6 ms·
As opposed to the United States of Murdoch (?!)
by ZeroMinx 14y ago
As opposed to the United States of Murdoch (?!)
- tptacek 14y agoYes. Because Fox News exists, US journalism is totally no more reputable than Russian journalism.
- zecho 14y agoWithout even mentioning Fox News or any Murdoch/Newscorp-owned properties, one could still make a strong case for a sorry state of journalism in the United States.
- tptacek 14y agoI'm sure you're right, and that Washington reporters live in a constant state of fear that if they delve too deeply into Obama or Romney's affairs, someone will shoot them to death on a train platform.
- chunkyslink 14y agoland of the free (ish)
- thwest 14y agoDeath threats aren't the only thing a government can do to reduce the reliability of the press. Whistle blower prosecutions, contempt of court charges for journalists protecting sources, NYT shelving articles until after elections, the tiptoeing the white house press corps does as to not lose access, etc. All of these indicate reduced reputation of the press in the USA. The US of Murdoch comment was a brash characterization, but how does rehashing the state of Russian press address the idea that US news sources lack reliability? All news sources should be treated with skepticism, Russian or not.
- tptacek 14y agoYou've made a fine case for the US media being deeply imperfect, but I'm not sure I see which comment on this thread that point is responsive to.
- fffggg 14y agoMy father once said "The difference between American and Russian propaganda is that Russians know that Pravda is propaganda." The problem with American media is certainly not limited to Fox.
- tptacek 14y agoThat and the Russian propaganda machine might at any moment decide to have you killed. How convincing do you think these epigrams actually are? The reality is that the US media market provides a vastly more credible stream of current events information than Russia's ever has. Does that make the US media credible? It's hard to say. Russia is a very, very low bar to clear.
- fffggg 14y agoThe best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. I believe you're suggesting the same thing I am -- that the US propaganda machine is much more subtle, and therefore more credible. A false narrative is a false narrative, regardless of how skillfully it is intertwined with truth.
- davidw 14y agoI think he's suggesting that terms like the "US propaganda machine" are, to use a technical term, "bullshit", in the sense that there are a great deal of competing interests and players in the news market in the US, as well as various competing interests in politics. Talking about a machine makes it sound like you're talking about one centrally controlled system that in reality does not exist. That's not to say there aren't problems with the news industry in the US and elsewhere, but it's not some giant conspiracy either.
- fffggg 14y agoThere's no need for a conspiracy or for central organization when incentives align. In this case, the incentives to manipulate are often financial or political. You have misunderstood my meaning of "machine" -- not all social systems involve a central authority. I hope you can agree that American media can be influenced, for profit, by monied interests. If you agree, then you acknowledge the system I have described above.
- jlgreco 14y agoWhy does everything have to be a competition? Just because somebody calls out Russian journalism doesn't mean that they are implicitly praising American journalism.