4 ms·
You are assuming the person you replied to thinks there's a cabal or conspiracy. Alternatively, the 1% could be using mass media to project their viewpoint simp
by mcdonje 4y ago
You are assuming the person you replied to thinks there's a cabal or conspiracy. Alternatively, the 1% could be using mass media to project their viewpoint simply because most of the mass media is owned by the 1%.
- JKCalhoun 4y agoThat too suggests a conspiracy though. Since the 1% are unlikely to be the ones writing the actual articles, you're going to have to have co-conspirator reporters, writers, editors, publishers. Being coerced by the 1% would in itself be quite a story, ha ha. Perhaps though you can imagine though a more subtle, undetectable way in which the 1% are able to project their viewpoint via the media that doesn't involve co-conspirators. Like the person you replied to though, I think Occam's razor suggests instead that these articles get clicks.
- licebmi__at__ 4y agoI don’t think that people pleasing their bosses is such a big conspiracy.
- ericmay 4y agoIt isn't. It is though when you go from pleasing their bosses to "their 1% oligarch boss says to publish this article that a recession is coming so that workers wages will go down".
- mcdonje 4y agoIt doesn't suggest conspiracy. It suggests organizational structure. Reporters don't get to cover anything they want. They get paid to cover certain topics and are supposed to stay in their lane. Editors are gatekeepers of what gets printed as part of their job description. Editors get paid more than reporters, and they report to people who get paid more than them. A major type of bias is what doesn't get reported. The coersion is their paychecks, which isn't a big story. You are making the same mistake as the person I replied to. It's not a conspiracy. It's institutional.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ericmay 4y agoIt's very lazy thinking. People are scared and confused about the world and the easy thing to do is create a nebulous group ("elite", "1%", etc.) to attack as the source of their problems. It's a tale as old as time. Not to mention the so-called "viewpoint of the 1%" appears to change almost daily, is contradictory, and often times critical of the very 1% that controls "controls the media". "Mass Media" must also include Twitter, Meta, Google, Apple Music, Spotify, and other sources of content, news, analysis, etc. How many people does the 1% have in on their scheme? Way better off figuring out how your local representative is taking $5,000 grift payments to expedite some shoddy development that'll collapse in 10 years or cause cancer than to spend time dwelling on such nonsense.
- mcdonje 4y agoI'm talking about institutions and incentives, and you're accusing me of inventing a boogyman...