Kinda weird that you didn't bring up the revelations from the Fox News/Dominion lawsuit.
The discovery form that lawsuit gave us hard evidence for something most of us have suspected for a long time: that Fox has an utter disregard, and even a disdain for, the truth. As well as a startling level of coordination with the Trump White House.
Biden's disinformation board, by comparison, appears to be not much different from the fact checks you occasionally see on tweets or Facebook posts, so far as we know.
Yeah the Fox News lawsuit revelations is like the prime example of OP’s point, yet I don’t understand why it wasn’t included yet the fucking Twitter files were.
Fox News’ greatest dishonest spin has been convincing people that it’s not included in the mainstream news media despite literally being mainstream news media. Think about how many people, even liberals, implicitly exclude them from that group.
fox was founded to support republicans, is in constant deep coucil with the politicians of that party, and controls what is and is not party policy; just slipped your mind?
OP didn't bring that up because that's entirely different. The point he is aiming for is the federal government controlling what media is allowed to be put out there. Fox is just a bunch of dumbfucks shouting conspiracy until they die because they wanted to break the conservative story before Alex Jones could. Gotta make sure he gets his next stupid song.
The discovery from the Fox lawsuit isn't as damning as you think. It proves yes Fox was just making shit up for ratings. Guess what? Anyone with half a brain could tell that and all the major "news" networks haven't been news networks in years. It's just a cover your ass method. News means you must accurately report everything and if you get something wrong you are open to lawsuits. In today's 24 hour news cycle you can't afford to be accurate because by the time you'd verify anything everyone else would be on the next next next big story.
As for the disinformation board either you never read 1984 or you didn't read what their goal is. It is a unchecked group underneath the president that decide what's fact and what's fiction. With what happened with Fox, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Google do you really want to challenge what happens if say Trump got his hands on it? At least Biden is just a dumbass puppet for the entire Democrat party, but Trump has no allegiance to either party(because if you forgot this wasn't his first time running for president, this was his first time as a Republican).
> Is corporate media still reliable and trustworthy worthy in the Us
It’s not all one category of thing.
Some corporate media is trustworthy outside their biases, other corporate sources aren’t trustworthy at all.
Certainly they are more reliable than random ass people posting nonsense on social media or their own website. Or the smaller “independent” partisan sources like Breitbart.
> The biden administrations "ministry of truth". The appointed director stated their mission was to "audit and add context to private communications"
*Eyeroll*.
Okay, name a single example of something they actually did.
They talked about making a public website where they would post voting procedures (times, locations, how to register) etc. for each state. Which is basically communist socialist ANTIFA stuff.
Let’s put it this way: it’s not entirely trustworthy, but it’s still more trustworthy than many of the sources the “I don’t trust corporate media” people choose to get their news from.
It’s completely untrustworthy and anyone that believes a word out of corporate media is a naïve fool. We have multiple instances of the media lying to the public going back to the Iraq war following the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Mainstream media as an institution is completely untrustworthy; you’re griping about individual personalities.
Here’s something from corporate media. Tell me what parts are untrue, and show me your “trustworthy” source that has the “real” facts.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/31/politics/trump-indictment-what-to-know/index.html
Yeah if I were you I’d dodge all the terrible press coverage from the run up to the invasion of Iraq too.
The media also ran with the Bush admin on WMDs in Iraq. And on top of that everyone who got their reporting on Iraq so incredibly wrong ended up getting promoted in journalism while the people who got it right were pushed out of media. The institution of mainstream media rewards dishonesty and misleading the public.
No, I said that media is untrustworthy. See what you’re doing is being disingenuous. We’re not talking about CNN’s coverage of Trump’s indictment. I’m talking about the actual trustworthiness of the institution itself.
We’re talking about a mainstream media that ran with the Steele Dossier when it first came out and now they won’t even touch it with a 10 foot barge pole because the entire story was false and it was from opposition research that was paid for by the HRC campaign. Or another example; let’s talk about how the media completely lied and misrepresented what happened at the Nevada democratic convention back in 2016. They reported that chairs had been thrown around and that it was violent, none of that was true and they spun all of that out of one guy picking up a chair and then being told to put it down (which he did). Another example are the leaked emails from the 2016 campaign; Chris Cuomo said that it was illegal for people to read those emails themselves and that it was different for journalists.
I never claimed that the media can’t report things that are true; I said they’re not trustworthy as an institution. Both things can be true at the same time.
That’s not the same as saying media can’t ever report things that are true. Why are you stumping for the MSM anyway?
You’re just really naive if you take media at face value. I’m sorry if that offends your progressive sensibilities but it’s true. I have multiple examples of the media over the years misleading or lying to the public. Where exactly were you when the invasion of Iraq happened? Why are you reticent to critique the media when they’re not holding up their end of the bargain as the 5th estate?
No. Those things are mutually exclusive. Unless you’ve found a way to simultaneously believe that it can report things that are true but people would still be fools to believe it.
