3 ms·

I applaud the cartoonist's principled stance, but she greatly overestimates how free the press is (or was) just because she'd never had a point of view censored

I applaud the cartoonist's principled stance, but she greatly overestimates how free the press is (or was) just because she'd never had a point of view censored. In the words of Noam Chomsky: I don't say you're self-censoring - I'm sure you believe everything you're saying; but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting. Yes, her viewpoint wasn't censored up until now, but on the other hand, the Washington Post sure didn't employ anyone remotely similar to e.g. Jared Taylor or Keith Woods.

edanm 2y ago
That's kind of true, but also, there really is a difference between everything is allowed all the time and the current situation the cartoonist is gesturing at. I read it as "the Overton window for what is acceptable discourse has shrunk in a way that is dangerous", which I quite agree with.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> she greatly overestimates how free the press is (or was) just because she'd never had a point of view censored I don't know if she had any illusions about it being completely free before, but the point is that it's clearly heading in the direction of "less free" as a direct consequence of corporate interests owning media and concerns about financial blowbacks from a vindictive president not against the news org itself but other companies held by the news org's owners. That is a huge problem.