>“This is not your publishing platform,” she warned. “This is a company that we all work for, and there’s a hierarchy in place. And at the end of the day, you have to answer to that hierarchy. If you can’t answer to that hierarchy, and you don’t listen to what we say, that is called insubordination, and it’s legal grounds for firing.”
that's a bad quote by a person who is bad at her job and who is a bad leader. the industry doesn't matter. the topic doesn't matter. the specific person doesn't matter. the company doesn't matter.
Media is hard to get right/proper, and tempering the profit motive with social strictures works when everyone is mostly in agreement (I mean inside the organization).
However when the divide is so contentious, essentially binary, appealing to only the profit motive is probably not going to get the desired results.
The whole Skydance/Paramount (Ellison) take over of Warner Bros, CBS, etc. and then installing people like Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief does _not_ help the “own the media” trope.
Corporate entertainment masquerading as news has been without integrity since the printing press, though the obviousness and doublespeak of it all has increased over time
Indeed, but the commenter is correct that the facts they have laid out do not help nix the conspiracy theories. In fact, they align to the conspiracies perfectly.
I am not agreeing with the conspiracies, but the optics here are just bad.
It’s a form of sealioning and rightly called out as trolling.
Should be some internet law that “just making an observation” and “I sincerely hold this belief and am providing this as evidence” are functionally equivalent, like a perverse inversion of Poe’s Law.
it's also accurate, so it doesnt really matter what memespeak name you want to give it. spiking stories that are rightly and accurately critical of israel doesn't help combat the perception of a zionist-controlled media. i don't believe that a couple of isolated data points rises to the level of evidence of widespread conspiracy, but again, the optics are NOT good.
It's pretty curious to call "conspiracy" a statement that is easily provable or disprovable. A large chunk if the media in the West is owned or directed by people of Jewish origins, there's nothing conspiratorial about that, it's a simple statement.
I don't care what their religion is. I care that they want to run cover for and/or promote policies that benefit a foreign nation that's interests not only do not align with mine but directly run counter to mine.
Compared to most Americans, it is safe to say that we have a Zionist mainstream media right now. The American people do not support the genocide in Gaza the media mostly does. The billionaires mostly do. We have concert tours being canceled for the temerity to say free Palestine.
its wild to me how much power aipac wields.... my house of rep in rural maryland was like "palestine has no right to exist"... like why tf does this guy give a hoot?
That's an excellent point. Overtly having an opinion on something well outside his jurisdiction is essentially proof of purchase.
It's also strongly demonstrative of the increasing gap between 'those with even a small amount of power' and 'normal people'. Said gap leads to misalignment of actions and values which, generally, only serve to further increase the size of the gap.
Topic derailment: what is the justification for anyone to say that any group of people has no right to exist?
It would be antisemitic to say that Israel has no right to exist. What anti- is it to say that Palestine has no right to exist, and why is saying one of those things media-scandal-worthy and the other send almost acceptable as a 'normal' position to hold?
Racism and bigotry either way, so far as my logic works. But then my logic has rarely helped me to understand human behavior.
It appears to be yet another word that has had it's original, quite specific and understandably literal, definition bastardized to either maintain relevance in a changing world or to serve a specific purpose. At the same time un-defining what 'semitic' once meant, or at least strongly muddying the waters for the layperson.
Well, not really- the word antisemitism has been invented in 1860s to describe aversion to Jews (both negatively and positively, as a political program), so despite the fact that technically Arabs are semites too, the word never meant anything else than what it means now.
I agree with most of your point, but it's not antisemitic to say that Israel has no right to exist. It doesn't really matter what the state religion of Israel is, the fact is that it was created through ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid and now genocide. It doesn't have a right to exist and that would be true if it was a Christian, Muslim or atheist country.
Because people he's campaigning to (like you) do. I would be quite surprised if he brought it up without any of his constituents making it obvious that they cared.
Can you imagine the (justifiable) outrage if a lobbying front for any other nation wielded this much power?
Russia? China? Any mostly Muslim country? Mexico? Even Canada or any European country?
