Interesting story in the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ws-white-house
Will be interesting to see this story unfold. I mean, Fox is clearly the closest thing the US has to state media, but this story predates some of the worst insanity.
Interesting article. (Note that Fox retired its "Fair and Balanced" motto in 2017.)
Fox News used to be seen as the 'conservative alternative' to the 'liberal media', and would routinely cover Republican Party politics in a favorable light, with a positive spin. Now it's just a cog in a propaganda machine, along with Sinclair News and conservative talk radio, that pumps Trump.
Fox News rightly became known as Faux News....but now Trump routinely relies on Fox News for his 'daily briefings' and calls everything else Fake News. Irony is dead
State media != media that likes the POTUS. If it did we'd see CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC all be called state media during the Obama years. Also Shepherd Smith and Neil Cavuto have both bashed Trump at times.
I read this story yesterday on the way back from Londonistan and found it interesting, but weak. The jaw-dropping case of the article seems to be-
1) News organizations have a particular core audience that is narrower than the majority population (achem The New Yorker). They throw red meat to that core audience in various ways.
2) Media barons like Rupert Mudroch allow content (EG anti-immigration coverage on Fox) that is antithetical to their personal beliefs and this somehow is a bad thing.
3) TV news is terrible.
By far my favorite "but somehow this is different" part of this story was this part:
:rolleyes:Quote:
At the 1960 Democratic National Convention, Philip Graham, the co-owner of the Washington Post, helped broker a deal in which John F. Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. But now a direct pipeline has been established between the Oval Office and the office of Rupert Murdoch
***
Wait, Aimless, you live in a place that has state media. The thread title wouldn't seem to be an insult to you. :weird:
I can't speak for Sweden, but our state media is (far) less connected to/controlled by the government than your non state media. That should show you how extreme this is and which is the point you conveniently left out from your 3 points.
I'm sure you understand what the term "state media" usually connotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I find it pretty rich that y'all think having a large media organization funded by the state isn't itself part of the bureaucracy.
Drive an hour outside of London and you get nothing but nine BBC radio stations and something Welsh. :rolleyes:
Okay, now I'm confused. Are you really unironically confusing the concept of "state media" with the very different concept of "public sector media"?
Are you suggesting they are that different? :bulb:
Of course they are different. The term "state media" connotes high degree of editorial control/influence on the part of the state. Public sector media in the west is editorially independent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
So can you provide me examples of Leftist run state media during the Obama or Clinton years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I guess your hire car didn't have a working radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Dread used y'all as a pejorative, that's pretty rich :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Drive an hour outside any major US city and see what you get on the radio....
https://gizmodo.com/report-national-...oth-1833395379
No, Dread, it's not normal for a media company to pay big money for an embarrassing story just to kill it (in the case of Trump) or use it to go after the president's opponents. This is the kind of practice we see in dictatorships. And it's embarrassing that you're once again pretending this is business as usual. Do you even believe the things you post here?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-hacking-storyQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Slight difference between a reporter willingly doing something and the owner of a company ordering all his reporters to do something. You really need to up your whataboutism game, Lewk.
Speaking of state media: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/form...t-company.html
There are some differences (scale for instance) but IMO it would largely be the same thing. That's not what happened according to the story that Lewk links to, though, even if the writer of that story opines that it is. A reporter did not bury a story. A guy researching for a book discovered something while writing that book on a broader subject and he reasonably (and ethically) chose to hold onto the information until it could be used to sell his book. There is no reasonable expectation for someone (even someone who usually works in the "fourth estate") to rush to the presses with literally anything that might be newsworthy that they discover while they're not on the clock with their day-job . If he'd been writing an article (or a series of articles) on this group for Reuters it would be different. But you are being paid (or paying yourself, as you are when writing a book you hope to sell) for content in another medium, the reasonable expectation is that it goes there, not on the wire. The information is being released now because it plugs the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The book is available for preorder with vendors and (surprise) Amazon tracks it as their best seller in the category. Hey Lewk, this is the precious free market at work, doing things exactly as they are supposed to be done. Why is that something you might find objectionable? Can you show me where the Enquirer's efforts to spend their money to kill stories on Trump is a free-market endeavor for standard profit-seeking?
lol I guarantee you that if the reporter uncovered juicy Cruz shit they would have pushed it. The problem as always is bias when the vast vast majority of journalists not only are liberal minded but choose to try to help their preferred party win you have issues. Individual actors may of course do their own thing and it shouldn't be illegal, just like politicians rightfully destroying the credibility of the press is also not illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm sure he would. Since Cruz didn't have anything to do with the topic he was writing the book about, it would be the only ethical way to monetize the time and effort for that incidental research. Why do you hate the Free Market, Lewk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Also, there's a difference between a story where all sources refuse to go on record without an embargo and a story where you not only have the sources, but buy the rights for the purpose of not reporting it.
Once again simply because I disprove of something doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. That's the difference between me and you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yeah but the ethics of something only being on the record in the future is the sort of thing Lewk doesn't care about at all. Professional ethics are just a stupid idea keeping him from getting what he wants, unless they're too his advantage in a specific situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Who said anything about illegal? We're talking about ethics. Well, ethics and the fact that you only like the free market when it's a buzzword you can abuse and not when it leads to behavior you don't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Wow, just wow. Looks like we haven't hit rock bottom yet.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-7...president-everQuote:
According to the poll, 78 percent of Republicans who watch Fox News believe Trump has accomplished more than any other president in history.
But we keep digging! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think it's a mistake for Democrats to shun the Fox network for presidential debates. Understandable, because Fox & Friends has become Trump TV, but it's short-sighted, and just feeds their narrative that 'liberals hate free speech'. It's literally 'free' to have political debates on any cable network. And a decent chunk of Fox watchers that aren't Trumpian sycophants are probably undecided/swing voters.
It only took a few thousand votes, in a handful of states, to get the required electoral college votes that elected Trump. Fox played an important role, but ignoring them won't make the Democrat's message any louder. :donkey:
Yeah it doesn't come as a surprise that people lie in polls. Trump supporters just picking the option they think most helps Trump. I remember a long ass time ago when people asked groups of Muslims about the holocaust. In one poll the question was "Is the holocaust a hoax the Jews perpetrated?" Got 50+% agreeing with the statement. Another poll in the same region (different people) asked if the holocaust was a good thing. 50+% agreed with the statement. The idea is that any poll answer that painted their opponent in the worst light is the one that people circled. Everyone likes to bring up cognitive dissonance in that example but it isn't that complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
For what its worth I talk politics with a number of people in person in Texas, some are die hard Trump supporters. Not a single one of them would say he accomplished more than any other president. People lie to pollsters.
Are you calling Trump a liar? Because this is a claim he makes regularly...
Of course he is a liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And yet you find it difficult to believe that 78% of Republicans would take that claim - made repeatedly by Trump and Fox - at face value?
"Random event will happen" Ok yeah I can see that, this guy has my values so I'll believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
"Moon landing was a fake" Uh...
There is a difference between regular statements and ones that are truly ridiculous.
State media alert:
Twitter Link