I really should just keep a canned response on the quick draw for this repetitive quip.

There are obvious stopping off points between "total oblivious incompetent media just futzing around" and "behind closed doors coordinated conspiracy run by a media cabal".

There is no conspiracy. The media industry in this country (EDIT: Really worldwide) is an oligopoly of a few companies owned by still more massive companies. Large companies, even as they compete against each other, share many common interests. Just because they all pursue these common interests doesn't make it a conspiracy.

you and i had a similar exchange before, and iirc you were a little surprised to learn that i am actually pretty poor, and my family is poor. it isn't that i don't have skin in the game. that's not it at all. it's that i'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees, or however the saying goes. i don't give a **** about the crumbs the democrats wanna throw at me, that's not worth all the wars and prisons and pollution and cops and posion. **** that. it's not worth living in hell so we can have slightly better domestic policy. foreign policy is the same, clinton's might even be slightly worse than trump's.

and btw, it's not liberalism that protects me and my drinking water and my abortions, it's the rich people who live near me. rich people aren't gonna have their communities poisoned with bad drinking water

Of course it's ideology. My ideology is people matter. I'm not apologising for it.

And if you want that discussion on left-right axis, that's the left. You have no place on it if you don't start from that as an axiom, and it seems you do not.

The sheer irony of your talk of erasing women and lesbians is astonishing. I think you must have no capacity at all for self-reflection.

right if you're a fetus or billionaire

So is Birdman's view something like news agencies are specifically and or implicitly given orders about what to cover and not cover by the people who own them?

Even if the owners of the various news agencies don't agree on everything?

no

mb said they don't conspire so dezaman said I disagree I think they DONT conspire.

very enlightening discussion as you can see.

It's tacit, Birdman. I mean, it's actually quite shocking when an editor makes it explicit.

Except for the support of the people who ultimately pay for it: advertisers. That's pretty explicit.

But that's a different discussion. I am certainly not arguing that the press is not "free". I've spoken many times in this thread about the value of free speech if you don't have the opportunity to advertise it.

But I don't recall your being interested in discussing that. The underlying concepts aren't interesting to you. Just as they aren't in questions of transgender issues. All that interests you is a sneering disdain for anyone who doesn't precisely share your politics.

Just like Quintin.

lol that is not your ideology. Literally everyone thinks this, MB. Zorkman thinks this. Everyone thinks THEIR ideology is the best thing for people. Do you really misunderstand concepts this basic?

I am not sure whether he believes reporters are directed to pursue an agenda or that the agenda emerges from the type of organisation they are.

He's created some confusion by aligning himself with Luckbox and Filthy, who have expressed the former.

Filthy, would you like to reconsider your defence of Birdman's posting?

Wrong. I actually agree with it very much. In fact I've paraphrased the posts you have made to that effect to explain to irl people the nuances of what "free speech" actually means several times.

I've told you before I read almost every post in this thread and read almost everything anyone links to in the thread. Just because I don't always respond to it doesn't mean I didn't read it or find it interesting. I don't always feel like jumping in on a discussion if someone else in the thread is saying something exactly how I might say it or even better.

you can look at real life examples. the 2003 iraq invasion is an incredible example. msm was all saying "wmds! wmds! invade! invade!" indy media was all saying "not so fast"

phil donahue was on msm saying "not so fast". he was fired, and i think his show was the top rated show, or near the top for his network.

just about all the pundits who got it 100% wrong still work on all the msm networks.


bill maher on his show politically incorrect said something like "why is everyone calling the 9/11 terrorists cowards? they hijacked a plane and purposefully flew it into a building. that is not cowardly. it's more cowardly to sit on a us navy boat and push a button firing a missile to blow people up hundreds of miles away"

i don't think anyone can rationally argue that what maher said was incorrect, but he was ostracized and his career died for about 10 years.

But you can't even seem to grasp what I am now. Again, which of my positions and values are so objectional to you as king **** of left mountain?

highly relevant politics thing

The reason Amplify is right is that the "corporate agenda" is a constraint not a set of commandments. Journalists understand the environment they work in and the "rules" that circumscribe them -- and those differ from outlet to outlet. There is the potential to provide good reporting, good work, within those constraints.

In some respects, reporting constrained by the corporate agenda can be better than reporting constrained by a conspiracist agenda, because it has access to resources from and within the corporate world that are less available to Glenn Greenwald, who is forced to join dots that a reporter for the Post would often take more care not to. The Post's stories are rarely polemic.

I know this is a more sophisticated reading of corporate media than you boys are used to confronting but it's closer to the truth than believing somehow that the MSM just prints lies and can be ignored. Interpreting media critically is a difficult task. Much of its messaging tacitly relies on the fact that for most readers/viewers/listeners it's a task they are unwilling or unable to do.

well played

actually i think it's totally fair to say that "people matter" is the same thing zorkman could say about his position.

if you want to differentiate yourself from zorkman, you have to say more than "people matter"

fwiw, i think there is value in remembering that basically we all have the same agenda at heart.

100% agree

When physical property is stolen, it is no longer available for use - it is gone, lost (unless you retrieve it).

What is lost by the "theft" of culture?

Zorkman believes people should die in the street if they're not wealthy. Are we talking about the same Zorkman?

I still contend you don't get to say this when you have posted in the Pub how much money you have lost (or won) in poker and betting on cryptocurrency.

I make good money, but due to debt I am confident in saying I have less cash on hand than you at any given moment. You know how much I've lost on cryptocurrency? Not a ****ing cent, because I don't have any money to buy cryptocurrency.

You claiming poverty is an insult to people in poverty

The right to self-determination

The right to self-definition to be more precise.

Let's not get into a round of poverty dicksizing. We have all read about Filthy's struggles when he had to buy the $200 hoodie instead of the rich man's one.