6 ms·

Which is an easier explanation to believe? 1. The "media" got together and said to each other, "We better not cover this story at all, because it will give too

Which is an easier explanation to believe? 1. The "media" got together and said to each other, "We better not cover this story at all, because it will give too many people dangerous ideas" or 2. Media outlets individually (particularly in the US) decided not to cover the actions of the Icelandic government because they think most of their viewers don't care much about Iceland and/or because "check out what has slowly been happening in Iceland over the past 5 years" isn't much of a breaking news story. This story has been covered, but just because it isn't to the extent that you wish it was covered does not mean a conspiracy must exist. NPR did a story on Iceland just two days ago: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/01/170867071/episode-435-a-new-mom-and-the-president-of-iceland http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/01/170867071/episode-...

yuvadam 14y ago
Those are not the only two options, you know. There is a systematic method to deciding which stories are covered by MSM outlets and which aren't. It is not a coincidence that most outlets chose not to cover the Iceland story, regardless of it being a very small country. Not everything is a "conspiracy", and failure to acknowledge that there are certain forces at play is a blatant misunderstanding of the role MSM plays in public brainwashing.
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  There isn't a single piece of substance in what you just said, just a bunch of vague proclamation and accusations about "public brainwashing" by the "MSM". Your post reads exactly like a hand-wavey paranoid conspiracy theorist except you're saying you're not a conspiracy theorist. Maybe you should be a bit more specific instead of this rambling nonsense about how you are enlightened and all the regular people are brainwashed.
  - readme 14y ago
    Because it's possible, it must be true! Who cares if there's no hard evidence.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      Besides, the simplest answer is that "the media" is selfish, desperate, and cheap. Original coverage, coverage that requires remote HQs, deep coverage is not a priority and those departments were probably axed ten years ago.
      - alexqgb 14y ago
        "Selfish, desperate, and cheap." Yes, exactly. As someone who knows the media world better than he'd like to, I cannot think of a more succinct or generally applicable characterization. You, sir, have nailed it.
        illuminate 14y ago
        Thanks for the opinion, I'm well outside of that but would love to find good sources with more signal than noise.
        alexqgb 14y ago
        I'd like to stress that this is by no means a fair characterization of all the people who work in media. There are a awful lot who push against this current every day. Some of them (on occasion) win. But it tends to be a fight, and the victories invariably seem like minor miracles. When they're not winning (which is frequent), and thinking "what the fuck am I doing here?" (also frequent) chances are good that whoever or whatever they're getting snowed by can be fairly described just the way you did.
    - elemenohpee 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Case_examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Case_examples Just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
      - readme 14y ago
        Same argument can be used to provide plausibility for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, and God.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- brown9-2 14y ago
  My point is that the forces at play likely have much more to do with what each outlet individually decides their audience is interested in and/or what would make a good story for them. Media institutions are much more interested in their own bottom line (and ratings/readership/etc) than anything else.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Are you suggesting the possibility that Rupert Murdoch might secretly be a liberal, just with a keen sense for business? While profit may always a motive, I suspect it's a very rare media entity that is objectively focused on profit.
    - elemenohpee 14y ago
      If they are not, market theory would predict that they would be replaced by entities that are.
      - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
        But we're surrounded by evidence that efficient market theory is not how the world works.
        elemenohpee 14y ago
        But that doesn't stop the ideologues in power from running companies as if it is.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Again, this is easier explained by the MSM not being interested in enlightening its readers, watchers, and listeners versus advertorials, PR puff pieces, and infotainment. Does this make it easier to spout and circulate propaganda points? Certainly. Is the shallow, provincial coverage sign of a greater conspiracy? Not in context of the rest of the coverage being terrible, no. I wouldn't say you're "wrong", but the rest of their coverage is as incomplete and fact free as how they approach things that may not reflect their ideological bent :)
notlisted 14y ago
Is your name Ockham? If not, you must be a dear friend (as am I). I salute you!
- p3d4nt 14y ago
  His name would be William from Occam.
richardlblair 14y ago
In a lot of countries (including the USA) mainstream news can only show what the government allows them to... ...in this case I would not be surprised if the government essentially told news outlets not to tell the story.
- theorique 14y ago
  In a lot of countries (including the USA) mainstream news can only show what the government allows them to [citation needed]
- jschuur 14y ago
  So the government has mysterious shadow figures that communicate with tens of thousands of newspapers, TV and radio stations and major news web sites, telling them what not to cover, and somehow this has never gotten out?
AutoCorrect 14y ago
or 3: individual media outlets know that if they cover this they will incur the wrath of their advertisers and go bankrupt, so they don't cover it.
- ajays 14y ago
  Exactly. Most media feed from the same trough; and they'd do anything to maintain that status quo. Especially in these tough times, when newspapers are failing and the radio/TV business model is in dire straits thanks to alternative news sources like the Internet.
elemenohpee 14y ago
How would the media know that their viewers don't care about Iceland if they never told their viewers about Iceland in the first place? I don't understand why people insist on using the "shadowy figures gathering in smokey rooms" straw-man, Herman/Chomsky's propaganda model has been around for 25 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
- readme 14y ago
  I would be interested to know what percentage of average American TV news viewers could locate Iceland on a map if it was not labeled.
  - SG- 14y ago
    The same people likely couldn't point out a lot of other 'big' countries/continents or even US states, so I don't see what that argument proves.
    - readme 14y ago
      My point is that TV news caters to the lowest common denominator of brains so they aren't going to tell everyone about a country they can't locate on a map. That is of course, unless, there are "terrorists" there, or Israel is involved.
  - grey-area 14y ago