The UK is the only other nation I can imagine being allowed to sleep on our couch rent-free and raid our fridge to this extent, and there's an incredibly deep cultural and political lineage connection there. Even with all that, if the UK had its hooks in this deep there'd be more outrage. "Didn't we throw the British crown out 250 years ago?"
Though I do have to say: there should also be more outrage at the influence of Saudi Arabia. But that one has an easy financial explanation. The net flow of cash is from SA to the US in exchange for influence and military support. In that case they're living on our couch and raiding the fridge but are paying rent for the privilege.
My Democratic rep voted to sanction the ICC for having the temerity to want to hold a trial.
I will be voting Libertarian this year. I don't give a flying fart if that means Republican control of the house; I won't support genocide. Unfortunately, until people take stands like this (i.e., cutting out the "Blue No Matter Who" BS), there will be no long term improvement in governance.
Nope, if you don't hold your rep accountable, they have no reason to be anything but epsilon better than your next best choice. Also, you are free to vote in favor of genocide if you wish; I refuse to.
I think it makes sense in the general. If you support Israel, you should not get votes. Period. It shouldn't even be hard to say "Israel has too much control over the US, we need to stop that". If a politician cannot say that, they are not working for me and I will not vote for them.
The republicans have given Israel carte Blanche while the democrats tried to hold them back somewhat.
If you are a single issue voter on IP, the democrats are your best option.
Also if you are a single issue voter for any foreign country over the issues killing people at home, you’re a traitor.
Miss me with the “supporting genocide” shit. This isn’t even the worst killing of a single people in the past decade. I don’t know why people are so brain broken that Palestine is the only thing that matters to them because they think it’s a genocide when half of them don’t even know about the Tigray war or think that what’s happening in Palestine is a genocide but what Russia is doing to Ukrainians isn’t.
You don't get to vote for someone who sanctions the ICC for doing its job and then pretend your hands are clean.
>Also if you are a single issue voter for any foreign country over the issues killing people at home, you’re a traitor.
This is a silly argument, because the main difference between my Zionist representative (he is an actual Zionist who sends his kid to Israel every summer, takes AIPAC money as his biggest single source of campaign funds, and sanctions the ICC) and the Libertarian candidate on the issues you cite is Israel.
>Miss me with the “supporting genocide” shit. This isn’t even the worst killing of a single people in the past decade. I don’t know why people are so brain broken that Palestine is the only thing that matters to them...blahblahblah
People are so "brain broken" because this has been going on under our noses for decades, and you have an environment where a psychotic leader is hitting the gas on the extermination of people while finally social media has caught up to the horrors, and we want it stopped. Furthermore, you know nothing of my stances on the other issues you cited (which are not relevant to this discussion anyway, because it is about my rep's stance on Israel).
Lastly, what school of logic exists in which "because there are other mass killings, this isn't a genocide" is a valid proposition? Oh yeah, it's called WHATABOUTISM.
This isn't true. More Palestinians were killed during the Biden admin than the Trump admin. They're both equally bad on Israel.
> Also if you are a single issue voter for any foreign country over the issues killing people at home, you’re a traitor.
There are plenty of domestic issues tied to being anti-Israel. It's the Zionists who are traitors. I don't need anti-BDS laws, my tax dollars going to Israel, Zionist consolidation of media... these are issues for Americans to deal with. I agree with the parent post. I'm not voting for Democrats until they lay out a crystal clear plan on how they're going to de-Zionize our country.
Bari Weiss being out in charge of CBS and then immediately engaging in manipulation of the narrative isn’t helping me believe in one political factions screaming about censorship for me.
>“This is not your publishing platform,” she warned. “This is a company that we all work for, and there’s a hierarchy in place. And at the end of the day, you have to answer to that hierarchy. If you can’t answer to that hierarchy, and you don’t listen to what we say, that is called insubordination, and it’s legal grounds for firing.”
that's a bad quote by a person who is bad at her job and who is a bad leader. the industry doesn't matter. the topic doesn't matter. the specific person doesn't matter. the company doesn't matter.
bad leadership.
Media is hard to get right/proper, and tempering the profit motive with social strictures works when everyone is mostly in agreement (I mean inside the organization).