I’m not stumping for corporate media- I literally started by saying it’s not completely trustworthy. You’re the edgelord who came in the “they’re completely *un*trustworthy” and “you’d be a naïve fool to believe a word of it” which is a BIG difference.
No, you want them to be mutually exclusive but that doesn’t mean they are. You’re incredibly disingenuous. Yeah they are completely untrustworthy. I’ve presented multiple examples of the institution lying and promoting specific narratives that weren’t true, and you refuse to acknowledge those faults. I can bring up multiple examples of the media lying or misleading the public and you’ll still sit here talking about how they’re “not completely trustworthy” but won’t even address examples where they outright lied.
Your critique of the MSM is hollow.
Do I trust corporate media to be on my side as a working class citizen? No, never have since Clinton deregulated it and now we have six corporations in a virtual cabal promoting the distribution of wealth to the top of the pyramid.
Corporate media has unearthed many, many scandals, including Watergate. You just have to read different sources with different ideological leanings and think critically to arrive at an informed opinion.
But it's hard to beat the resources of large outlets. You don't trust them blindly, but rather read different perspectives, look for evidence, etc., and arrive at your own informed opinion.
How do people manage to trip themselves into being libertarians when they're afraid of corporate media?
Your last real example was 50 fucking years ago and each since was impotent or efforts and ideas that never formed. In reality it's the reverse, of corporate media controlling government like pharma and tobacco and oil and auto companies. And you think more deregulated corporate is the solution?
Fucking how?
Beyond the fact that the whole Biden “Ministry of Truth” is absurd conspiracy theory gibberish … your proof that the “corporate media” can’t be trusted is a bunch of sources from “corporate media”.
You can’t trust the Washington Post because it’s corporate media controlled by Biden and the reason you know that you can’t trust them is because of something you read in the Washington Post?
So your issue with most of it is the sources? I can provide you some more independent sources and FOIA links and congressional hearing links and senate.gov if you’re interested.
I’m fine with these sources since they’re legit and don’t want conspiracy theory.
But you’re missing the underlying issue with your argument. If the Biden ministry of truth was real and controlled the mainstream media, why would you find proof all over the mainstream media? Did this ministry of truth just forget constantly to control these stories?
Lol schrodinger’s government. This always amused me with the ‘COVID is fake’ people. The government is at once so meticulously competent that they can hide the fact that they’re controlling the country behind the scenes (or teaming up with other countries to control the world as it were with COVID) yet simultaneously so incompetent as to leave enough clues that anyone with access to the internet can unravel the entire thing.
It’s main character syndrome gone bezerk. It couldn’t be that there are vested interests who thrive off disunity because it is part of their business model. No, it’s that *you* are the smartest person in the world, so smart you could uncover this huge conspiracy using only a couple of Google searches.
I think a person assuming most of what is printed in corporate media is true would likely have a more accurate view of the world who believes most of what is printed in corporate media is false. I think they make a reasonable amout of honest mistakes, and the biases they do have are generally determinable with a mild amount of effort (taking those biases into consideration when evaluating the news is much more difficult, but I would wager most people who cared could tell you most of the ways the media they were consuming was biased).
I think most of your examples should not be taken seriously. The ones that should aren't any worse than what we allow of private actors who tend to be doing as much if not more harm.
I mean it was designed as a branch of the department of homeland security to, according to the former appointed director, “audit and add context to private communications”. It was actually called the DGB but many people referred to it as the ministry of Truth before the backlash allegedly pushed the current administration to end it. That’s why it is in quotation.
Thoughts on if you approve? What about the other topics?
That’s not the responsibility of government. The government should NEVER be in the role of playing “fact checker.” You’re allowing your authoritarianism to shine through.
What public interest is served by having agents of the federal government “fact checking” anyone on Twitter or any social media?
> That’s not the responsibility of government.
In the 21st century, it has to be.
Other governments use these tools to conduct information warfare on the citizens of the United States, which means the state has to engage in counterintelligence efforts like this as a part of national defense.
The government pointing out that misinformation is factually untrue isn’t making the government the “ministry of truth” that dictates all truth. It’s just using government resources to inform people of provable facts that oppose misinformation.
No it doesn’t. You are sailing very perilously to the window of full on constitutional right infringements that will chill and stifle speech.
I could give a shit what other governments do, the argument from ad populum is a terrible reason for doing anything and it’s all the more ironic that we literally do the exact same thing you’re worried about other countries doing I mean what do you think VOA is? It’s just a propaganda arm of the US government that exists to spread state propaganda to non US audiences.
I think people should be left alone and the state shouldn’t be in the business of defining truth. What are they basing their sources off of to even say whether something is true? This is the same government which lied to the American people about Iraq and what was actually happening in Afghanistan. Who fact checks the fact checker? Does the fact checker have political/ideological motivations? Well since it’s the government automatically politics and ideology are at the center for motivations in making decisions. What you’re proposing is more harmful than whatever theoretical harm this solution would supposedly solve.