    That would say something about the state of American education rather than the state of Iceland, if so.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Because as a general rule, Americans don't care about anything that happens in a foreign country, with four narrow exceptions: 1) we care about the pomp and circumstances surrounding the British royalty (weddings, deaths, etc) 2) we care about what happens in Israel 3) we care about events that make us feel morally superior (rapes in India) 4) we care about things that could affect us (terrorists in Afghanistan, EU's sovereign debt crisis, etc) American media doesn't even cover what happens in major European countries like the U.K. or France or Germany, much less in minor ones. And it's not just among regular people. Even educated, well-informed people generally don't care about what happens abroad. It's just American exceptionalism at work. We feel we are so dramatically different from anyone else, either in other countries or in other times, that nothing that happens in those other places could possibly have any relevance to us. The idea that we would look to other countries for ideas on how to solve domestic problems is completely alien to us.
patrickk 14y ago
"2. Media outlets individually (particularly in the US) decided not to cover the actions of the Icelandic government because they think most of their viewers don't care much about Iceland and/or because "check out what has slowly been happening in Iceland over the past 5 years" isn't much of a breaking news story." It's highly relevant because of the stark contrast in the manner in which Iceland prosecuted the bankers like the criminals they are, versus the crazy manner in which bankers are treated in the US and Europe. One law for the corrupt, rich, and connected bankers, and much harsher laws for ordinary people who are not connected, wealthy and powerful (e.g. individuals targeted for illegal downloads versus bankers blowing up the global economy causing untold economic hardship). This sends out a strong message from a government to it's electorate: fuck you, you miserable peasant. Not only will you go along with these bailouts, you'll cheer loudly for your bought candidate when he's re-elected. I'm from Ireland, and we should have copied Iceland to the letter. The difference is we're in the EU and our government is happy to be Angela Merkel's little bitch, and take the pain (sovereign debt burden) to maintain the illusion that everything is rosy in the garden. Iceland even had the balls to crowd-source it's new constitution, giving real, tangible power to it's people (you couldn't even imagine this in most countries). Talk about real democracy compared to crony capitalism: http://gigaom.com/2012/10/22/icelanders-approve-their-crowdsourced-constitution/ http://gigaom.com/2012/10/22/icelanders-approve-their-crowds... Great article on Iceland from Michael Lewis (Wall Street on the Tundra): http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland2...
- arnarbi 14y ago
  Icelandic here. What bankers did we prosecute? As far as I know, only two people of minor importance have been prosecuted. And we didn't "crowd-source" our constitution (which hasn't been changed yet, btw). The committee of 25 people simply maintained a website where they could collect opinions. They had no significance other than being input to the work of that committee. But I suppose many Icelandic are happy to let this kind of misunderstanding propagate, rather than explaining how we messed up the election of those 25 people, how their suggestion for a new constitution is actually only "advice" for the parliament, and how nothing has happened yet as we still have the same old constitution. We also don't like to mention that there is little wrong with our old constitution. It's pretty standard. The suggestions for the new one, as far as the banking crisis goes, are about more transparency in government. Other changes are about different things (such as ownership of natural resources, etc.) There is a lot of misinformation and hype in the foreign media around how Iceland has handled the crisis. As an Icelander living abroad, talking about this topic mainly consists of telling people "actually, that's not what happened..".
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
Yeah, I'm having a hard time buying the conspiracy theory here. Iceland's entire population is the equivalent of 2 or 3 larger neighborhoods in Chicago. Its just not pressing news. Its a small and unimportant country. I doubt most Americans could find it on an unlabeled map. Not to mention, parliamentary style governments are always being torn down and rebuilt as different blocs of power emerge. Things can change fast, especially if that country also does direct democracy referendums. That's a feature, not a bug and very different to the more stable and conservative style of government the US was built on. Also, a screen blocking "join us on facebook" dhtml pop-up? Wow. Another example of the hostile web here.
- elemenohpee 14y ago
  They took the exact opposite course during the financial crisis and experts from the IMF and other Nobel laureates have credited that for their remarkable recovery. As our economy continues to flounder, I don't buy that this is something everyone should not at least be aware of.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    >"They took the exact opposite course during the financial crisis" They are a tiny country who nationalized their banks, stiffed creditors, implemented unnecessary austerity measures and devalued their currency. I'm not sure they're a model for US economic policy.
    - elemenohpee 14y ago
      Obviously the circumstances are different, you wouldn't use this as a one-to-one model, but that doesn't mean there aren't things we can learn, and it certainly doesn't justify the scant media coverage. Creditors were left to deal with the mess that they were complicit in creating while ordinary people who just wanted a house to live in were freed from crushing debt. Some limited austerity measures were put in place that didn't cut into core social spending. The people were taken care of while financiers were told to take a hike, and just as all the experts didn't predict the crash, none of them predicted Iceland's recovery. Maybe the big lesson here is that economists don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and there are other factors in play than neoclassical theory. That is why this hasn't received coverage, because it would lead to self-reflection that would make those in power uncomfortable.
Alex3917 14y ago
I think a bigger question is why didn't the US media cover the creation of the EU. I seem to remember that the day that that happened, it warranted all of a paragraph or two somewhere near the back of the NYT.
nextparadigms 14y ago
I think most of the media entities decided individually that they are better off not covering this, for whatever reason that serves their masters.
rdtsc 14y ago
3. Those behind large media conglomerates all happen to have the same rules, incentives and culture. Certain stories are collectively suppressed not just because "they wouldn't be interesting to US public" but because it would undermine certain assumptions and values that are held in the large corporate culture. Read "Manufacturing Consent" book for a more thorough explanation on how the system works. (It works on individual level -- journalists and corporate --- certain stories are suppressed by the owners).
WayneDB 14y ago
You should really read about Operation Mockingbird. I was just listening to WBAI on my way to lunch and they were talking about it along with MK Ultra and Operation Northwoods. These are not conspiracy theories, these are facts.

