It’s your fucking duty. It’s why you got an ’estate’. You are a necessary facet of democracy but you need to do your part and act like it so you deserve the protections and benefits provided to you for doing so - like benefit of trust and access to politicians.
With few exceptions, you’re failing to be our eyes and ears and mouths and are instead mouthpieces for ownership and interests.
If it was just your job to make money take off the news armour (yeah you Fox) and stand naked in front of us as the liars you are.
Oof sorry. Got ranty there. It’s all getting to be too much.
Can you explain the “estate” thing like I’m a 5 year old non-American? (Only one of those is actually true, but I won’t say which one)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
Just like within actual government there’s supposed to be balance of power between different branches or houses, there’s this idea that the role of the press is to hold governments accountable.
(More of an ELI12, but that’s the gist of the idea)
Sadly, I feel like the whole “separation of powers” thing is under attack in America and elsewhere as power continues to consolidate over time - even where it pertains to branches within government. Traditional media has long been lost in many cases, and even “alternative” media is so flooded with bad actors that it’s nearly impossible to get signal through the noise.
Not to get too dour, but if media is in this state now, I hate to think of where it will be once AI starts to gain a real foothold in our political discourse. I assume we’ll start to see the effects of this really become evident this years, with American federal elections ramping up.
The author Tim Wu makes a great argument about corporate power consolidation leading to fascism in his book The Curse of Bigness. He states that leading up to WWII, nations promoted the size of their respective national champions, which in turn led to pressure for an authoritative command economy to ensure their continued dominance. It’s a great read and dire warning for the world’s current state of affairs.
Interesting, I’ve never considered that factor. I’ll have to check it out!
France had 3 estates, The Nobles, The Clergy, and the Everyone Else. Another two got added by political theory people over time. Number 4 is the journalists. Number 5 is the alt journalists.
Is there a sixth? And please don’t say alt alt journalists, because that would be very disappointing.
Aliens, man
I thought it was dead people like the sense?
Indeed, and this estate makes its will known through representatives called “Estate Agents”
Are they even real?
Interesting, I had never heard of this! That explains that show “The Fifth Estate”. I’ll have to read up on this a bit, seems like useful knowledge.
We are still undergoing the French Revolution.
You know, I thought I could but on brief search it’s… complicated.
This is the best nugget from Wikipedia that sums up the general notion I’m trying to state that the media has been afforded a role in society - and that they aren’t acting as an independent class.
The modern term the fourth estate invokes medieval three-estate systems, and usually refers to some particular force outside that medieval power structure, most commonly the independent press or the mass media.[3][4]
This commertor summarised it well
“France had 3 estates, The Nobles, The Clergy, and the Everyone Else. Another two got added by political theory people over time. Number 4 is the journalists. Number 5 is the alt journalists.”
Hey little buddy, it’s time for your nap.
This exactly. Well ranted.
If Journalists point that out and report on it, then the Republicans will refuse their interviews and to come on their shows… and they much rather have the fall of democracy, than risk losing access.
Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we don’t have time to worry about the fall of democracy when the fall of ratings is on the line!
How will advertisers sell their keto gummy diet pills if no one is watching?
This is the paradox of liberalism.
You have blue MAGA outlets like NPR that spent the last 8 years being “fair” to both sides, telling their audience the antivax fascist psychopaths are just as valid and worthy as the left trying to give people education and healthcare.
As if conservative views are even worth recognizing.
Liberalism without a STRONG left wing always ends in fascism, and the liberals are more than happy to join the fascists (see: literally all liberal discourse on Lemmy).
Guess what the US has spent the past 80 years doing. Real coincidence every time a country leans left, they are overthrown by CIA puppets.
So now you have liberals in literal tears trying to get their guy elected without even fucking understanding the issues at play. They don’t give a shit.
Not all NPRs. Boston Public Radio, or at least Jim and Marjorie, the only time I ever heard them talking about antivaxers was when Art Caplan (a weekly regular…“American ethicist and professor of bioethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine” per his Wikipedia) was tearing apart most of what they say.
But that’s more like a talk news show. You kind of expect a little bit less neutrality in that.
Art Caplan was also recently on an episode of Nova talking about ethics in modern medicine. Think it was actually about vaccination (may have been designer babies).
It’s a two party system, jabroni. If the liberals crying their tears don’t get their guy in office, who do you think DOES get into office?
newflash: Trump gets into office. Which must be your guy, right?
