10 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoThere 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 agoBecause it's possible, it must be true! Who cares if there's no hard evidence.
- illuminate 14y agoBesides, 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 agoThanks for the opinion, I'm well outside of that but would love to find good sources with more signal than noise.
- alexqgb 14y agoI'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 agohttp://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 agoSame argument can be used to provide plausibility for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, and God.
- m0th87 14y agoWait, what? The criticism that the original comment had no meat was fair. But then, when you're linked to concrete examples of the hypothesized Propaganda Model at play, you invoke a generic argument about the FSM? Do you not see how you're making the same weightless arguments by invoking a straw man?
- readme 14y agoNo, I wasn't referring to the "propaganda model" I was referring to his second comment, which btw, does not describe the propaganda model at all.
- elemenohpee 14y agoI can only assume that you missed the part where I linked to the evidence you said didn't exist?
- readme 14y agoI never said evidence didn't exist for ALL conspiracies. I said that there was no evidence in the particular article we're discussing. I know about Iran-Contra, the gulf of tonkin, etc. How about the USS liberty? Your link was very interesting.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- brown9-2 14y agoMy 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 agoAre 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 agoIf they are not, market theory would predict that they would be replaced by entities that are.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoBut we're surrounded by evidence that efficient market theory is not how the world works.
- elemenohpee 14y agoBut that doesn't stop the ideologues in power from running companies as if it is.
- illuminate 14y agoAgain, 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 :)