not too much) blogs, Facebook groups, and other similar media that makes hoaxes. Their news are like "that politician said that and this is false due to this, this, and this", "microwaving your phone won't charge it", or "vaccines won't give you 5G". Heck, I read in some of them about how some important people done really bad things in the past, all with valid evidence from trusted sources, and no media faced them up.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  In the USA fact-checkers are usually funded by dark money super PACs looking to influence politics.

namdnay 5y ago

> Corporate journalists have many incentives to not publish the truth or to be stenographers for the establishment Agreed, if the establishment locks you out it’s impossible to do your job, so it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you > journalists hate truth tellers and fearless journalists like Julian Assange Huh? Assange and Snowden published with the help of several major newspapers > demand censorship on Internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebok with their corporate "factcheckers" in tow as muzzlers Journalists asking for censoring other journalists from YouTube? Where!?

barbacoa 5y ago
>Journalists asking for censoring other journalists from YouTube? Where!? There is a constant drumbeat from the NYT, WASPO, corporate media crowd for platforms to "do more to combat misinformation".
- namdnay 5y ago
  Yes, such as fact checking from real journalists. They’re not asking for less journalism, they’re asking for more

jmrm 5y ago

I don't know where you are from, but in Europe fact checker are actually only face up (and not too much) blogs, Facebook groups, and other similar media that makes hoaxes. Their news are like "that politician said that and this is false due to this, this, and this", "microwaving your phone won't charge it", or "vaccines won't give you 5G". Heck, I read in some of them about how some important people done really bad things in the past, all with valid evidence from trusted sources, and no media faced them up.

barbacoa 5y ago
In the USA fact-checkers are usually funded by dark money super PACs looking to influence politics.