yuvadam 14y ago

Those are not the only two options, you know. There is a systematic method to deciding which stories are covered by MSM outlets and which aren't. It is not a coincidence that most outlets chose not to cover the Iceland story, regardless of it being a very small country. Not everything is a "conspiracy", and failure to acknowledge that there are certain forces at play is a blatant misunderstanding of the role MSM plays in public brainwashing.

cynicalkane 14y ago
There isn't a single piece of substance in what you just said, just a bunch of vague proclamation and accusations about "public brainwashing" by the "MSM". Your post reads exactly like a hand-wavey paranoid conspiracy theorist except you're saying you're not a conspiracy theorist. Maybe you should be a bit more specific instead of this rambling nonsense about how you are enlightened and all the regular people are brainwashed.
- readme 14y ago
  Because it's possible, it must be true! Who cares if there's no hard evidence.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Besides, the simplest answer is that "the media" is selfish, desperate, and cheap. Original coverage, coverage that requires remote HQs, deep coverage is not a priority and those departments were probably axed ten years ago.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      "Selfish, desperate, and cheap." Yes, exactly. As someone who knows the media world better than he'd like to, I cannot think of a more succinct or generally applicable characterization. You, sir, have nailed it.
      - illuminate 14y ago
        Thanks for the opinion, I'm well outside of that but would love to find good sources with more signal than noise.
        alexqgb 14y ago
        I'd like to stress that this is by no means a fair characterization of all the people who work in media. There are a awful lot who push against this current every day. Some of them (on occasion) win. But it tends to be a fight, and the victories invariably seem like minor miracles. When they're not winning (which is frequent), and thinking "what the fuck am I doing here?" (also frequent) chances are good that whoever or whatever they're getting snowed by can be fairly described just the way you did.
  - elemenohpee 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Case_examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Case_examples Just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    - readme 14y ago
      Same argument can be used to provide plausibility for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, and God.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
brown9-2 14y ago
My point is that the forces at play likely have much more to do with what each outlet individually decides their audience is interested in and/or what would make a good story for them. Media institutions are much more interested in their own bottom line (and ratings/readership/etc) than anything else.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Are you suggesting the possibility that Rupert Murdoch might secretly be a liberal, just with a keen sense for business? While profit may always a motive, I suspect it's a very rare media entity that is objectively focused on profit.
  - elemenohpee 14y ago
    If they are not, market theory would predict that they would be replaced by entities that are.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      But we're surrounded by evidence that efficient market theory is not how the world works.
      - elemenohpee 14y ago
        But that doesn't stop the ideologues in power from running companies as if it is.
illuminate 14y ago
Again, this is easier explained by the MSM not being interested in enlightening its readers, watchers, and listeners versus advertorials, PR puff pieces, and infotainment. Does this make it easier to spout and circulate propaganda points? Certainly. Is the shallow, provincial coverage sign of a greater conspiracy? Not in context of the rest of the coverage being terrible, no. I wouldn't say you're "wrong", but the rest of their coverage is as incomplete and fact free as how they approach things that may not reflect their ideological bent :)