I have lived long enough in this century to say that the federal government can never be in the position of fact checker because it is itself one of the largest purveyors of outright lies and disinformation that it’s almost laughable you think they could be taken seriously in that role.
> No it doesn’t. You are sailing very perilously to the window of full on constitutional right infringements that will chill and stifle speech.
The US government releasing the 21st century equivalent of a PSA doesn’t “chill and stifle” first amendment protected speech.
> I could give a shit what other governments do,
You might not care about them, but they do “care” about you. They want you pushing anti-American narratives here within the US and will target you specifically with propaganda designed to get you believing that.
That’s something a democracy has to be able to counter in the 21st century to be able to survive. Micro targeted propaganda—and automated targeted propaganda—is only going to get worse as foreign governments get more proficient with social media propaganda.
> I think people should be left alone and the state shouldn’t be in the business of defining truth.
That’s an anti-democracy position in the modern world. If democracies don’t take steps to actually protect democratic processes and protect actual useful political expression—which includes combatting misinformation—they’re not going to survive this century.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea.
What it actually was going to be was a government website with factual information regarding things like voting procedures, vaccine locations, economic information etc. Quite literally just making factual information readily available to the public so they can go to one centralized location and find basic information rather than going on Twitter where conservatives have routinely lied about voting times, locations, procedures, as well as vaccination mandates, safety protocols, etc.
It’s not the government’s responsibility to be the arbiter of what is true. You can dress this up however you like whether it’s a website etc, the fact is you’re still trying to use the government in a way that it doesn’t have the need or authority to serve and will assuredly be abused. Who fact checks the fact checker?
Do you not think the government is also capable of lying/misleading people on their own websites? I’m not really seeing how this fixes anything.
>Do you not think the government is also capable of lying/misleading people on their own websites?
Of course they are capable. They aren't the "arbiters of everything true". It's a website with factual information.
Who decides that the information is factual? The government does. Do you see how that might be a problem? The government is acting as an arbiter of truth because we have evidence of the government repeatedly lying about a lot of things like the efficacy of wearing masks for Covid and using social media companies to promote narratives about Covid. And you want to embolden the government to have a position to lie/do that even more.
You wouldn’t want this under a president like Trump, so why are you stumping for it now? This could/would absolutely come back to bite liberals and progressives in the ass.
>Who decides that the information is factual? The government does. Do you see how that might be a problem?
We quite literally already have that. Have you ever been on a government website?
Have you ever looked up the time/location of a meeting for the Planning Commission or another department? Or gone on [www.dmv.com](https://www.dmv.com) to get the hours and address? That's what this is.
>You wouldn’t want this under a president like Trump, so why are you stumping for it now?
I would not care if someone put up a website showing how and where to vote. Or vaccine locations. The difference is I'm not a baseless conspiracy theorist.
>The government is acting as an arbiter of truth because we have evidence of the government repeatedly lying about a lot of things like the efficacy of wearing masks for Covid and using social media companies to promote narratives about Covid.
Lol ohhhhhh this makes sense now. Goodbye sweetie.
No, we don’t have that. There is nothing like what you’re talking about that exists for “fact checking.” Providing information about a public meeting is not the same as government factually checking things individual people on social media say.
What you’re talking about fact is checking American citizens on the things they post online. Most Americans don’t want that and even if they did it would still be a bad idea just with popular consensus.
We’re not talking about a website with polling locations. We’re talking about the government fact checking individual people online for things they say.
And yeah masks don’t work, yet it doesn’t stop the CDC from recommending them even without a shred of credible evidence. You can choose to believe that they do work, and you’d vigorously with an authoritarian streak support online censorship from the government on that.
>Providing information about a public meeting is not the same as government factually checking things individual people on social media say.
Which was never going to happen.
>What you’re talking about fact is checking American citizens on the things they post online. Most Americans don’t want that and even if they did it would still be a bad idea just with popular consensus.
No that's what **you're** talking about. Some imaginary omnipresent government agency "fact checking" you.
>And yeah masks don’t work
The studies disagree.
>You can choose to believe that they do work, and you’d vigorously with an authoritarian streak support online censorship from the government on that.
They do work. Your uncle Cleetus' Truth Social rants don't outweigh the data.
My concerns about the trustworthiness of the so-called 'corporate media' has nothing to do with government meddling and everything to do with sensationalism, algorithm-based audience pandering, and the need to find profit in a society that increasingly expects the news to be free.
Your examples are just silly though. There has never been a 'ministry of truth', Biden briefly proposed to specifically counter foreign propaganda and got punched in the face for it, the NDAA made no meaningful change (and it's ludicrous to suggest that no US government propaganda was directed at the population between the 50s and the 2010s), and the ridiculous 'Twitter files' were just embarrassing for all involved.
You’re using twitter files as evidence to your claim? I’m not sure I can take this post seriously when you’re citing the fucking twitter files lmao.
Your post would be way more credible if you used the recent Dominion Lawsuit against Fox News where they show evidence of Fox Anchors not believing a fucking word that’s coming from their mouth. But no.
