3 ms·

> from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media You don't clearly see America, there are at least two big

> from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media You don't clearly see America, there are at least two big mouthpieces. While I've never heard anyone praise the Iranian or Venezuelan government, I've heard many protest US intervention. > how its written feels alot like propaganda (not saying the content is invalid) I agree it sounds like propaganda. But in this case I think it's fair, the situation is almost black and white. > the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours...not to diminish the other sad loss of life Maybe they should've emphasized: the loss of life (and general restriction on daily living, offline) is the main problem, no internet for 118 hours is a symptom. > even tech articles have become partisan True. But again, this case (criticizing the Iranian regime) is so close to clear-cut black and white, it shouldn't even be partisan.

hex4def6 10mo ago
If you're talking about Chavez, I'd disagree quite strongly. But even Maduro had his western-based supporters, at least in the early years; for example this op-ed in the Guardian: "Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere – it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezuela-protests-not-ukraine-class-sturggle https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezu...
- epistasis 10mo ago
  > by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." Side note: The self contradiction in adjacent sentences is so funny to me! It says a lot about the lack of mental coherency of the author and of the intended audience. But I'm not 100% sure I follow your point, this is an editorial from way back in 2014, from a UK site not a US site. Though this could be published in the Guardian, I don't think a supporter of Maduro's government would get any TV time. Search long enough and you will find supporters and detractors of all governments in the US, and openly doing it, because that's what the US's principles are supposed to allow. I remember in SF a political group which is half-mainstream, the DSA, starting a Maoist reading group, which caused a local uproar. That's particularly notable in SF, a city that has a very large Chinese population, with many of the families in SF to flee Mao himself! The original assertion was that the US had one voice, without any opposition, in its media. While the viewpoints that make it into the mainstream media are somewhat narrow, you can find nearly every viewpoint somewhere on the Internet in the US.

hex4def6 10mo ago

If you're talking about Chavez, I'd disagree quite strongly. But even Maduro had his western-based supporters, at least in the early years; for example this op-ed in the Guardian: "Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere – it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezuela-protests-not-ukraine-class-sturggle https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezu...

epistasis 10mo ago
> by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." Side note: The self contradiction in adjacent sentences is so funny to me! It says a lot about the lack of mental coherency of the author and of the intended audience. But I'm not 100% sure I follow your point, this is an editorial from way back in 2014, from a UK site not a US site. Though this could be published in the Guardian, I don't think a supporter of Maduro's government would get any TV time. Search long enough and you will find supporters and detractors of all governments in the US, and openly doing it, because that's what the US's principles are supposed to allow. I remember in SF a political group which is half-mainstream, the DSA, starting a Maoist reading group, which caused a local uproar. That's particularly notable in SF, a city that has a very large Chinese population, with many of the families in SF to flee Mao himself! The original assertion was that the US had one voice, without any opposition, in its media. While the viewpoints that make it into the mainstream media are somewhat narrow, you can find nearly every viewpoint somewhere on the Internet in the US.