3 ms·

Pretty much cannot trust the position of the traditional medias, like WSJ, on SOPA. They have a clear conflict of interest since their owners underwrite the le

by ww520 15y ago

Pretty much cannot trust the position of the traditional medias, like WSJ, on SOPA. They have a clear conflict of interest since their owners underwrite the legislature. Just treat them as propaganda.

mrmaddog 15y ago
On the flip side, the WSJ could say the exact same thing about Google, Facebook, Ars Technica, etc. Just because they offer a different viewpoint doesn't mean you should completely write them off. Instead, it is useful to read these types of pieces to see what the opposition really wants. If there is to be any sort of compromise, we can't just shut our eyes and plug our ears when the traditional media says what it needs in a law.
- ww520 15y ago
  It is not the same thing for Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others. It would be the same when Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others sponsor a bill to cut the electricity of the printing press of any newspapers when suspected of copyright infringement. In that case WSJ can claim whatever these sponsoring companies said are propaganda.
- reso 15y ago
  There is a difference. Google and Facebook are not media organizations and are clearly stating that SOPA will hurt them. People go to media companies for news, and when they see op-eds like the one in the WSJ, are less likely to consider that the writer herself is a critically invested party in the issue.
narrator 15y ago
This is the fundamental problem with democracy and a free press. The banks help their cronies consolidate the media, the media defines the terms of the debate and what people know about. The people process the limited amount of inputs they receive and basically do what they're told to do. The internet disrupts this, so it is a threat. Even so, for the most part, it's still amazing how deaf dumb and blind the conversation on the internet is in that the mainstream media, who define the terms and scope of the debate, are the only link to the world outside of immediate perception for the participants.

by ww520 15y ago

mrmaddog 15y ago

On the flip side, the WSJ could say the exact same thing about Google, Facebook, Ars Technica, etc. Just because they offer a different viewpoint doesn't mean you should completely write them off. Instead, it is useful to read these types of pieces to see what the opposition really wants. If there is to be any sort of compromise, we can't just shut our eyes and plug our ears when the traditional media says what it needs in a law.

ww520 15y ago
It is not the same thing for Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others. It would be the same when Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others sponsor a bill to cut the electricity of the printing press of any newspapers when suspected of copyright infringement. In that case WSJ can claim whatever these sponsoring companies said are propaganda.
reso 15y ago
There is a difference. Google and Facebook are not media organizations and are clearly stating that SOPA will hurt them. People go to media companies for news, and when they see op-eds like the one in the WSJ, are less likely to consider that the writer herself is a critically invested party in the issue.

narrator 15y ago

This is the fundamental problem with democracy and a free press. The banks help their cronies consolidate the media, the media defines the terms of the debate and what people know about. The people process the limited amount of inputs they receive and basically do what they're told to do. The internet disrupts this, so it is a threat. Even so, for the most part, it's still amazing how deaf dumb and blind the conversation on the internet is in that the mainstream media, who define the terms and scope of the debate, are the only link to the world outside of immediate perception for the participants.