His point is that outrage over Twitter files is laughable. At no point did the government compel Twitter to, or not to do, anything. Yet it is presented by Conservatives as if the government was forcibly censoring the news to protect Joe Biden. Which is nowhere near the truth.
To let you know that nobody will take you seriously if you’re using the Twitter Files. Especially since Twitter is not “Corporate Media”, it’s a social media platform. While your argument is revolving around news publication.
What makes you think it was ever reliable and trustworthy? The Hearst newspapers were so full of sensationalism and agenda-driven lies that Hearst once bragged "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war" in relation to what was going on in Cuba at the time. He then proceeded to fulfill that promise using his papers to push us into the Spanish-American War.
> The biden administrations "ministry of truth".
Sorry, you've been fed a load of bull. This isn't meddling. This is literally just a department for reviewing what people are being told and correcting misinformation if they see it, through their own channels and press releases.
This has zero impact on "corporate" media.
Then being “corporate” is enough to shake my faith in them.
But right wingers aren’t being honest about the problems they have with corporate media, so there’s little overlap in our complaints
No media is "trustworthy." That's why media literacy is so important. You can trust the Wall Street Journal to have a more conservative bias than The New York Times, but you can still rely on both of them for relatively accurate information, you just have to account for their biases.
And it's not like non-corporate media is free from bias. Just like with the name-brand news outlets, you have to take a nuanced approach to how you handle information. And that nuance is hard for some people (of all political persuasions) who tend to see the world in black and white.
It's good to be aware of the things you mentioned, but unless you're going to travel to Ukraine or Ethiopia or France to get a first-hand perspective on current events, you have to rely on organizations like news outlets that have a greater reach than you do, or on services like Twitter and Telegram that can connect people from around the world.
No single news source should be relied upon exclusively
Use multiple sources, cross check, use common sense and critical reasoning, be skeptical of extreme or abnormal claims, study and understand biases and spin
Also, be sure to understand the difference between reporting of facts, interpretation of facts, speculation and opinion
No. I don’t understand why a lot of liberals here have decided to trust mainstream corporate media at a time when we know for a fact that they have lied/mislead repeatedly about numerous things just in the last 3 years alone. Either you trust corporate media or you don’t. Can the corporate media report things that are true? Sure, nobody disputes that. That however doesn’t mean you should necessarily trust what you hear implicitly.
And this is the fundamental problem corporate media has. It has repeatedly failed to act in its responsibility to hold accountable government from things like the Iraq war to our current tax payer subsidized proxy war sandbox in Ukraine. I’ve not seen any real critical or investigative journalism to actually see what’s happening, they’re just taking talking points from the state department.
We have a corporate media that is unwilling and unable to uphold its end of the bargain as the 5th estate, as far as I’m concerned their check isn’t worth any credit to me.
Corporate Media exists to tell you how to feel about certain points, not to actually tell you what's going on. I think it's been a long LONG time since "Corporate media" was really trustworthy, but it is handy in finding what bills I need to read.
I think pretty blatantly the left leaning media will paint the GOP as pretty bad, but the right wing media will blatantly make shit up if they think it might sell, so if I had to "Trust" anything, it'd be anything that the GOP attacks. No I don't care about government "meddling" in social media because if you get your news from social media you are already a lost cause.
Corporate media is an overly broad category; these days the list of things NOT owned by a corporation isn't that big.
Some media is pretty reliable, some isn't. I don't see a reason to assume 'corporate' means bad in practice, as there's some large media sources that are quite good.
Reliable nand trustwortyh is also a relative matter, compared to what alternatives? After all, one must get information somewhere unless one gets no information at all. There are certainly some places which are far more reliable than others. I'm fairly certain you don't have any alternatives to suggest that are actually any better at being trustworthy.
Corporate media has never been trustworthy and will never be trustworthy. They always have pro-government bias because they're the censor and pro-corporate biases because they pay the bills. That's more than a small conflict of interest and it radically distorts their agenda.
I think the more alarming trend is the trustworthiness of scientific journals.
As long as money is the catalyst, there is always a margin for error, bias and negligence.
Kinda weird that you didn't bring up the revelations from the Fox News/Dominion lawsuit. The discovery form that lawsuit gave us hard evidence for something most of us have suspected for a long time: that Fox has an utter disregard, and even a disdain for, the truth. As well as a startling level of coordination with the Trump White House. Biden's disinformation board, by comparison, appears to be not much different from the fact checks you occasionally see on tweets or Facebook posts, so far as we know.
Yeah the Fox News lawsuit revelations is like the prime example of OP’s point, yet I don’t understand why it wasn’t included yet the fucking Twitter files were.
I think we both know why.
Hahah you understand why
Fox News’ greatest dishonest spin has been convincing people that it’s not included in the mainstream news media despite literally being mainstream news media. Think about how many people, even liberals, implicitly exclude them from that group.
And it's literally the largest corporate media outlet in the US. There is nothing more mainstream than Fox.
not weird at all he avoided what he dosen't want to talk about.
