53 ms·

> The reason they were in the building in the first place was to give the US government control over the narrative. At that point you can just claim everyone w

> The reason they were in the building in the first place was to give the US government control over the narrative. At that point you can just claim everyone working in the government is doing the same, or given the fact that they are working for the government it’s even worse since they’re employed full time (or were) to advance the government’s agenda! Except that the government’s agenda is by and large the agenda of the people that it represents. Not only is the point of view you’re expressing uselessly cynical, you’re depriving others of agency as well. It’s still a free country - press access doesn’t mean “government mouthpiece”. There are lots of news organizations and journalists with differing levels of professional standing and points of view and you can read all about them for yourself.

roenxi 1y ago
> Except that the government’s agenda is by and large the agenda of the people that it represents. In this case the government's agenda is that these journalists should either get Hegseth to stamp their articles or pack their cardboard boxes and get out of the building. Make of that what you will.
- ericmay 1y ago
  Sure, but if I'm going off the OP who said: > The reason they were in the building in the first place was to give the US government control over the narrative. Them packing their boxes would imply that the US government doesn't want control of the narrative?
  - roenxi 1y ago
    The deal is the journalists (propagandists) get to be in the building if they're compliant with whatever narrative the US government wants to be spread. The US government is changing the narrative they want to target, implementing that policy with some administrative changes and some of the journalists aren't compliant with it any more. They now have to leave the building and sit in a different building. It is quite challenging to tag whether this development is good or bad in the big picture. The basic deal on offer to the journalists hasn't changed - the ones in the building are compliant, the ones out of the building may or may not be compliant with what the US administration wants said. There's arguments that no journalists should be in the building, there's an argument that more eyes are always better and it is easier to keep track of these people if they are in the building.

roenxi 1y ago

> Except that the government’s agenda is by and large the agenda of the people that it represents. In this case the government's agenda is that these journalists should either get Hegseth to stamp their articles or pack their cardboard boxes and get out of the building. Make of that what you will.

ericmay 1y ago
Sure, but if I'm going off the OP who said: > The reason they were in the building in the first place was to give the US government control over the narrative. Them packing their boxes would imply that the US government doesn't want control of the narrative?
- roenxi 1y ago
  The deal is the journalists (propagandists) get to be in the building if they're compliant with whatever narrative the US government wants to be spread. The US government is changing the narrative they want to target, implementing that policy with some administrative changes and some of the journalists aren't compliant with it any more. They now have to leave the building and sit in a different building. It is quite challenging to tag whether this development is good or bad in the big picture. The basic deal on offer to the journalists hasn't changed - the ones in the building are compliant, the ones out of the building may or may not be compliant with what the US administration wants said. There's arguments that no journalists should be in the building, there's an argument that more eyes are always better and it is easier to keep track of these people if they are in the building.