4 ms·

Seriously? Imagine an alternate universe where Canada and USA went to war. Do you really think that people in Seattle would have to depend on German social med

Seriously? Imagine an alternate universe where Canada and USA went to war. Do you really think that people in Seattle would have to depend on German social media apps to figure out what goes on in Vancouver while it's being bombed? Seriously?

yywwbbn 5y ago
What would the alternative be if US banned all independent media sources (like Russia did)?
- d0mine 5y ago
  unrelated: could you name one just one US media source that you consider to be independent (with an anti-war article where US is perpetrator).
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    You have changed the question. Russia has banned foreign media, in addition to restricting local media to publishing the government view. Since I'm British, and you'd probably consider the US and UK equivalent for this purpose, here's a major British newspaper article arguing against NATO action in Libya: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothing-moral-nato-intervention-libya https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothin... (Given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US, it probably counts for the US anyway.)
    - NoOn3 5y ago
      I understand that Russian ban of foreign media is not good, but some west countries banned Russian media too and created special difficulties for them early...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - yywwbbn 5y ago
        Generally I don’t support limiting free speech or even banning Russia TV channels in this case. But let’s not pretend that quasi independent government propaganda department are equivalent to western media companies.
        NoOn3 5y ago
        As a Russian that make me sad that our media uses such a very hacky work strategy, sometimes add fakes some times try to color clearly events in the beneficial side. But I think that it's clearly in Russian media and Russian political view point has some clear truths that Western media not always want to show and our media could have represented their point of view much better. But I saw fakes in western media too, and quite often, although perhaps in smaller quantities... I even know one News TV presenter on Russian central channel it's strange, but it seems to me that he never say fakes, does not try to embellish events in one direction or another, but it only airs on Saturday evenings news and then not every time.
  - stefanfisk 5y ago
    https://www.democracynow.org https://www.democracynow.org has plenty.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
    Comedy Central. Technically not an article, but Jon Stewart (also technically not a journalist, but imho he was better at being one than actual journalists) was pretty open about opposing the Iraq war. I assume in Russia he’d already be serving his 15+ year sentence? Yes the US has problems. But Russia is just on another level considering that being a free and independent media source is literally illegal there.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Ridder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Ridder Famously debunked the justifications for the Iraq war at the time they were being spread. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/sergei-lavrov-praises-fox-news-coverage-ukraine https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/sergei-lavrov-... The Russians view Fox News as a balanced news source. Walter Kronkite, perhaps the most famous TV anchor in US history was publicly against the Vietnam war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite
    - d0mine 5y ago
      Is there an example of the media that still exist today? Iraq war is where "embed" journalism became the only acceptable source where journalists were killed by US.
      - kasey_junk 5y ago
        That link about Fox News is from two weeks ago. Fox News is the most widely watched news network in the US. Tucker Carlson has the highest rated show on that network and has taken an anti-Ukraine stance.
        d0mine 5y ago
        I don't believe you are seriously considering Fox News to be independent (I wouldn't even consider it as a source of information). The insanity that they are spewing is just a tool to create the illusion of a debate.
  - FormerBandmate 5y ago
    The Intercept, the Grey Zone, and a bunch of other American media sources literally take the opposite position of the government every time
  - SamBam 5y ago
    You're joking, right? US media has published plenty of anti-war articles where the US was the perpetrator. Even forgetting the Pentagon Papers already mentioned, papers have published the abuses in Guantanamo and the Iraq War Logs. Plenty of articles have documented killings of civilians by US drones. And plenty of editorial boards have written articles calling on the US to end whatever current war it's fighting. Sure, big media probably kowtows more to the government than we'd like, but they absolutely are free criticize the wartime actions of the government.
- startoffs 5y ago
  US has done it's fair share of banning . Trump even tried to ban TikTok.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    What media sources has the US banned? Trump tried and failed to ban TikTok is exactly the difference being discussed.
stickfigure 5y ago
If, in this alternate universe, Americans have no free press and live in fear of men with guns showing up on their doorstep and hauling them away, then - sure? Where else would they get news?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- NoOn3 5y ago
  It's a very little free press in US...Inconvenient people for the authorities have almost no chance of getting on TV.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Look at CNN while Trump was president, or Fox while Biden is. Inconvenient people for the authorities are on US TV daily.
    - NoOn3 5y ago
      I understand maybe I exaggerated. It seems that in the US tv is clearly more free than in Russia tv. But it has many people and opinions that you don't see on tv. representatives of other parties (The Green party, even maybe communist party USA (yes, there are such :)) with the exception of Democrats and Republicans. You rarely see Richard Stallman on TV, Trump is banned in many sources, of course there were reasons for this, I take into account his eccentricity, but I am still for freedom of information...
globalise83 5y ago
Think about North v. South Korea: neither side really has the slightest clue how the other lives. If there were a famine or coup in North Korea no-one would have a clue except through the reports of spies.
pjc50 5y ago
There aren't any global German social media apps, and the US has a very different media landscape, so like all "what if the situation was completely different" hypotheticals, it would be completely different. The US operated censorship during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ; who knows what would operate during the war with Canada? I'm not sure whether you're ignorant of the near-total state control of media in Russia and Belarus, but how do you expect them to get accurate news?
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  Do you actually believe anyone else gets accurate news? Because that thought's beyond ridiculous.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    How accurate do you want it to be? Picking a random story from the BBC front page, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61002096 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61002096 , what do you think is inaccurate about it? Do you think the MD has not resigned? That there have not been queues? That they have mistaken the names of people involved? That Manchester does not in fact exist and is a liberal conspiracy? (The main problem with political news is disproportionate coverage, double standards of scandal, and the selection of who gets quoted - as well as a vast area of "op-ed" which is not technically news but is on the same websites. As well as reporting on "future" or "possible" events, which by definition are difficult to be accurate about)
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      shower thought: could we improve things if we set up new rules for media so that we more clearly demarcate "descriptions of what happened" from "opinions and interpretations" and "projections and speculation"? I intentionally didn't call "descriptions of what happened" as "facts", because that would sidetrack the discussion on how to determine what's true or not etc. Just force media to clearly separate "here's what our reporters saw" from "here's what they think it means"
SamBam 5y ago
It's not a question of "depending on" Tik Tok. The Russians on the other side of the boarder can definitely go online and search for news they want to read. But that requires an active desire to go find the truth. Such people already know the truth of the war. But plenty of Russian citizens are just following the state propaganda right now, and are consuming zero information outside of it. If such people saw the reality of the war while casually scrolling through Tik Tok, that might make it harder for such people to deny what's going on.