I simply forgot the dominion lawsuit is all. Im upvoting though to bump for public awareness
Did you really forget? Or did it go against a narrative of yours?
>Did you really forget? I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to forget when it's so unsurprising.
No benefit of the doubt is deserved. OP just didn’t want to taint his narrative with reality.
fox was founded to support republicans, is in constant deep coucil with the politicians of that party, and controls what is and is not party policy; just slipped your mind?
OP didn't bring that up because that's entirely different. The point he is aiming for is the federal government controlling what media is allowed to be put out there. Fox is just a bunch of dumbfucks shouting conspiracy until they die because they wanted to break the conservative story before Alex Jones could. Gotta make sure he gets his next stupid song. The discovery from the Fox lawsuit isn't as damning as you think. It proves yes Fox was just making shit up for ratings. Guess what? Anyone with half a brain could tell that and all the major "news" networks haven't been news networks in years. It's just a cover your ass method. News means you must accurately report everything and if you get something wrong you are open to lawsuits. In today's 24 hour news cycle you can't afford to be accurate because by the time you'd verify anything everyone else would be on the next next next big story. As for the disinformation board either you never read 1984 or you didn't read what their goal is. It is a unchecked group underneath the president that decide what's fact and what's fiction. With what happened with Fox, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Google do you really want to challenge what happens if say Trump got his hands on it? At least Biden is just a dumbass puppet for the entire Democrat party, but Trump has no allegiance to either party(because if you forgot this wasn't his first time running for president, this was his first time as a Republican).
> Is corporate media still reliable and trustworthy worthy in the Us It’s not all one category of thing. Some corporate media is trustworthy outside their biases, other corporate sources aren’t trustworthy at all. Certainly they are more reliable than random ass people posting nonsense on social media or their own website. Or the smaller “independent” partisan sources like Breitbart. > The biden administrations "ministry of truth". The appointed director stated their mission was to "audit and add context to private communications" *Eyeroll*. Okay, name a single example of something they actually did.
They talked about making a public website where they would post voting procedures (times, locations, how to register) etc. for each state. Which is basically communist socialist ANTIFA stuff.
Let’s put it this way: it’s not entirely trustworthy, but it’s still more trustworthy than many of the sources the “I don’t trust corporate media” people choose to get their news from.
It’s completely untrustworthy and anyone that believes a word out of corporate media is a naïve fool. We have multiple instances of the media lying to the public going back to the Iraq war following the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Mainstream media as an institution is completely untrustworthy; you’re griping about individual personalities.
Here’s something from corporate media. Tell me what parts are untrue, and show me your “trustworthy” source that has the “real” facts. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/31/politics/trump-indictment-what-to-know/index.html
Yeah if I were you I’d dodge all the terrible press coverage from the run up to the invasion of Iraq too. The media also ran with the Bush admin on WMDs in Iraq. And on top of that everyone who got their reporting on Iraq so incredibly wrong ended up getting promoted in journalism while the people who got it right were pushed out of media. The institution of mainstream media rewards dishonesty and misleading the public.
No, I asked what part of that corporate media article is untrue and what’s your source with the correct information.
No, I said that media is untrustworthy. See what you’re doing is being disingenuous. We’re not talking about CNN’s coverage of Trump’s indictment. I’m talking about the actual trustworthiness of the institution itself. We’re talking about a mainstream media that ran with the Steele Dossier when it first came out and now they won’t even touch it with a 10 foot barge pole because the entire story was false and it was from opposition research that was paid for by the HRC campaign. Or another example; let’s talk about how the media completely lied and misrepresented what happened at the Nevada democratic convention back in 2016. They reported that chairs had been thrown around and that it was violent, none of that was true and they spun all of that out of one guy picking up a chair and then being told to put it down (which he did). Another example are the leaked emails from the 2016 campaign; Chris Cuomo said that it was illegal for people to read those emails themselves and that it was different for journalists. I never claimed that the media can’t report things that are true; I said they’re not trustworthy as an institution. Both things can be true at the same time.
> anyone that believes a word out of corporate media is a naïve fool. This you?
That’s not the same as saying media can’t ever report things that are true. Why are you stumping for the MSM anyway? You’re just really naive if you take media at face value. I’m sorry if that offends your progressive sensibilities but it’s true. I have multiple examples of the media over the years misleading or lying to the public. Where exactly were you when the invasion of Iraq happened? Why are you reticent to critique the media when they’re not holding up their end of the bargain as the 5th estate?
No. Those things are mutually exclusive. Unless you’ve found a way to simultaneously believe that it can report things that are true but people would still be fools to believe it. I’m not stumping for corporate media- I literally started by saying it’s not completely trustworthy. You’re the edgelord who came in the “they’re completely *un*trustworthy” and “you’d be a naïve fool to believe a word of it” which is a BIG difference.
