3 ms·

Propaganda state run networks are for dictatorships, not democracies.

lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
The distinction between state and corporate media is generally a meaningless one. What matters is the power to shape and misshape public opinion. The American quibbling about “private/corporate vs. public/gov’t” consistently misses the point.
- thrance 7mo ago
  Your analysis is useless, irrespective of how correct it is. There are countries with a freer press that fare better. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "it's all pointless, only fools care about improving things" is detrimental to fixing this mess.
  - MarkusQ 7mo ago
    > Your analysis is useless, irrespective of how correct it is. Generally, knowing the truth is more useful than the alternative. > There are countries with a freer press that fare better. That's a non-sequitur if I ever saw squirrel. > Throwing your hands in the air and saying "it's all pointless, only fools > care about improving things" is detrimental to fixing this mess. No one said that.
- paulryanrogers 7mo ago
  The distinction is important because at least private enterprises aren't directly controlled by the government. So they have the capacity for independence, and if they choose not to flex it then another private enterprise may.
spwa4 7mo ago
That's not really accurate. I'd say in dictatorships you have one state run network ... and they grow very "confident". Most of the population doesn't believe the state network, but also doesn't have real other sources of information. Shit happens and nobody knows, like the surprise internet outages in Russia recently spreading to Moscow. In a democracy, you essentially have 5 propaganda networks, each with their own agenda. Agendas go from pure government standpoint to business standpoint, some rich individual's standpoint, religious/ideology/political parties standpoint, ... Everybody knows the big events, because the networks know they have to have some kind of coverage, as it's everywhere. This often goes right into ridiculous territory. Do you want to know the Socialist viewpoint on the recent strike in Brussels about pensions, and how in that strike the position of women compares to the position of children? Read all about it! Or don't, because of course it's 90% why all other political parties are so very, very wrong ...
t0bia_s 7mo ago
Not true. Idea of democracy as best organisation of society is false, yet supported uncritically among state funded schools, media, etc.
- dudefeliciano 7mo ago
  Any suggestions for better system? What is best, is there an objective answer?
  - t0bia_s 7mo ago
    I don't believe in best. Point was that democracy by design allows censorship. It's just a matter of majority agreement if implemented to all. To answer your question: Anything that abandons idea of centralised power with unknown electorate. History many times proves that it cause deaths of millions innocent people. Wars are possible only because idea of giving up personal responsibility for action in name of "safety, right, nation, greater good, you name it...", that centralised authority decide about.
    - dudefeliciano 7mo ago
      The way I understand it you are not against centralized power in itself, but against the unknown electorate, or lack of personal responsibility when acting in official roles (i.e. immunity). The flaw seems to be in the execution (i.e. corruption) rather than the system itself. And there should be safeguards against those (again it's about execution). I'm probably limiting myself when I compare a "Democratic West" against an "Oligarchich Russia" and an "Autocratic China", but what other forms of government are there, that would better fit your description?
      - t0bia_s 7mo ago
        It depends how you define governance. We cannot morally justify system, that by definition supports involuntary money collection, right to oppress of minority when majority decide for or accept electorate without responsibility. It is possible to pretend that it is best system we can have just because we live in society, where state has monopoly to violence, thus unhealthy obedience to authority. And it is cultivated since our childhood in state funded schools as I mention earlier.

The distinction between state and corporate media is generally a meaningless one. What matters is the power to shape and misshape public opinion. The American quibbling about “private/corporate vs. public/gov’t” consistently misses the point.

thrance 7mo ago
Your analysis is useless, irrespective of how correct it is. There are countries with a freer press that fare better. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "it's all pointless, only fools care about improving things" is detrimental to fixing this mess.
- MarkusQ 7mo ago
  > Your analysis is useless, irrespective of how correct it is. Generally, knowing the truth is more useful than the alternative. > There are countries with a freer press that fare better. That's a non-sequitur if I ever saw squirrel. > Throwing your hands in the air and saying "it's all pointless, only fools > care about improving things" is detrimental to fixing this mess. No one said that.
paulryanrogers 7mo ago
The distinction is important because at least private enterprises aren't directly controlled by the government. So they have the capacity for independence, and if they choose not to flex it then another private enterprise may.

spwa4 7mo ago

That's not really accurate. I'd say in dictatorships you have one state run network ... and they grow very "confident". Most of the population doesn't believe the state network, but also doesn't have real other sources of information. Shit happens and nobody knows, like the surprise internet outages in Russia recently spreading to Moscow. In a democracy, you essentially have 5 propaganda networks, each with their own agenda. Agendas go from pure government standpoint to business standpoint, some rich individual's standpoint, religious/ideology/political parties standpoint, ... Everybody knows the big events, because the networks know they have to have some kind of coverage, as it's everywhere. This often goes right into ridiculous territory. Do you want to know the Socialist viewpoint on the recent strike in Brussels about pensions, and how in that strike the position of women compares to the position of children? Read all about it! Or don't, because of course it's 90% why all other political parties are so very, very wrong ...

t0bia_s 7mo ago

Not true. Idea of democracy as best organisation of society is false, yet supported uncritically among state funded schools, media, etc.

dudefeliciano 7mo ago
Any suggestions for better system? What is best, is there an objective answer?
- t0bia_s 7mo ago
  I don't believe in best. Point was that democracy by design allows censorship. It's just a matter of majority agreement if implemented to all. To answer your question: Anything that abandons idea of centralised power with unknown electorate. History many times proves that it cause deaths of millions innocent people. Wars are possible only because idea of giving up personal responsibility for action in name of "safety, right, nation, greater good, you name it...", that centralised authority decide about.
  - dudefeliciano 7mo ago
    The way I understand it you are not against centralized power in itself, but against the unknown electorate, or lack of personal responsibility when acting in official roles (i.e. immunity). The flaw seems to be in the execution (i.e. corruption) rather than the system itself. And there should be safeguards against those (again it's about execution). I'm probably limiting myself when I compare a "Democratic West" against an "Oligarchich Russia" and an "Autocratic China", but what other forms of government are there, that would better fit your description?
    - t0bia_s 7mo ago
      It depends how you define governance. We cannot morally justify system, that by definition supports involuntary money collection, right to oppress of minority when majority decide for or accept electorate without responsibility. It is possible to pretend that it is best system we can have just because we live in society, where state has monopoly to violence, thus unhealthy obedience to authority. And it is cultivated since our childhood in state funded schools as I mention earlier.