3 ms·

Corporate media has become little more that a propaganda system designed to protect the wealthiest elite from public scrutiny and bury issues like the rise of t

Corporate media has become little more that a propaganda system designed to protect the wealthiest elite from public scrutiny and bury issues like the rise of the artistocrat-serf divide in American society, and this article is just more of the same. Since class divides are off the table, this leads writers who work for the system with nothing to talk about but 1960s-era civil rights issues related to gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. To do this they have to avoid discussing the many successes of the civil rights movements, and especially the fact that many 'members of oppressed communities' work hand in glove with corrupt greedy elites to further their agendas. Case in point: this article makes no mention of Epstein collaborator and facilitator Ghislane Maxwell. Another defining feature of US corporate media these days is a deep reluctance to discuss foreign policy and imperial agendas - after all, why was Epstein so eager to make contacts with the upper tiers of business and government power, and introduce them to trafficked young women that he controlled? There's a lot of evidence that he (and Maxwell) were part of an Israeli-affiliated spy operation that was perhaps collecting blackmail material on, or just getting inside information from, the people that Epstein brought into his circle. Writing about those subjects, though - that would result in excommunication and the end of one's corporate media career.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
Well-put context to the content of this article. I agree in this instance the writing on Edge is lacking, especially in proportion to the wealth of attention Edge itself is charitably given. Would appreciate references you have for sources that take the well rounded perspective you describe. Sometimes that perspective also gets called leftist and flagged for hardened political bias I find, because of the platform they're presented on.
programmarchy 4y ago
This rings true. A lot of the outrage these days is manufactured, and seems like that would only be done as a distraction, since it's so damaging to the social fabric. It must be worth it to have the "serfs" chasing scapegoats to keep the "aristocrats" out of sight from public scrutiny. It's dangerous for them, because class is an issue that both left and right can align on. In fact, we saw that alignment starting to happen during Occupy Wall Street in 2011, with progressives in the same camp as libertarians and the pro-labor right. If the country enters another economic downturn, it'd create the conditions for that to happen again. It'd be interesting to see how that would play out. There's a huge potential for change if people can tune out the outrage machine.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > In fact, we saw that alignment starting to happen during Occupy Wall Street in 2011, with progressives in the same camp as libertarians and the pro-labor right. And corporate media neutralized that movement, by selectively amplifying the loopiest weirdos to discredit the whole. Media coverage of Occupy Wall Street was the first time I ever heard of the "progressive stack", which the media explained, meant the illiberal ranking of speaker order by race and gender. This was surely poison to the American middle class who might have otherwise resonated with the discontent behind Occupy Wallstreet. I expect that if another Occupy-like movement happens again, the media will run the same playbook: Amplify the fringe to alienate the whole.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

Well-put context to the content of this article. I agree in this instance the writing on Edge is lacking, especially in proportion to the wealth of attention Edge itself is charitably given. Would appreciate references you have for sources that take the well rounded perspective you describe. Sometimes that perspective also gets called leftist and flagged for hardened political bias I find, because of the platform they're presented on.

programmarchy 4y ago

This rings true. A lot of the outrage these days is manufactured, and seems like that would only be done as a distraction, since it's so damaging to the social fabric. It must be worth it to have the "serfs" chasing scapegoats to keep the "aristocrats" out of sight from public scrutiny. It's dangerous for them, because class is an issue that both left and right can align on. In fact, we saw that alignment starting to happen during Occupy Wall Street in 2011, with progressives in the same camp as libertarians and the pro-labor right. If the country enters another economic downturn, it'd create the conditions for that to happen again. It'd be interesting to see how that would play out. There's a huge potential for change if people can tune out the outrage machine.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> In fact, we saw that alignment starting to happen during Occupy Wall Street in 2011, with progressives in the same camp as libertarians and the pro-labor right. And corporate media neutralized that movement, by selectively amplifying the loopiest weirdos to discredit the whole. Media coverage of Occupy Wall Street was the first time I ever heard of the "progressive stack", which the media explained, meant the illiberal ranking of speaker order by race and gender. This was surely poison to the American middle class who might have otherwise resonated with the discontent behind Occupy Wallstreet. I expect that if another Occupy-like movement happens again, the media will run the same playbook: Amplify the fringe to alienate the whole.