No, you want them to be mutually exclusive but that doesn’t mean they are. You’re incredibly disingenuous. Yeah they are completely untrustworthy. I’ve presented multiple examples of the institution lying and promoting specific narratives that weren’t true, and you refuse to acknowledge those faults. I can bring up multiple examples of the media lying or misleading the public and you’ll still sit here talking about how they’re “not completely trustworthy” but won’t even address examples where they outright lied. Your critique of the MSM is hollow.
Do I trust corporate media to be on my side as a working class citizen? No, never have since Clinton deregulated it and now we have six corporations in a virtual cabal promoting the distribution of wealth to the top of the pyramid.
Corporate media has unearthed many, many scandals, including Watergate. You just have to read different sources with different ideological leanings and think critically to arrive at an informed opinion. But it's hard to beat the resources of large outlets. You don't trust them blindly, but rather read different perspectives, look for evidence, etc., and arrive at your own informed opinion.
How do people manage to trip themselves into being libertarians when they're afraid of corporate media? Your last real example was 50 fucking years ago and each since was impotent or efforts and ideas that never formed. In reality it's the reverse, of corporate media controlling government like pharma and tobacco and oil and auto companies. And you think more deregulated corporate is the solution? Fucking how?
Beyond the fact that the whole Biden “Ministry of Truth” is absurd conspiracy theory gibberish … your proof that the “corporate media” can’t be trusted is a bunch of sources from “corporate media”. You can’t trust the Washington Post because it’s corporate media controlled by Biden and the reason you know that you can’t trust them is because of something you read in the Washington Post?
So your issue with most of it is the sources? I can provide you some more independent sources and FOIA links and congressional hearing links and senate.gov if you’re interested.
I’m fine with these sources since they’re legit and don’t want conspiracy theory. But you’re missing the underlying issue with your argument. If the Biden ministry of truth was real and controlled the mainstream media, why would you find proof all over the mainstream media? Did this ministry of truth just forget constantly to control these stories?
Lol schrodinger’s government. This always amused me with the ‘COVID is fake’ people. The government is at once so meticulously competent that they can hide the fact that they’re controlling the country behind the scenes (or teaming up with other countries to control the world as it were with COVID) yet simultaneously so incompetent as to leave enough clues that anyone with access to the internet can unravel the entire thing. It’s main character syndrome gone bezerk. It couldn’t be that there are vested interests who thrive off disunity because it is part of their business model. No, it’s that *you* are the smartest person in the world, so smart you could uncover this huge conspiracy using only a couple of Google searches.
It you want to be next-level smart, pay Dinesh DiSouza $20 to watch 2000 Mules.
Sometimes. That's kind of how information works. You don't blindly reject or accept a source. Some are good. Some are bad. Most are inbetween.
I think a person assuming most of what is printed in corporate media is true would likely have a more accurate view of the world who believes most of what is printed in corporate media is false. I think they make a reasonable amout of honest mistakes, and the biases they do have are generally determinable with a mild amount of effort (taking those biases into consideration when evaluating the news is much more difficult, but I would wager most people who cared could tell you most of the ways the media they were consuming was biased). I think most of your examples should not be taken seriously. The ones that should aren't any worse than what we allow of private actors who tend to be doing as much if not more harm.
>"ministry of truth" Quoting 1984 is pretty dramatic.
I mean it was designed as a branch of the department of homeland security to, according to the former appointed director, “audit and add context to private communications”. It was actually called the DGB but many people referred to it as the ministry of Truth before the backlash allegedly pushed the current administration to end it. That’s why it is in quotation. Thoughts on if you approve? What about the other topics?
> according to the former appointed director, “audit and add context to private communications”. AKA fact checking folks on Twitter.
That’s not the responsibility of government. The government should NEVER be in the role of playing “fact checker.” You’re allowing your authoritarianism to shine through. What public interest is served by having agents of the federal government “fact checking” anyone on Twitter or any social media?
> That’s not the responsibility of government. In the 21st century, it has to be. Other governments use these tools to conduct information warfare on the citizens of the United States, which means the state has to engage in counterintelligence efforts like this as a part of national defense. The government pointing out that misinformation is factually untrue isn’t making the government the “ministry of truth” that dictates all truth. It’s just using government resources to inform people of provable facts that oppose misinformation.
No it doesn’t. You are sailing very perilously to the window of full on constitutional right infringements that will chill and stifle speech. I could give a shit what other governments do, the argument from ad populum is a terrible reason for doing anything and it’s all the more ironic that we literally do the exact same thing you’re worried about other countries doing I mean what do you think VOA is? It’s just a propaganda arm of the US government that exists to spread state propaganda to non US audiences. I think people should be left alone and the state shouldn’t be in the business of defining truth. What are they basing their sources off of to even say whether something is true? This is the same government which lied to the American people about Iraq and what was actually happening in Afghanistan. Who fact checks the fact checker? Does the fact checker have political/ideological motivations? Well since it’s the government automatically politics and ideology are at the center for motivations in making decisions. What you’re proposing is more harmful than whatever theoretical harm this solution would supposedly solve. I have lived long enough in this century to say that the federal government can never be in the position of fact checker because it is itself one of the largest purveyors of outright lies and disinformation that it’s almost laughable you think they could be taken seriously in that role.