If you’re going to join conversations with people you might want to check your tone, as you could have the most sound argument ever but if you come across as a prick you’re going to turn people off your pov.
Be better my guy and talk to people how you would expect people to talk to your mother.
“bbbbut thuh Dems haven’t done anything to EARN my vote” and other such brain dead takes from ding dongs who don’t understand basic pragmatic logic.
* From dingdongs who are repeating – accidentally or on purpose – some bullshit that was professionally constructed to emotionally resonate and sound convincing on surface level, so that when people spread it on social media it can do its job and help Trump get elected and fuck up the country absolutely beyond recognition
The reason, that you already got some upvotes for this, shows, that Lemmy has more users who are able to read more than a couple of words.
Sadly they are the only voices trying to keep the Dems aim to the left.
Dems kept sliding right after coopting the middle with Clinton. Basically a Good Cop-Bad Cop routine.
Now there is no left, aside from Sanders.
Authoritarian to the left, fascist to the right, here we are.
If Sanders ever got the Presidency, leftists would drop him within 3 months.
Leftists want a unicorn, and they don’t exist. Until leftists realize this, they’ll be powerless. Leftism in America has spent 20 years eating itself, and now they’re surprised they have no power.
Sure, when Sanders was dominating the Democrats primary in 2016 we saw the entire county do a charachter assasination for a week straight.
It was the purest sign since Gove v Bush2 that the USA was no longer a republic nor a democracy.
AND the DNC went to court to make it explicitly clear in a court of law that voters and donors can suck a dick, we do what we want.
But “vote blue no matter who and move them left later (even though they only have ever moved right and attack anyone left of Biden WAYYYYY more than they ever have Republicans!)”
Leftist version of the Lost Cause
Your messiah didn’t have the votes. All the DNC shenanigans in the world don’t change that.
lol yeah, the whole concept of “earning” a vote screams unearned entitlement and narcissistic tendencies on part of the voter.
“The Dems aren’t liberal enough so I’m going to revenge vote tRuMp”
These people do not exist in any significant number.
Private Media’s duty is to the shareholders.
And if you look at who the big shareholders are voting for (and donating to and campaigning for) it’s the Trump GOP.
Sinclair Media, iHeartCommunications, News Corp, Amazon Media Group, Twitter…
These guys are lockstep with the conservative movement.
These groups also donate heavily to the DNC.
Play both sides, so you always come out on top.
But the folks they support are inevitably the most conservative Democrats in the bluest states. Obstructionists like Lieberman, Machin and Sinema, who exist entirely too say “No” from the inside of the party.
The end of democracy in the U.S. is not going to come from fascist conservatives, but from too-busy-with-life normies, the type who don’t vote in anything but presidential elections. They’re just too busy to notice anything other than their bills.
In their minds, they’re going to “punish” the blues for inflation while ignoring that the reds only ever made them poorer. These type of people don’t care about genocides (someone else’s problem, there’s always brown people dying, Israel is an ally etc), abortion rights (only stupid people get pregnant or only sluts need that), or trans people (that’s too weird for them). They don’t care about climate change (it’s a topic up for debate, it’s not factual), but have kids. They don’t care about workers rights, but work deadend or multiple jobs. They don’t care about getting more healthcare rights, but are a medical emergency away from bankruptcy.
I am not saying these people are dumb or callous, they need outreach and they need to be presented clearly with their options and outcomes. If you can, volunteer to sign people up to vote and present what’s at stake.
In my country, basically everyone accepts climate change, except perhaps the most conservative and those who already believe in conspiracy theories. What is going on in the US?
Those who believe in conspiracy theories have become our conservative party. Some (myself included) would argue they’ve always been there or that that’s always been the nature of the republican party. But the important thing here in the modern day is that the conspiracy theorists now control half of the country’s political system.
I’m personally of the opinion that conspiracy theory is the result of a fundamental unwillingness or inability to engage with reality. If that is the case then why on earth would you choose to believe in climate change? It’s scary, and an existential threat to humanity if it’s taken seriously. Besides, theres a lot of money to be made burning the planet.
I think at the end of the day that’s what the American right’s denial of climate change boils down to. Everyone in that party participates in some way in denying reality in favor of a collective fantasy. What’s one more denial?