notlisted 14y ago

Is your name Ockham? If not, you must be a dear friend (as am I). I salute you!

p3d4nt 14y ago
His name would be William from Occam.

richardlblair 14y ago

In a lot of countries (including the USA) mainstream news can only show what the government allows them to... ...in this case I would not be surprised if the government essentially told news outlets not to tell the story.

theorique 14y ago
In a lot of countries (including the USA) mainstream news can only show what the government allows them to [citation needed]
jschuur 14y ago
So the government has mysterious shadow figures that communicate with tens of thousands of newspapers, TV and radio stations and major news web sites, telling them what not to cover, and somehow this has never gotten out?

AutoCorrect 14y ago

or 3: individual media outlets know that if they cover this they will incur the wrath of their advertisers and go bankrupt, so they don't cover it.

ajays 14y ago
Exactly. Most media feed from the same trough; and they'd do anything to maintain that status quo. Especially in these tough times, when newspapers are failing and the radio/TV business model is in dire straits thanks to alternative news sources like the Internet.

elemenohpee 14y ago

How would the media know that their viewers don't care about Iceland if they never told their viewers about Iceland in the first place? I don't understand why people insist on using the "shadowy figures gathering in smokey rooms" straw-man, Herman/Chomsky's propaganda model has been around for 25 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

readme 14y ago
I would be interested to know what percentage of average American TV news viewers could locate Iceland on a map if it was not labeled.
- SG- 14y ago
  The same people likely couldn't point out a lot of other 'big' countries/continents or even US states, so I don't see what that argument proves.
  - readme 14y ago
    My point is that TV news caters to the lowest common denominator of brains so they aren't going to tell everyone about a country they can't locate on a map. That is of course, unless, there are "terrorists" there, or Israel is involved.
- grey-area 14y ago
  That would say something about the state of American education rather than the state of Iceland, if so.
rayiner 14y ago
Because as a general rule, Americans don't care about anything that happens in a foreign country, with four narrow exceptions: 1) we care about the pomp and circumstances surrounding the British royalty (weddings, deaths, etc) 2) we care about what happens in Israel 3) we care about events that make us feel morally superior (rapes in India) 4) we care about things that could affect us (terrorists in Afghanistan, EU's sovereign debt crisis, etc) American media doesn't even cover what happens in major European countries like the U.K. or France or Germany, much less in minor ones. And it's not just among regular people. Even educated, well-informed people generally don't care about what happens abroad. It's just American exceptionalism at work. We feel we are so dramatically different from anyone else, either in other countries or in other times, that nothing that happens in those other places could possibly have any relevance to us. The idea that we would look to other countries for ideas on how to solve domestic problems is completely alien to us.