> No it doesn’t. You are sailing very perilously to the window of full on constitutional right infringements that will chill and stifle speech. The US government releasing the 21st century equivalent of a PSA doesn’t “chill and stifle” first amendment protected speech. > I could give a shit what other governments do, You might not care about them, but they do “care” about you. They want you pushing anti-American narratives here within the US and will target you specifically with propaganda designed to get you believing that. That’s something a democracy has to be able to counter in the 21st century to be able to survive. Micro targeted propaganda—and automated targeted propaganda—is only going to get worse as foreign governments get more proficient with social media propaganda. > I think people should be left alone and the state shouldn’t be in the business of defining truth. That’s an anti-democracy position in the modern world. If democracies don’t take steps to actually protect democratic processes and protect actual useful political expression—which includes combatting misinformation—they’re not going to survive this century.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. What it actually was going to be was a government website with factual information regarding things like voting procedures, vaccine locations, economic information etc. Quite literally just making factual information readily available to the public so they can go to one centralized location and find basic information rather than going on Twitter where conservatives have routinely lied about voting times, locations, procedures, as well as vaccination mandates, safety protocols, etc.
It’s not the government’s responsibility to be the arbiter of what is true. You can dress this up however you like whether it’s a website etc, the fact is you’re still trying to use the government in a way that it doesn’t have the need or authority to serve and will assuredly be abused. Who fact checks the fact checker? Do you not think the government is also capable of lying/misleading people on their own websites? I’m not really seeing how this fixes anything.
>Do you not think the government is also capable of lying/misleading people on their own websites? Of course they are capable. They aren't the "arbiters of everything true". It's a website with factual information.
Who decides that the information is factual? The government does. Do you see how that might be a problem? The government is acting as an arbiter of truth because we have evidence of the government repeatedly lying about a lot of things like the efficacy of wearing masks for Covid and using social media companies to promote narratives about Covid. And you want to embolden the government to have a position to lie/do that even more. You wouldn’t want this under a president like Trump, so why are you stumping for it now? This could/would absolutely come back to bite liberals and progressives in the ass.
>Who decides that the information is factual? The government does. Do you see how that might be a problem? We quite literally already have that. Have you ever been on a government website? Have you ever looked up the time/location of a meeting for the Planning Commission or another department? Or gone on [www.dmv.com](https://www.dmv.com) to get the hours and address? That's what this is. >You wouldn’t want this under a president like Trump, so why are you stumping for it now? I would not care if someone put up a website showing how and where to vote. Or vaccine locations. The difference is I'm not a baseless conspiracy theorist. >The government is acting as an arbiter of truth because we have evidence of the government repeatedly lying about a lot of things like the efficacy of wearing masks for Covid and using social media companies to promote narratives about Covid. Lol ohhhhhh this makes sense now. Goodbye sweetie.
No, we don’t have that. There is nothing like what you’re talking about that exists for “fact checking.” Providing information about a public meeting is not the same as government factually checking things individual people on social media say. What you’re talking about fact is checking American citizens on the things they post online. Most Americans don’t want that and even if they did it would still be a bad idea just with popular consensus. We’re not talking about a website with polling locations. We’re talking about the government fact checking individual people online for things they say. And yeah masks don’t work, yet it doesn’t stop the CDC from recommending them even without a shred of credible evidence. You can choose to believe that they do work, and you’d vigorously with an authoritarian streak support online censorship from the government on that.
>Providing information about a public meeting is not the same as government factually checking things individual people on social media say. Which was never going to happen. >What you’re talking about fact is checking American citizens on the things they post online. Most Americans don’t want that and even if they did it would still be a bad idea just with popular consensus. No that's what **you're** talking about. Some imaginary omnipresent government agency "fact checking" you. >And yeah masks don’t work The studies disagree. >You can choose to believe that they do work, and you’d vigorously with an authoritarian streak support online censorship from the government on that. They do work. Your uncle Cleetus' Truth Social rants don't outweigh the data.
My concerns about the trustworthiness of the so-called 'corporate media' has nothing to do with government meddling and everything to do with sensationalism, algorithm-based audience pandering, and the need to find profit in a society that increasingly expects the news to be free. Your examples are just silly though. There has never been a 'ministry of truth', Biden briefly proposed to specifically counter foreign propaganda and got punched in the face for it, the NDAA made no meaningful change (and it's ludicrous to suggest that no US government propaganda was directed at the population between the 50s and the 2010s), and the ridiculous 'Twitter files' were just embarrassing for all involved.
You’re using twitter files as evidence to your claim? I’m not sure I can take this post seriously when you’re citing the fucking twitter files lmao. Your post would be way more credible if you used the recent Dominion Lawsuit against Fox News where they show evidence of Fox Anchors not believing a fucking word that’s coming from their mouth. But no.
Yes but if you think it’s irrelevant in your opinion, what about the other topics?