Rings true, but the hard to swallow fact also is that they only think they’re “so busy with life” because they’re chasing the American pipe dream.
But but Biden didn’t personally go to Gaza to act as a human shield against Israeli shelling, so I don’t care if Trump wins!!
For those autists out there. The /s is pretty heavily implied. And we love you.
He is still approving for weapons to be sent …
So he either did even remotely satisfactory in that regard or it’s not a really big deal, right?
So, something the better journalists have to be careful with, is using neutral language even in certain clearly one-sided situations. That’s not just to not upset people on both sides; it helps to inform the truth to those who want to read carefully and critically.
If I read, “beware! The right-wingers are conspiring to make a fascist government!” then all I can do is shrug at another sensationalist conspiracy clickbait.
If I read factual details of things said, done and published by said right-wingers: it turns out I’m capable myself of seeing something is bad or good. Sure, it’s still the journalist’s job to interpret the facts to a degree, but those facts should be as transparent as possible and attaching inflammatory language, even if appropriate, often obscures that.
There is a place for opinion writers. But we need, I think, more of the less-opinioned honest truth for honest people. Even if that scares you that readers might not take up your call to arms as quickly as you think they ought.
Sorry, that went a bit off the rails, because I’m not quite sure how to express - though I still think it’s true - the important place for journalism that doesn’t call a spade a spade but tells you its shape so you can understand.
Absolutely - and I agree entirely. However - there are a lot of choices that get made with regards to words and context indicators when writing a piece (Video is a whole other box of frogs but similiar things apply).
Just sticking to text, let’s say, I’m not suggesting that the NYT should write a front page article entitled Watch Out: Crazy Trump Will Kill Us All (although, that’s upsettingly not a zero-percent chance either.)
What I am saying is that they need to stop giving trump the benefit of neutrality. That was a typical and to a small-extent-reasonable excuse they made in 2016. “Let’s see what kind of President he’ll be” and “maybe he’ll grow into it” and sorts of rationalizations that I ranted against at the time and I think was extremely validated by the subesquent nightmare of an administration.
So that’s over. Now, we know who he is - he’s the kind of guy who lies at the drop of a hat. He’ll do it by force of habit. He’s incapable of empathy. He’s so singularly focused on grabbing money (not ‘making money’ now, he doesn’t care about that), and weilding power over his perceived enemies that he’s an absolutely dismal choice for president. He staged a failed coup right in front of us. And still remains unrepentant. Anyone who’s not a complete cult member can see that.
So the NYT writing their article can use that to leverage his latest outrageousness and limit the faux-respect (he deserves none) such as “former President”. Fuck that - that’s not a “fact” as much as it is an “editorial position”. He’s also a former game show host. He’s also gone bankrupt five times. (four? five, whatever) He’s never been a billionaire. These are facts. They don’t use those. Why not.
Because. The tenor of the NYT is that they are “supposed” to be lofty - distanced - respectful. Well, they’re failing us with that. Trump is using that against them and us.
Maggie Haberman’s mom used to be trump’s publicist. And she’s the trump-whisperer? Fuck.
Same can be applied to any of the video-based services. (Minus the sniffly air of old money). I’ll try to use a future post to dive into one of the articles and really highlight it because once you see it, it’s pretty blatant they’re tipping the scales towards trump. It shouldn’t be close at all. It is because they’re doing that. On purpose.
Both sides is a falacy since for most human subjects it’s incredibly rare for there to be only two options.
Real Journalism is discussing the situation on its own implications, merits and demerits, and presenting options and explaining their pros and cons.
The whole “both sides” reporting is an artifact of it being Propaganda in a system with a Power Duopoly, so mainstream media frames all human subjects with political implications to match that polical system’s own artificially reduced set of choices so as to make it seem like that political system is well suited to deal with human subject with political implications.
(I’ve actually lived in a couple of countries with different levels of actual political freedom, from the UK which is a lot like US and arguably in some ways even less representative, to The Netherlans which has Proportional Vote, and it’s pretty much guaranteed that the way the established Press frames news closelly matches the limitations in political choices in that system)
Then if you go out of mainstream media and look at amateurs (i.e. social media posts) the way they frame subjects is also almost invariably like the Propaganda they grew up with, IMHO not because of them trying to be manipulative but because that’s all they’ve ever known and seen all around them, though the result is still that in their parroting of a sometimes more sometimes less rationalised version of somebody else’s talking points, they follow the same falacious structuring.
