4 ms·

No, the difference is that in the west you can access Russia Today (http://www.rt.com http://www.rt.com) and China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/ http:

No, the difference is that in the west you can access Russia Today (http://www.rt.com http://www.rt.com) and China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/), state-owned propaganda channels who delight in publishing anything that would make the U.S. look bad, and in China you can't access the NYT which helped break the Snowden stuff. The Guardian is owned by a trust who have legal obligations based on fair and balanced reporting, and all TV news in the UK - including Murdoch's channels - have a legal obligation to not editorialised, underpinned by a legal system that's been sticking two fingers to vested interests since the Magna Carta. Your sense of perspective is broken.

mike_hearn 12y ago
Oddly, the Guardian is in fact not owned by a trust any more. It's owned by a private corporation that calls itself The Scott Trust, but it stopped being an actual trust in 2008.
- _delirium 12y ago
  That's true, though they seem to be trying to set up the corporation in a trust-like way. It has a corporate charter that prohibits dividend payments, makes it difficult to cash out any profits, requires the company to treat its newspaper assets in certain ways, etc. I don't know how bulletproof that arrangement is, though.
abalone 12y ago
The Snowden/NSA stuff doesn't fall outside of oligarchical perspectives. Tons of Silicon Valley companies for example, some of the most valuable in the world, are super anti domestic spying. The U.S. media system vigorously debates stuff that falls within the elite spectrum of opinion. But on issues that fall outside of that it is quite propagandistic. In fact that vigorous debate masks the ultimate bias of it. For example, major media is usually very nationalistic about U.S. wars. There may be some debate about how costly they are (to us) but rarely over their morality. That's why you can hold up Snowden as an example, but not the U.S. wars in the Middle East.
- peteretep 12y ago
  > doesn't fall outside of oligarchical perspectives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman > within the elite spectrum of opinion. But on issues that > fall outside of that it is quite propagandistic Occam's razor wants you to know that this means the elite have opinions on the same spectrum as the general public > major media is usually very nationalistic about U.S. > wars US TV media is recently very nationalistic about U.S. wars; certainly weren't about Vietnam, for example. Accusing the NYT of being pro-Middle-Eastern war is a reach, and NYT is both the most respected newspaper in the US, but also, CRUCIALLY, the news source that is being censored here.

mike_hearn 12y ago

Oddly, the Guardian is in fact not owned by a trust any more. It's owned by a private corporation that calls itself The Scott Trust, but it stopped being an actual trust in 2008.

_delirium 12y ago
That's true, though they seem to be trying to set up the corporation in a trust-like way. It has a corporate charter that prohibits dividend payments, makes it difficult to cash out any profits, requires the company to treat its newspaper assets in certain ways, etc. I don't know how bulletproof that arrangement is, though.

abalone 12y ago

The Snowden/NSA stuff doesn't fall outside of oligarchical perspectives. Tons of Silicon Valley companies for example, some of the most valuable in the world, are super anti domestic spying. The U.S. media system vigorously debates stuff that falls within the elite spectrum of opinion. But on issues that fall outside of that it is quite propagandistic. In fact that vigorous debate masks the ultimate bias of it. For example, major media is usually very nationalistic about U.S. wars. There may be some debate about how costly they are (to us) but rarely over their morality. That's why you can hold up Snowden as an example, but not the U.S. wars in the Middle East.

peteretep 12y ago
> doesn't fall outside of oligarchical perspectives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman > within the elite spectrum of opinion. But on issues that > fall outside of that it is quite propagandistic Occam's razor wants you to know that this means the elite have opinions on the same spectrum as the general public > major media is usually very nationalistic about U.S. > wars US TV media is recently very nationalistic about U.S. wars; certainly weren't about Vietnam, for example. Accusing the NYT of being pro-Middle-Eastern war is a reach, and NYT is both the most respected newspaper in the US, but also, CRUCIALLY, the news source that is being censored here.