3 ms·

I find anything that blames some "elite" and implies a direct or indirect relationship between such an "elite" and the media extremely hard to believe. It seems

I find anything that blames some "elite" and implies a direct or indirect relationship between such an "elite" and the media extremely hard to believe. It seems unlikely to me that some conspiracy of journalists and CEO's came together to shape the entire political system.

germinalphrase 4y ago
It’s not a conspiracy if it’s business as usual. The people in charge just hire folks that share their views, fire those that go off message, and provide editorial guidance to those who are receptive. It’s not even a criticism specific to media. Most large organizations work this way to some degree.
- delusional 4y ago
  This sounds incredibly cynical to me. It seems desirable to me that a newspaper has some authorial cohesion. That the audience of readers has some identifying viewpoint and person that they can comprehend. So editorial guidance in that sense seems positive. I guess I can imagine how such a editorial process could create a monoculture (although I don't think it has to), but that's where multiple newspapers become useful. While one newspaper may have some editorial angle, different newspapers have different editorial staff. Journalists also seem to me to be rather principled people. If their editors were systematically suppressing certain stories and angles, I'd expect them to start a new newspaper, especially considering how easy it is to get started nowadays, and report on that. With all these considerations I don't see what system would keep these stories back. Editorial staff can maybe control a single newspaper, but they can't control the other media. Even if they could, they wouldn't be able to control journalists that may become disillusioned by such a system.
t-3 4y ago
Where do journalists get their information? What social class do politicians and business owners belong to? What social class do university-educated literati aspire to and identify with? I don't know why you imagine a conspiracy of any kind is necessary.
- delusional 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but this reads like some Qanon "drop". Why are you throwing implications at me instead of just providing the argument you've clearly already formed? I don't believe that a conspiracy is required per se, but i don't see what other argument you could be trying to make. I can tell from your rhetorical questions that you're implying some power dynamic and allegiance between politicians and CEOs, but I don't see how that explains the peoples own propensity for voting for those same politicians. If democracy does nothing else, it at the very least implicates the people in their own apparent suffering. You can't really decry the "elites" if you vote for them.

germinalphrase 4y ago

It’s not a conspiracy if it’s business as usual. The people in charge just hire folks that share their views, fire those that go off message, and provide editorial guidance to those who are receptive. It’s not even a criticism specific to media. Most large organizations work this way to some degree.

delusional 4y ago
This sounds incredibly cynical to me. It seems desirable to me that a newspaper has some authorial cohesion. That the audience of readers has some identifying viewpoint and person that they can comprehend. So editorial guidance in that sense seems positive. I guess I can imagine how such a editorial process could create a monoculture (although I don't think it has to), but that's where multiple newspapers become useful. While one newspaper may have some editorial angle, different newspapers have different editorial staff. Journalists also seem to me to be rather principled people. If their editors were systematically suppressing certain stories and angles, I'd expect them to start a new newspaper, especially considering how easy it is to get started nowadays, and report on that. With all these considerations I don't see what system would keep these stories back. Editorial staff can maybe control a single newspaper, but they can't control the other media. Even if they could, they wouldn't be able to control journalists that may become disillusioned by such a system.

t-3 4y ago

Where do journalists get their information? What social class do politicians and business owners belong to? What social class do university-educated literati aspire to and identify with? I don't know why you imagine a conspiracy of any kind is necessary.

delusional 4y ago
I'm sorry, but this reads like some Qanon "drop". Why are you throwing implications at me instead of just providing the argument you've clearly already formed? I don't believe that a conspiracy is required per se, but i don't see what other argument you could be trying to make. I can tell from your rhetorical questions that you're implying some power dynamic and allegiance between politicians and CEOs, but I don't see how that explains the peoples own propensity for voting for those same politicians. If democracy does nothing else, it at the very least implicates the people in their own apparent suffering. You can't really decry the "elites" if you vote for them.