3 ms·
"Both have an agenda" What you imply is false balance. You claim neutrality whilst being occupied by extreme right viewpoints, given your rants about so called
by exceptione 2y ago
"Both have an agenda" What you imply is false balance. You claim neutrality whilst being occupied by extreme right viewpoints, given your rants about so called TDS. Those disinformation outlets are meant to influence you, and they do.
If you want, you can read other papers of people well versed in these topics. Anna Applebaum is a lady that is also well versed in these topics, as is Snyder. But there are not many outlets that do allow for these kind of deeper analysis (no, opinion stuff is not the same as analysis, how much some people want to sell it as such). They have written books as well, but I think they publish on the Atlantic as well.
Your confusion is something understandable, because in a way you are right: the way traditional media work, precisely that is abused by those actors we talk about. And they are absolutely ignorant about that. They give literal quotes, they put them into headlines even. They behave like an amnesia patient, when the Kremlin says "A" it will be put in the newspaper. The next day Peskov says "we never mentioned A, you do", it will be put in the newspaper too. On and on.
This way actors can sow distrust and confusion. Some people will pick headline 1, because it fits their beliefs. Some people will pick headline 2, because it fits their beliefs.
Let the media quote stuff related to culture wars and you can select multiple strata of people with different messages. Clever? Yes. Paralyzing? Yes. Divisive? Yes. Ripping apart society? Yes. Death to truth? Also yes.
Also, do not underestimate the way news organizations do almost completely rely on the feeds of press agencies. The critical filtering, selection, wording and timed release happens there.
The consolidation of media is very worrying indeed, DPG media is gobbling everything up. Till now there is a strict separation of editorial boards and corporate interest, but when that dam breaks we are fucked like those Americans are now. But then still, they would not be able to push too idiotic stuff because the public broadcasters do not report to corporate owners, and the disconnect cannot be too large. They keep the ecosystem accountable.
So, now you might understand why right wing populists attack public broadcasters. Why non-loyal scientists and experts are cleaned out immediately. Due to attacks from the lunatic FVD ("the moon landing is fake") and party-with-one-member PVV the Dutch broadcasting service NOS have to go undercover now to do their reporting.
Americans will not get much chance to know about the mechanics at play, the play book of the new autocrats, as topics like this are even on HN closed right away when hitting #1. This must be minimized, this must be normalized.
If you are pro democracy, these days are dark. Really dark. Trump or those other players in the theater are just a distraction. They do the work, they draw all the attention away from what they try to normalize. What kind of people are in for a world that want to install "might makes right", to end the rule based order where smaller players can be autonomous, both on level of society and the world.
With all things that happen, both small and big, ask yourself if this complies with norms, or requires you to look away. If you do the former, those crazies have a hard time to distract you with transgenders and "aliens".
- hagbard_c 2y ago> occupied by extreme right viewpoints Could you define 'extreme right' for me? It may surprise you to know that I consistently end up the lower left quadrant, slightly left of center and quite a bit down underneath the X axis of the GAL-TAN test which happens to be the opposite of 'extreme right' which lies on the top right. It would be interesting to hear of your definition of the term 'extreme right' which I suspect is nothing more than a repetition of that term as used in the legacy media and by the "democratic" party and as such not at all related to "traditional" extreme right. Please give us this definition before I go into the other things you said here, it makes it easier to frame your other points.
- exceptione 2y ago> Please give us this definition before I go into the other things you said here, it makes it easier to frame your other points. You are a text book example of a Sea Lion [ref 1]. You have no honest intention to engage. ----- For the other people to learn to spot these kind of people, some context: «The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "just trying to have a debate",[5][6][8][11] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.[7][12][13] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[9] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[14]» «Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequence» What will follow will be victim play and projection, accusing the other of "not playing by the rules". It will likely end with a claim of victory as people will walk out of a discussion with such a person. Do not engage with this kind of people, they feed on it. ___ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#