However when the divide is so contentious, essentially binary, appealing to only the profit motive is probably not going to get the desired results.
The whole Skydance/Paramount (Ellison) take over of Warner Bros, CBS, etc. and then installing people like Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief does _not_ help the “own the media” trope.
For context, because swingboy is being oblique, Ellison and Weiss are both Jewish and the word omitted before "own the media" is Jews.
Let's drop the labels and state the facts, there are a group of people who are using the media to push an agenda that is covering up atrocities.
Atrocities on both sides don't negate that atrocities are happening.
Editors hold a high integrity position, these ones are not apparently operating with integrity.
Corporate entertainment masquerading as news has been without integrity since the printing press, though the obviousness and doublespeak of it all has increased over time
Indeed, but the commenter is correct that the facts they have laid out do not help nix the conspiracy theories. In fact, they align to the conspiracies perfectly.
I am not agreeing with the conspiracies, but the optics here are just bad.
It’s a form of sealioning and rightly called out as trolling.
Should be some internet law that “just making an observation” and “I sincerely hold this belief and am providing this as evidence” are functionally equivalent, like a perverse inversion of Poe’s Law.
it's also accurate, so it doesnt really matter what memespeak name you want to give it. spiking stories that are rightly and accurately critical of israel doesn't help combat the perception of a zionist-controlled media. i don't believe that a couple of isolated data points rises to the level of evidence of widespread conspiracy, but again, the optics are NOT good.
It's pretty curious to call "conspiracy" a statement that is easily provable or disprovable. A large chunk if the media in the West is owned or directed by people of Jewish origins, there's nothing conspiratorial about that, it's a simple statement.
I don't care what their religion is. I care that they want to run cover for and/or promote policies that benefit a foreign nation that's interests not only do not align with mine but directly run counter to mine.
I'd say you're projecting. Reading the parent comment I understood it to simply mean "reactionaries", nothing more.
Compared to most Americans, it is safe to say that we have a Zionist mainstream media right now. The American people do not support the genocide in Gaza the media mostly does. The billionaires mostly do. We have concert tours being canceled for the temerity to say free Palestine.
its wild to me how much power aipac wields.... my house of rep in rural maryland was like "palestine has no right to exist"... like why tf does this guy give a hoot?
That's an excellent point. Overtly having an opinion on something well outside his jurisdiction is essentially proof of purchase.
It's also strongly demonstrative of the increasing gap between 'those with even a small amount of power' and 'normal people'. Said gap leads to misalignment of actions and values which, generally, only serve to further increase the size of the gap.
Topic derailment: what is the justification for anyone to say that any group of people has no right to exist?
It would be antisemitic to say that Israel has no right to exist. What anti- is it to say that Palestine has no right to exist, and why is saying one of those things media-scandal-worthy and the other send almost acceptable as a 'normal' position to hold?
Racism and bigotry either way, so far as my logic works. But then my logic has rarely helped me to understand human behavior.
> What anti- is it to say that Palestine has no right to exist…
Arabs are semites too so ironically I think the term is still anti-semitism
It appears to be yet another word that has had it's original, quite specific and understandably literal, definition bastardized to either maintain relevance in a changing world or to serve a specific purpose. At the same time un-defining what 'semitic' once meant, or at least strongly muddying the waters for the layperson.
Well, not really- the word antisemitism has been invented in 1860s to describe aversion to Jews (both negatively and positively, as a political program), so despite the fact that technically Arabs are semites too, the word never meant anything else than what it means now.
I agree with most of your point, but it's not antisemitic to say that Israel has no right to exist. It doesn't really matter what the state religion of Israel is, the fact is that it was created through ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid and now genocide. It doesn't have a right to exist and that would be true if it was a Christian, Muslim or atheist country.
Because people he's campaigning to (like you) do. I would be quite surprised if he brought it up without any of his constituents making it obvious that they cared.
Could he even find Palestine on a map?
Can you imagine the (justifiable) outrage if a lobbying front for any other nation wielded this much power?
Russia? China? Any mostly Muslim country? Mexico? Even Canada or any European country?