yywwbbn 5y ago

What would the alternative be if US banned all independent media sources (like Russia did)?

d0mine 5y ago
unrelated: could you name one just one US media source that you consider to be independent (with an anti-war article where US is perpetrator).
- Symbiote 5y ago
  You have changed the question. Russia has banned foreign media, in addition to restricting local media to publishing the government view. Since I'm British, and you'd probably consider the US and UK equivalent for this purpose, here's a major British newspaper article arguing against NATO action in Libya: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothing-moral-nato-intervention-libya https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothin... (Given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US, it probably counts for the US anyway.)
  - NoOn3 5y ago
    I understand that Russian ban of foreign media is not good, but some west countries banned Russian media too and created special difficulties for them early...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - yywwbbn 5y ago
      Generally I don’t support limiting free speech or even banning Russia TV channels in this case. But let’s not pretend that quasi independent government propaganda department are equivalent to western media companies.
      - NoOn3 5y ago
        As a Russian that make me sad that our media uses such a very hacky work strategy, sometimes add fakes some times try to color clearly events in the beneficial side. But I think that it's clearly in Russian media and Russian political view point has some clear truths that Western media not always want to show and our media could have represented their point of view much better. But I saw fakes in western media too, and quite often, although perhaps in smaller quantities... I even know one News TV presenter on Russian central channel it's strange, but it seems to me that he never say fakes, does not try to embellish events in one direction or another, but it only airs on Saturday evenings news and then not every time.
- stefanfisk 5y ago
  https://www.democracynow.org https://www.democracynow.org has plenty.
- yywwbbn 5y ago
  Comedy Central. Technically not an article, but Jon Stewart (also technically not a journalist, but imho he was better at being one than actual journalists) was pretty open about opposing the Iraq war. I assume in Russia he’d already be serving his 15+ year sentence? Yes the US has problems. But Russia is just on another level considering that being a free and independent media source is literally illegal there.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Ridder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Ridder Famously debunked the justifications for the Iraq war at the time they were being spread. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/sergei-lavrov-praises-fox-news-coverage-ukraine https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/sergei-lavrov-... The Russians view Fox News as a balanced news source. Walter Kronkite, perhaps the most famous TV anchor in US history was publicly against the Vietnam war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite
  - d0mine 5y ago
    Is there an example of the media that still exist today? Iraq war is where "embed" journalism became the only acceptable source where journalists were killed by US.
    - kasey_junk 5y ago
      That link about Fox News is from two weeks ago. Fox News is the most widely watched news network in the US. Tucker Carlson has the highest rated show on that network and has taken an anti-Ukraine stance.
      - d0mine 5y ago
        I don't believe you are seriously considering Fox News to be independent (I wouldn't even consider it as a source of information). The insanity that they are spewing is just a tool to create the illusion of a debate.
- FormerBandmate 5y ago
  The Intercept, the Grey Zone, and a bunch of other American media sources literally take the opposite position of the government every time
- SamBam 5y ago
  You're joking, right? US media has published plenty of anti-war articles where the US was the perpetrator. Even forgetting the Pentagon Papers already mentioned, papers have published the abuses in Guantanamo and the Iraq War Logs. Plenty of articles have documented killings of civilians by US drones. And plenty of editorial boards have written articles calling on the US to end whatever current war it's fighting. Sure, big media probably kowtows more to the government than we'd like, but they absolutely are free criticize the wartime actions of the government.
startoffs 5y ago
US has done it's fair share of banning . Trump even tried to ban TikTok.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  What media sources has the US banned? Trump tried and failed to ban TikTok is exactly the difference being discussed.

