4 ms·
> That was more than 20 years ago. It's hardly relevant to the journalism landscape in 2026. It is actually very relevant. If you read Chomsky & Herman's 'Manu
by einpoklum 9mo ago
> That was more than 20 years ago. It's hardly relevant to the journalism landscape in 2026.
It is actually very relevant. If you read Chomsky & Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent', you'll get examples from the 1970s and 1980s, another 20 years earlier, and you will find that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".
- palmotea 9mo ago> It is actually very relevant. If you read Chomsky & Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent', you'll get examples from the 1970s and 1980s, another 20 years earlier, and you will find that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". You're stuck in the past, and letting the (non-existent) perfect be the enemy of the good. However imperfect the newspaper industry may have been, it was a whole hell of a lot better than the mix of social media and outright propaganda that's come to replace it. Pretty soon you may have no place to find out what's going on in your city, country, or the world; except via the rumor mill and works similar to Melania. But I guess you think that's fine fine, because Chomsky & Herman said the NYT wasn't perfect?
- einpoklum 9mo ago> You're stuck in the past Am I? I'm not the one claiming that > the newspaper industry... was a ... lot better than [that which]'s come to replace it.
- palmotea 9mo agoWhat I mean by "stuck in the past" is you're stuck on old criticisms that seem more and more precious given how bad things are getting. Sure, dwell on Manufacturing Consent in the 90s when journalism was strong and better resourced. But nowadays it seems quaint, like a picky review of a fancy 5-star restaurant when the restaurant industry is collapsing and people may not be able to afford food. Journalism is collapsing, to be replaced by something worse, not better.