patrickk 14y ago

"2. Media outlets individually (particularly in the US) decided not to cover the actions of the Icelandic government because they think most of their viewers don't care much about Iceland and/or because "check out what has slowly been happening in Iceland over the past 5 years" isn't much of a breaking news story." It's highly relevant because of the stark contrast in the manner in which Iceland prosecuted the bankers like the criminals they are, versus the crazy manner in which bankers are treated in the US and Europe. One law for the corrupt, rich, and connected bankers, and much harsher laws for ordinary people who are not connected, wealthy and powerful (e.g. individuals targeted for illegal downloads versus bankers blowing up the global economy causing untold economic hardship). This sends out a strong message from a government to it's electorate: fuck you, you miserable peasant. Not only will you go along with these bailouts, you'll cheer loudly for your bought candidate when he's re-elected. I'm from Ireland, and we should have copied Iceland to the letter. The difference is we're in the EU and our government is happy to be Angela Merkel's little bitch, and take the pain (sovereign debt burden) to maintain the illusion that everything is rosy in the garden. Iceland even had the balls to crowd-source it's new constitution, giving real, tangible power to it's people (you couldn't even imagine this in most countries). Talk about real democracy compared to crony capitalism: http://gigaom.com/2012/10/22/icelanders-approve-their-crowdsourced-constitution/ http://gigaom.com/2012/10/22/icelanders-approve-their-crowds... Great article on Iceland from Michael Lewis (Wall Street on the Tundra): http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland2...

arnarbi 14y ago
Icelandic here. What bankers did we prosecute? As far as I know, only two people of minor importance have been prosecuted. And we didn't "crowd-source" our constitution (which hasn't been changed yet, btw). The committee of 25 people simply maintained a website where they could collect opinions. They had no significance other than being input to the work of that committee. But I suppose many Icelandic are happy to let this kind of misunderstanding propagate, rather than explaining how we messed up the election of those 25 people, how their suggestion for a new constitution is actually only "advice" for the parliament, and how nothing has happened yet as we still have the same old constitution. We also don't like to mention that there is little wrong with our old constitution. It's pretty standard. The suggestions for the new one, as far as the banking crisis goes, are about more transparency in government. Other changes are about different things (such as ownership of natural resources, etc.) There is a lot of misinformation and hype in the foreign media around how Iceland has handled the crisis. As an Icelander living abroad, talking about this topic mainly consists of telling people "actually, that's not what happened..".

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

Yeah, I'm having a hard time buying the conspiracy theory here. Iceland's entire population is the equivalent of 2 or 3 larger neighborhoods in Chicago. Its just not pressing news. Its a small and unimportant country. I doubt most Americans could find it on an unlabeled map. Not to mention, parliamentary style governments are always being torn down and rebuilt as different blocs of power emerge. Things can change fast, especially if that country also does direct democracy referendums. That's a feature, not a bug and very different to the more stable and conservative style of government the US was built on. Also, a screen blocking "join us on facebook" dhtml pop-up? Wow. Another example of the hostile web here.

elemenohpee 14y ago
They took the exact opposite course during the financial crisis and experts from the IMF and other Nobel laureates have credited that for their remarkable recovery. As our economy continues to flounder, I don't buy that this is something everyone should not at least be aware of.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >"They took the exact opposite course during the financial crisis" They are a tiny country who nationalized their banks, stiffed creditors, implemented unnecessary austerity measures and devalued their currency. I'm not sure they're a model for US economic policy.
  - elemenohpee 14y ago
    Obviously the circumstances are different, you wouldn't use this as a one-to-one model, but that doesn't mean there aren't things we can learn, and it certainly doesn't justify the scant media coverage. Creditors were left to deal with the mess that they were complicit in creating while ordinary people who just wanted a house to live in were freed from crushing debt. Some limited austerity measures were put in place that didn't cut into core social spending. The people were taken care of while financiers were told to take a hike, and just as all the experts didn't predict the crash, none of them predicted Iceland's recovery. Maybe the big lesson here is that economists don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and there are other factors in play than neoclassical theory. That is why this hasn't received coverage, because it would lead to self-reflection that would make those in power uncomfortable.

Alex3917 14y ago

I think a bigger question is why didn't the US media cover the creation of the EU. I seem to remember that the day that that happened, it warranted all of a paragraph or two somewhere near the back of the NYT.

nextparadigms 14y ago

I think most of the media entities decided individually that they are better off not covering this, for whatever reason that serves their masters.

rdtsc 14y ago

3. Those behind large media conglomerates all happen to have the same rules, incentives and culture. Certain stories are collectively suppressed not just because "they wouldn't be interesting to US public" but because it would undermine certain assumptions and values that are held in the large corporate culture. Read "Manufacturing Consent" book for a more thorough explanation on how the system works. (It works on individual level -- journalists and corporate --- certain stories are suppressed by the owners).

WayneDB 14y ago

You should really read about Operation Mockingbird. I was just listening to WBAI on my way to lunch and they were talking about it along with MK Ultra and Operation Northwoods. These are not conspiracy theories, these are facts.