There are a handfull of less mainstream media who actually mostly practice Journalism and a few diamond-Journalist amongst the muck which is mainstream media, but generally well established news media will not stray away from a framing that justifies the very system that made them “established”.
Real Journalism is discussing the situation on its own implications, merits and demerits, and presenting options and explaining their pros and cons.
Agreed
The whole “both sides” reporting is an artifact of it being Propaganda in a system with a Power Duopoly
Both sides is a falacy since for most human subjects it’s incredibly rare for there to be only two options.
‘Both sides’ is also a shorthand for both or more. I like your description of “discussing the situation on its own implications…” but I think it’s common in human discourse to frame things in two main perspectives and discuss from there.
That’s because journalism has more or less lost all semblance of integrity, so it’s turned into “what cheap clickbait can I crap out today to maximize my clicks?” That’s why instead of the hard-hitting investigation and journalism we got with Watergate, we get “TRUMP = LITERAL NAZI, CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHY”
Everything should be prefaced with the fact conservatives don’t think it’s possible they can lose.
Is this a meme?
It’s the truth
Sure. But i subscribed for memes. If I wanted simplified compressed political statements I would go to twitter.
Try posting it to woodworking or knitting if themes doesn’t matter.
nerd
Journalists say this all the time. Does this guy only follow fox news?
Okay it’s Saturday May 11th, what are the stories from CNN, NBC, ABC, WaPo, and NYT (front pages please) which say that. I just checked and there weren’t any.
There’s trump-in-court, trump-in-irs-trouble, other things like “some say he shouldn’t be campaigning in a blue state on his day off from court” or whatever.
It’s not like a breaking news story. It’s got to be folded into the telling of all the other stories about him. He tried - and failed - to stage a goddamned coup for fuck’s sake.
Incompetently planned, ridiculously reasoned, as one would expect, but he did it nonetheless and I want it to say IN EVERY ARTICLE ABOUT HIM that he tried to stage a coup which failed. Interview justice officials as to what - EXACTLY- are they going to do when he does it again. What protections are in place to prevent him from gutting appointees and protections? Where are those news stories?
And why, after 2016 and everything that we’re saying here happened then, would anyone need to explain this?
Their whole framing of the story should acknowledge that he’s an enemy of the United States. He got dozens of CIA assets killed, he supported our enemy in a shooting war that’s still going on, and he tried to kill a bunch of politicians to seize power. Instead, they’re treating him like a candidate for president. Every single newspaper should be running stories about what a catastrophe it would be if someone who’s so clearly hostile to the United States managed to seize control of the United States government.
It’s like those editors from World War 2 that wanted to tone down coverage of Hitler because he’s a popular and successful leader. I mean, your statement’s not fully objectively wrong. But also, objectively, you’re missing the point.
those editors from World War 2 that wanted to tone down coverage of Hitler
Fucking bingo dude.
I guess that you’re right they cant explictly say “Trump is a facist” because they will get sued but they hint at in and imply it in so many articles. Here’s a quick search which shows what I mean about journalists talking about this. You could find 10+ of these types of posts from each of the big news sites.
Opinion: Trump’s praise of dictators tells us all we need to know
‘It’s happening right here’: The authoritarian threat to American democracy
Why does Trump keep talking like a fascist? Because it works
Twelve signs Trump would try to run a fascist dictatorship in a second term
Talk of a Trump Dictatorship Charges the American Political Debate
You could find 10+ of these types of posts from each of the big news sites.
These are good examples, but here’s the problem with them:
Opinion: Trump’s praise of dictators tells us all we need to know
This is an Opinion article, not a news article. In particular, the NYT likes to hide behind these, allowing opinion writers free rein while hedging and minimizing and normalizing the candidate in all the actual News articles.
‘It’s happening right here’: The authoritarian threat to American democracy
Likewise this is an interview with an author, not a news article.
Why does Trump keep talking like a fascist? Because it works
Another ‘editorial’, and Maddow is pretty great but sort of preaching to the choir. Not news reporting as such.
Twelve signs Trump would try to run a fascist dictatorship in a second term
Another Opinion piece, they even preface the author with “Perspective by” to distance themselves from it.
