3 ms·

The interesting or perhaps scary question is how many times are news hosts told to drop a topic/story and they go along with it and the public never even knows

The interesting or perhaps scary question is how many times are news hosts told to drop a topic/story and they go along with it and the public never even knows a topic was dropped? It's worth asking how we can make our systems safer against large corporations shady influence.

lolinder 3y ago
> It's worth asking how we can make our systems safer against large corporations shady influence. Just to be clear, this story is about Apple exerting editorial control over content that they paid for, not about them trying to influence the content on the Daily Show. Anyone who's worked in media has stories of topics being suppressed by the owners, and that's definitely something that could stand to be more transparent, but this article isn't evidence of large corporations having any influence over unrelated media outlets.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  I'm failing to see how that makes this any better.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    You don't see the difference between "knowing who pays for the content can help you understand the content's biases" and "large corporations exert editorial control over content that has no overt relationship to them"?
    - pydry 3y ago
      Theyre both common and they're both bad.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
vmfunction 3y ago
There are only 6 corps that controls most of the media outlet. Got hunch that Apple is NOT the only one dropping topics they don't like.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
> systems safer against large corporations shady influence unless you're watching state-run / state-sponsored media, which comes with it's own challenges, they're all large corporations. we'll never know, and those corps have the right to do whatever they want.
mmh0000 3y ago
"More alarming, some media companies publish the same fake stories without checking facts first"[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
raxxorraxor 3y ago
I think that isn't possible in the foreseeable future. As soon as people were barred from platforms for their political opinion, there was attention towards who does and who doesn't get hosted as it was seen as passively endorsing the content. Guilt by association is now not only restricted to superficial advertising and will influence anything that can be controversial. For Apple it is even more relevant because it conflicts with their clean image.

lolinder 3y ago

> It's worth asking how we can make our systems safer against large corporations shady influence. Just to be clear, this story is about Apple exerting editorial control over content that they paid for, not about them trying to influence the content on the Daily Show. Anyone who's worked in media has stories of topics being suppressed by the owners, and that's definitely something that could stand to be more transparent, but this article isn't evidence of large corporations having any influence over unrelated media outlets.

Workaccount2 3y ago
I'm failing to see how that makes this any better.
- lolinder 3y ago
  You don't see the difference between "knowing who pays for the content can help you understand the content's biases" and "large corporations exert editorial control over content that has no overt relationship to them"?
  - pydry 3y ago
    Theyre both common and they're both bad.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

vmfunction 3y ago

There are only 6 corps that controls most of the media outlet. Got hunch that Apple is NOT the only one dropping topics they don't like.

red-iron-pine 3y ago

> systems safer against large corporations shady influence unless you're watching state-run / state-sponsored media, which comes with it's own challenges, they're all large corporations. we'll never know, and those corps have the right to do whatever they want.

mmh0000 3y ago

"More alarming, some media companies publish the same fake stories without checking facts first"[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

raxxorraxor 3y ago

I think that isn't possible in the foreseeable future. As soon as people were barred from platforms for their political opinion, there was attention towards who does and who doesn't get hosted as it was seen as passively endorsing the content. Guilt by association is now not only restricted to superficial advertising and will influence anything that can be controversial. For Apple it is even more relevant because it conflicts with their clean image.