201–210 of 221 posts
Sorry to use this argumentation tactic..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity? There’s a lot wrong with what SV companies do, but they don’t have the same direct power to define what is and isn’t “true” like the media does.
>"Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity?" You realize that the widely accepted idea of journalism being an essential part of a functioning democracy is not something that today's "media companies" made up right? See "The Fourth Estate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Mostly what I see is promoting one agenda or another and not much "free" about it." This is exactly what press freedom is. Anyone is allowed to own and publish a newspaper and have their own editorial policies, without government interference. That's exactly what makes it free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_Un... The word "free" in the context press freedom has zero do do with being free…
So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free). The Internet on the other hand is actually much more "free" as far as that goes. The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated. We need rights, methods and opportunity to distribute information in a free society, very true (whic…
You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. The New York Times doesn't take money from special interest groups. There is no K Street lobby for Newspapers. You seem very uninformed.
>"The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated."
You don't seem to actually understand what the word "free" means in the context of "free press." "Freedom of the Press" is established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It allows the press freedom to publish any news they see fit without interference from the State. It allows the the press to publish news without fear of retribution or censorship.
The whole point in "Freedom of the press" is that it allows citizens to be informed in the case their government ever decided to grant themselves power that the people had not consented to grant them.
If you actually believe this is overstated or don't believe having that ability is essential to a functional democracy then you probably should spend some time reading a book or two about Civics. You also might want to look at the media. Or you could look at the current state of News media and democracy in places like Turkey, Russia or the Philippines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free). The Internet on the other hand is actually much more "free" as far as that goes. The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated. We need rights, methods and opportunity to distribute information in a free society, very true (whic…
>"So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free)." You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. The New York Times doesn't take money from special interest groups. There is no K Street lobby for Newspapers. You seem very uninformed. >"The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the…
No I understand very well. Perhaps it is you who have not been paying attention.
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/pesos-for-play-how-a-mexican-r...
I don't disagree with much of the rest of your post. The same protections that apply to newspapers apply to the Internet. However it's more difficult to present a more unified propaganda front (such as Iraq war rah rah from all major media some years ago) in the more distributed framework.
"The whole point in "Freedom of the press" is that it allows citizens to be informed in case their government ever decided to grant themselves power that the people had not consented to grant them."
That may be the intent. But when we see unified propaganda fronts (such as Iraq, Russia or Syria issues) it becomes apparent this has failed in the case of old media and thus it is no protection at all against the above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free). The Internet on the other hand is actually much more "free" as far as that goes. The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated. We need rights, methods and opportunity to distribute information in a free society, very true (whic…
>"So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free)." You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. The New York Times doesn't take money from special interest groups. There is no K Street lobby for Newspapers. You seem very uninformed. >"The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free)." You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. The New York Times doesn't take money from special interest groups. There is no K Street lobby for Newspapers. You seem very uninformed. >"The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the…
"You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions.... Doesn't take money from special interest.." No I understand very well. Perhaps it is you who have not been paying attention. https://medium.com/@Cernovich/pesos-for-play-how-a-mexican-r... I don't disagree with much of the rest of your post. The same protections that apply to newspap…
It doesn't sound like you understand what you are talking about at all honestly.
Carlos Slim is just an investor who bought publicly traded stock class A NYT Stock. The New York Times has a dual sock structure and class A has no voting right. Carlos Slim also doesn't have a seat on the board of directors either. Your assertion the NYTimes is pushing Carlos Slim's agenda is completely absurd. That flimsy Medium post you linked to seems to omit these facts. So I will outline them here with citations:
The New York Time is controlled by the the Ochs-Sulzberger family dynasty and has been and has been since the end of the 19th century.
Ownership of the NY TImes:
"In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[36] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[83] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares." [1]
"Slim has bought large quantities of the company's Class A shares, which are available for purchase by the public and offer less control over the company than Class B shares, which are privately held.[2]
And an actual member of Sulzberger family is still the publisher:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/sulzberger-nyt/
That medium post you linked is pretty shoddy and not quality journalism. It also contains zero citations for any of the the figures it throws around. Perhaps you should learn to read more critically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity?" You realize that the widely accepted idea of journalism being an essential part of a functioning democracy is not something that today's "media companies" made up right? See "The Fourth Estate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate…
Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely. The difference between mainstream choices is essentially just which corporate agenda you prefer. The impact of that is a lot broader than micro targeted Facebook ads. That might sway an election, but the media has a role in selecting the candidates and defining their policies that Facebook ads don't. David Frum once said "Republicans originally thoug…
How have they perverted the idea exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also grew up reading Snow Crash wink Some things just don't make sense to me. Why are the default settings for something like Facebook public? Why not friends by default?
Why are people using there real names. Facebook requires a valid looking name not your real name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A post ignoring the examples I gave immediately appears Not sure what you mean. Am I supposed to only reply if I disagree? Just because I did't express disagreement with your examples doesn't mean I didn't read them. Your question that summarized the examples was: "Why is it that folks think that paying for a product somehow fixes this?" My answer was: "Because that is a necessary condition (although not sufficient…
> "Because that is a necessary condition (although not sufficient)." I think it's at best a loose correlation. And as an example: the CFPB doesn't offer pay-to-play but does a good job of its work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely. The difference between mainstream choices is essentially just which corporate agenda you prefer. The impact of that is a lot broader than micro targeted Facebook ads. That might sway an election, but the media has a role in selecting the candidates and defining their policies that Facebook ads don't. David Frum once said "Republicans originally thoug…
>"Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely." How have they perverted the idea exactly?