The UK is the only other nation I can imagine being allowed to sleep on our couch rent-free and raid our fridge to this extent, and there's an incredibly deep cultural and political lineage connection there. Even with all that, if the UK had its hooks in this deep there'd be more outrage. "Didn't we throw the British crown out 250 years ago?"
Though I do have to say: there should also be more outrage at the influence of Saudi Arabia. But that one has an easy financial explanation. The net flow of cash is from SA to the US in exchange for influence and military support. In that case they're living on our couch and raiding the fridge but are paying rent for the privilege.
My Democratic rep voted to sanction the ICC for having the temerity to want to hold a trial.
I will be voting Libertarian this year. I don't give a flying fart if that means Republican control of the house; I won't support genocide. Unfortunately, until people take stands like this (i.e., cutting out the "Blue No Matter Who" BS), there will be no long term improvement in governance.
Nah fuck that. The republicans are worse for Palestine. And that’s before you get into all the damage they are doing at home.
You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Nope, if you don't hold your rep accountable, they have no reason to be anything but epsilon better than your next best choice. Also, you are free to vote in favor of genocide if you wish; I refuse to.
That's a more effective strategy in the primaries. It doesn't make much sense in the general. Hopefully your district isn't all that close.
I think it makes sense in the general. If you support Israel, you should not get votes. Period. It shouldn't even be hard to say "Israel has too much control over the US, we need to stop that". If a politician cannot say that, they are not working for me and I will not vote for them.
The republicans have given Israel carte Blanche while the democrats tried to hold them back somewhat.
If you are a single issue voter on IP, the democrats are your best option.
Also if you are a single issue voter for any foreign country over the issues killing people at home, you’re a traitor.
Miss me with the “supporting genocide” shit. This isn’t even the worst killing of a single people in the past decade. I don’t know why people are so brain broken that Palestine is the only thing that matters to them because they think it’s a genocide when half of them don’t even know about the Tigray war or think that what’s happening in Palestine is a genocide but what Russia is doing to Ukrainians isn’t.
You don't get to vote for someone who sanctions the ICC for doing its job and then pretend your hands are clean.
>Also if you are a single issue voter for any foreign country over the issues killing people at home, you’re a traitor.
This is a silly argument, because the main difference between my Zionist representative (he is an actual Zionist who sends his kid to Israel every summer, takes AIPAC money as his biggest single source of campaign funds, and sanctions the ICC) and the Libertarian candidate on the issues you cite is Israel.
>Miss me with the “supporting genocide” shit. This isn’t even the worst killing of a single people in the past decade. I don’t know why people are so brain broken that Palestine is the only thing that matters to them...blahblahblah
People are so "brain broken" because this has been going on under our noses for decades, and you have an environment where a psychotic leader is hitting the gas on the extermination of people while finally social media has caught up to the horrors, and we want it stopped. Furthermore, you know nothing of my stances on the other issues you cited (which are not relevant to this discussion anyway, because it is about my rep's stance on Israel).
Lastly, what school of logic exists in which "because there are other mass killings, this isn't a genocide" is a valid proposition? Oh yeah, it's called WHATABOUTISM.
This isn't true. More Palestinians were killed during the Biden admin than the Trump admin. They're both equally bad on Israel.
> Also if you are a single issue voter for any foreign country over the issues killing people at home, you’re a traitor.
There are plenty of domestic issues tied to being anti-Israel. It's the Zionists who are traitors. I don't need anti-BDS laws, my tax dollars going to Israel, Zionist consolidation of media... these are issues for Americans to deal with. I agree with the parent post. I'm not voting for Democrats until they lay out a crystal clear plan on how they're going to de-Zionize our country.
[flagged]
Bari Weiss being out in charge of CBS and then immediately engaging in manipulation of the narrative isn’t helping me believe in one political factions screaming about censorship for me.
The Twitter files were just projection.
Republicans cry "muh first amendment" whenever they can, and then buy entire news stations to censor the writers and editors.
Fascism in plain sight.
And ban from the white house the ones they haven't yet bought.
Not just in playing sight, but reveling in it like pigs in mud.
[dead]
[flagged]