4 ms·
> can not be labeled anything but literal censorship Ah, so you believe that editorial decisions should be replaced with actual totalitarian dictatorial censor
by commandlinefan 4y ago
> can not be labeled anything but literal censorship
Ah, so you believe that editorial decisions should be replaced with actual totalitarian dictatorial censorship. Gotcha.
- unity1001 4y agoHow can laws made by democratically elected parliaments be totalitarian. The argument is unintelligible. ... There is absolutely no difference in between private feudal lords dominating large percentages of the media and their editors-in-pay deciding what people see, and an actual totalitarian dictatorship. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reason... When one's 6-figure paycheck depends on 'agreeing' with the views of who writes that check, press ends up just like how it is in the US. And Murdoch above is the blatant, honest example. Others are far worse in their censorship - just hire people who are a 'good fit' for your media organization and fire those who are no longer 'a good fit' and voila.