His point is that outrage over Twitter files is laughable. At no point did the government compel Twitter to, or not to do, anything. Yet it is presented by Conservatives as if the government was forcibly censoring the news to protect Joe Biden. Which is nowhere near the truth.
Don’t care enough, the inclusion of the twitter files is evidence enough to me that your judgement is flawed.
Then why are you here?
To let you know that nobody will take you seriously if you’re using the Twitter Files. Especially since Twitter is not “Corporate Media”, it’s a social media platform. While your argument is revolving around news publication.
What makes you think it was ever reliable and trustworthy? The Hearst newspapers were so full of sensationalism and agenda-driven lies that Hearst once bragged "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war" in relation to what was going on in Cuba at the time. He then proceeded to fulfill that promise using his papers to push us into the Spanish-American War.
> The biden administrations "ministry of truth". Sorry, you've been fed a load of bull. This isn't meddling. This is literally just a department for reviewing what people are being told and correcting misinformation if they see it, through their own channels and press releases. This has zero impact on "corporate" media.
Bro brought up Elon twitter files and expects us to take him seriously
Then being “corporate” is enough to shake my faith in them. But right wingers aren’t being honest about the problems they have with corporate media, so there’s little overlap in our complaints
Trustworthy in what sense? If the mainstream media reports that a specific thing did in fact happen, then I have no problem trusting that
No media is "trustworthy." That's why media literacy is so important. You can trust the Wall Street Journal to have a more conservative bias than The New York Times, but you can still rely on both of them for relatively accurate information, you just have to account for their biases. And it's not like non-corporate media is free from bias. Just like with the name-brand news outlets, you have to take a nuanced approach to how you handle information. And that nuance is hard for some people (of all political persuasions) who tend to see the world in black and white. It's good to be aware of the things you mentioned, but unless you're going to travel to Ukraine or Ethiopia or France to get a first-hand perspective on current events, you have to rely on organizations like news outlets that have a greater reach than you do, or on services like Twitter and Telegram that can connect people from around the world.
What is “corporate media”? Any business is a corporation. So are you saying the act of incorporating inherently corrupts?
Still? Has it ever been reliable? It’s concentrated nature and it’s commercial attention grabbing interests have always made it unreliable.
No single news source should be relied upon exclusively Use multiple sources, cross check, use common sense and critical reasoning, be skeptical of extreme or abnormal claims, study and understand biases and spin Also, be sure to understand the difference between reporting of facts, interpretation of facts, speculation and opinion
No. I don’t understand why a lot of liberals here have decided to trust mainstream corporate media at a time when we know for a fact that they have lied/mislead repeatedly about numerous things just in the last 3 years alone. Either you trust corporate media or you don’t. Can the corporate media report things that are true? Sure, nobody disputes that. That however doesn’t mean you should necessarily trust what you hear implicitly. And this is the fundamental problem corporate media has. It has repeatedly failed to act in its responsibility to hold accountable government from things like the Iraq war to our current tax payer subsidized proxy war sandbox in Ukraine. I’ve not seen any real critical or investigative journalism to actually see what’s happening, they’re just taking talking points from the state department. We have a corporate media that is unwilling and unable to uphold its end of the bargain as the 5th estate, as far as I’m concerned their check isn’t worth any credit to me.
Nope. If the Twitter files have taught us anything it's that the government probably has its sticky fingers in every media outlet out there.
The irony when it and the others showed the reverse, that media has its fingers in government.
The twitter files bullshit is bullishit. But I don’t think you have much of s grasp on what is true or not.
The fact that you don't find the Twitter files to be a problem is troubling.
I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, especially when they are pushed by right wingers.
Corporate Media exists to tell you how to feel about certain points, not to actually tell you what's going on. I think it's been a long LONG time since "Corporate media" was really trustworthy, but it is handy in finding what bills I need to read. I think pretty blatantly the left leaning media will paint the GOP as pretty bad, but the right wing media will blatantly make shit up if they think it might sell, so if I had to "Trust" anything, it'd be anything that the GOP attacks. No I don't care about government "meddling" in social media because if you get your news from social media you are already a lost cause.
Corporate media is an overly broad category; these days the list of things NOT owned by a corporation isn't that big. Some media is pretty reliable, some isn't. I don't see a reason to assume 'corporate' means bad in practice, as there's some large media sources that are quite good. Reliable nand trustwortyh is also a relative matter, compared to what alternatives? After all, one must get information somewhere unless one gets no information at all. There are certainly some places which are far more reliable than others. I'm fairly certain you don't have any alternatives to suggest that are actually any better at being trustworthy.
Moneyed interests will never be a reliable source of information.
Corporate media has NEVER been reliable. So, no
Corporate media has never been trustworthy and will never be trustworthy. They always have pro-government bias because they're the censor and pro-corporate biases because they pay the bills. That's more than a small conflict of interest and it radically distorts their agenda.
I think the more alarming trend is the trustworthiness of scientific journals. As long as money is the catalyst, there is always a margin for error, bias and negligence.