stickfigure 5y ago

If, in this alternate universe, Americans have no free press and live in fear of men with guns showing up on their doorstep and hauling them away, then - sure? Where else would they get news?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NoOn3 5y ago
It's a very little free press in US...Inconvenient people for the authorities have almost no chance of getting on TV.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Look at CNN while Trump was president, or Fox while Biden is. Inconvenient people for the authorities are on US TV daily.
  - NoOn3 5y ago
    I understand maybe I exaggerated. It seems that in the US tv is clearly more free than in Russia tv. But it has many people and opinions that you don't see on tv. representatives of other parties (The Green party, even maybe communist party USA (yes, there are such :)) with the exception of Democrats and Republicans. You rarely see Richard Stallman on TV, Trump is banned in many sources, of course there were reasons for this, I take into account his eccentricity, but I am still for freedom of information...

globalise83 5y ago

Think about North v. South Korea: neither side really has the slightest clue how the other lives. If there were a famine or coup in North Korea no-one would have a clue except through the reports of spies.

pjc50 5y ago

There aren't any global German social media apps, and the US has a very different media landscape, so like all "what if the situation was completely different" hypotheticals, it would be completely different. The US operated censorship during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ; who knows what would operate during the war with Canada? I'm not sure whether you're ignorant of the near-total state control of media in Russia and Belarus, but how do you expect them to get accurate news?

MrYellowP 5y ago
Do you actually believe anyone else gets accurate news? Because that thought's beyond ridiculous.
- pjc50 5y ago
  How accurate do you want it to be? Picking a random story from the BBC front page, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61002096 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61002096 , what do you think is inaccurate about it? Do you think the MD has not resigned? That there have not been queues? That they have mistaken the names of people involved? That Manchester does not in fact exist and is a liberal conspiracy? (The main problem with political news is disproportionate coverage, double standards of scandal, and the selection of who gets quoted - as well as a vast area of "op-ed" which is not technically news but is on the same websites. As well as reporting on "future" or "possible" events, which by definition are difficult to be accurate about)
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    shower thought: could we improve things if we set up new rules for media so that we more clearly demarcate "descriptions of what happened" from "opinions and interpretations" and "projections and speculation"? I intentionally didn't call "descriptions of what happened" as "facts", because that would sidetrack the discussion on how to determine what's true or not etc. Just force media to clearly separate "here's what our reporters saw" from "here's what they think it means"

SamBam 5y ago

It's not a question of "depending on" Tik Tok. The Russians on the other side of the boarder can definitely go online and search for news they want to read. But that requires an active desire to go find the truth. Such people already know the truth of the war. But plenty of Russian citizens are just following the state propaganda right now, and are consuming zero information outside of it. If such people saw the reality of the war while casually scrolling through Tik Tok, that might make it harder for such people to deny what's going on.