Talk of a Trump Dictatorship Charges the American Political Debate
This is the only actual news article of the bunch, and it is largely based on trumps famous ‘i’d be a dictator on the first day’ quote which was unfuckingbelievably outrageous in its own right. It’s probably worthy of a breakdown but I’d have to get past the paywall first. Also to note it’s on page 23 of the A section, not exactly front page anyway.
I’d be curious to see how libel and slander laws would apply to accuse a former president and presidential candidate of being a fascist
It’s only libel if it’s untrue.
Journalists have incredibly broad protections against getting sued for saying something like that. In general, for public or political figures, they can say whatever they want, in a way they never could against a private citizen, for exactly this reason.
There are fuzzy cases at the edges (like Bob Murray suing John Oliver), but Trump is so clearly a public figure that he can’t sue them for libel without getting laughed out of court. This is why he keeps bitching periodically about the libel laws and how we have to fix them; because they protect people’s right to talk about him and he hates that they can do that and he can’t punish them for it.
I think fascist is an ambiguous enough term to dodge libel lawsuits. How would you ever prove that someone is a fascist or not a fascist? It’s not like you get a membership card.
Well, not yet.
This is an Opinion article, not a news article. In particular, the NYT likes to hide behind these
Well that’s very much by design though. News articles are supposed to be as neutral and factual as possible, so with early newspapers a convention arose to mark any article that delivers an interpretation alongside the pure facts as an opinion piece. That doesn’t mean it’s not a news article and I actually think it’s commendable when a news source still tries to follow this convention. Many don’t anymore or never even tried to begin with.
News articles are supposed to be as neutral and factual as possible
That is the conventional thinking, however we can’t remove all perspective from a news article - it’s not technically possible. So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic that allows us to presume news agencies are in fact trying to limit any one perspective to the maximum possible while still being recognized as written communication.
But they’re not. Almost all corporate news has an agreed-upon point-of-view that they edit from. This is partially just practicality - if everyone writes to the agreed POV, then they don’t have to edit much. Things move faster when they’re in alignment.
And that agreed-upon-point-of-view is not neutral, although they possibly intended it to be read that way.
Opinion articles are there to let writers loose and say whatever - but make no mistake, news articles have opinions. Consider use of the term “environmentalist”.
As an old, I remember when it wasn’t ever a thing. And I distinctly remember hearing it for the first time - in a newscast. I remember thinking, “what? Who’s not an environmentalist? Does someone not live in an environment?” Sort of like “Oxygenists today said people aren’t breathing”.
But it was being used as a way to separate those who cared about pollution, extinction, and yes climate change, from those who didn’t.
It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us. It was a bias still in use today. Artificial and wielded as needed. Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic
Not really, it’s just a reminder that every human has inherent biases and writing an entirely neutral article is thus virtually impossible. That doesn’t mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that, and making this effort despite knowing you will fail in it is one of many indicators which can help separate serious news sources from propaganda and advertisement outlets.
Who’s not an environmentalist?
Fossil fuel companies?
It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us.
I don’t know, I see it as media needing a term to apply to a (back then) relatively new societal movement, and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.
Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
Yes. Are you? I don’t see the problem here.
Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn’t say? That’s the point.
That doesn’t mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that
How? I mean, I agree - but I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for. But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.
Who’s not an environmentalist?
Fossil fuel companies?
True, in the corporations-are-people sense, but use of the term predates that.
and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.
Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
Yes. Are you? I don’t see the problem here.
I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?
Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn’t say? That’s the point.
Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done? Again, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that.
Let’s be honest here: how many people are really still getting their news from one of those formally mainstream outlets? Not a single news outlet is in the top 50 most visited websites. Cable and satellite subscriptions are at an all-time low and nobody even bothers hooking an antenna up to their TV anymore. We all just stream everything. And when’s the last time you’ve seen a newspaper on a driveway? I know I haven’t in over a decade.
What I’m saying is that what CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, etc. don’t report on is irrelevant, because nobody gets their news from them anymore. Most people get their news from social media and word-of-mouth.
deleted by creator
BoTh SiDeS has already gotten people killed!
On the other hand, this is all MSNBC talks about.
…why am I being downvoted?
If fascists are attempting a takeover of our government then it would be irresponsible for Biden to accept the results if he loses the election.
I read another stupid and dangerous take, look at the username, and of course.
I’m sorry I forgot we’re just supposed to let them win
Single party dictatorship is acceptable 🤣
Dude calls himself a fascist in his own comments
