4 ms·

> Baring any value statements about political systems, isn’t there a political problem with a foreign entity controlling the content of another No, in fact, ma

> Baring any value statements about political systems, isn’t there a political problem with a foreign entity controlling the content of another No, in fact, many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post. El Pais has far more integrity than either of those and it’s owned by a Spanish media conglomerate.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post Yes and no. They report with different biases. It’s interesting to read. But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  > But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics. I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      That’s more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards. > than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal. That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.
notjoemama 3y ago
Good point, so when it’s a non-adversarial country then different reporting has the potential to be more honest reporting.
dekhn 3y ago
I'd love to see some head-to-head comparisons of articles in El Pais that you think are more honest than the New York Times (and I fully accept that the NY Times is the "mouthpiece of the establishment".
- toyg 3y ago
  Pick pretty much anything in the run up to the Iraq invasion. From what I remember, it was a nadir of US journalism. Generally speaking, any time there is military US intervention somewhere, American publications toe the line in embarrassing ways.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Do you have links to actual articles about current events? If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Later countering the propaganda they uncritically (some might argue, intentionally) spread in the first place does not argue in their favor.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        I'm still waiting to see some links to head-to-head articles posted contemporaneously so I can compare. Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        > Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would. But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post Yes and no. They report with different biases. It’s interesting to read. But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
> But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics. I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    That’s more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards. > than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal. That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.

notjoemama 3y ago

Good point, so when it’s a non-adversarial country then different reporting has the potential to be more honest reporting.

dekhn 3y ago

I'd love to see some head-to-head comparisons of articles in El Pais that you think are more honest than the New York Times (and I fully accept that the NY Times is the "mouthpiece of the establishment".

toyg 3y ago
Pick pretty much anything in the run up to the Iraq invasion. From what I remember, it was a nadir of US journalism. Generally speaking, any time there is military US intervention somewhere, American publications toe the line in embarrassing ways.
- dekhn 3y ago
  Do you have links to actual articles about current events? If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Later countering the propaganda they uncritically (some might argue, intentionally) spread in the first place does not argue in their favor.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      I'm still waiting to see some links to head-to-head articles posted contemporaneously so I can compare. Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        > Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would. But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?