I do listen to people that know about this stuff. You’re not the only person in the world that knows journalists you know. You are also putting a lot of words in my mouth and exaggerating what I’m saying. I have never ever said that all media colludes and is one big conspiracy. All I have ever said is that billionaires with money lean on media organisations to shape narratives and agendas for their own gain. If that isn’t true, why did Jeff Bezos buy the Washington post? That paper is currently putting out a torrent of anti-wealth tax articles. I’m sure if you knew someone that worked there you would be saying “no they are all honest and no one has an agenda at the Washington post”. But you are being naive. Bezos bought the post to shape social narratives. Otherwise why spend so much money. The same thing is true with every paper; every social media, every tv station. And yes I am disagreeing with your opinions specifically. Your opinions are your opinions, not reality. Just because you see the world in a certain way doesn’t make that “reality” and mean you can insult anyone who has different opinions. How can you not see that?
Funnily enough, I'm going for dinner with one of the ex editors from WP on Friday. I'm going to leave it, because I don't want to get into an argument that's tedious and circular. I like you, and it's not worth getting into this again. Apologies for not reining in my frustration earlier, but I get annoyed when I see repeated wrongs occurring.
I like you too, I am sorry my views clash so much with yours on here. I am sure if we were down the pub we’d get on like a house on fire . In your opinion, why did Bezos buy the WP if not to form public opinion on certain topics?
THE FAMOUS BIBLICAL QUOTE: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” The Bible, Exodus 20:17 (King James Version) The Tenth Commandment It's always a good idea not to covet thy neighbour's ass, that could get you into a lot of trouble.
The same question applies to the Barclay brothers, Rothermere, Murdoch, Maxwell and the rest of the press barons motives.
Yep, exactly, name any form of media or communication network and wealthy people are clamouring to buy them. It certainly isn’t because they’re extremely profitable. It’s to form and shape public opinion. And I don’t mean it’s some cartoonish evil conspiracy cabal. Its much more subtle than that imo. (Although I imagine there have been and still continues to be closed door meetings between such people.)
Hey look, you are right to a degree. I overreacted to the original post because I am so, so tired of the completely unjustified and frankly incredibly dangerous attacks on ‘the MSM’ and the general free press, that seriously undermines our society, far more than any slight nudging here or there by an owner. My outlook is somewhat coloured by the fact it’s pretty Reuters centric. I am good friends with the editor-in-chief of Reuters. My wife is the global editor for media strategy there. I KNOW, absolutely, just how hard these people work to report genuine, bias-free, truth to the world. I mean, they are obsessed with it. I listen to the global editors call every lunchtime, and the only thing that’s disappointing is how much they can’t report, because they can’t absolutely verify it. They’re that laser focussed on it being right. So when ‘the media’ gets lazily lumped together as some nefarious mass, I get defensive. Because it is lazy, it betrays a lack of knowledge, and its dangerous. Saying that, yes, the likes of Barclay, Rothermere, Bezos, Murdoch etc will have *some* agenda to follow, but it’s nowhere near as pervasive as you seem to suspect. Read any copy of The Times and you’ll get a very diverse range of opinion, from Gerard Baker through to Matthew Syed (or Caitlin Moran). There’s no overriding agenda to how that’s reported. On the general news front, how things are reported isn’t that easily influenced, but that’s for another day, as I want my dinner before the City game!
Also, ironically part of the reason that the Washington Post churns out so many absolutely garbage Op Eds is that Bezos hasn't changed anything. Fred Hiatt was, until his death a couple months ago, the editor of the WaPo editorial section for over two decades, and Hiatt's politics (and consequently many of his hires) were conservative, and consequently the editorial section ended up being a who's who of former Bush administration flacks and hires from Commentary or wherever. Hiatt offered to resign when Bezos bought the paper, so that he could shape it to his liking, and Bezos declined. Which is somewhat admirable in keeping its editorial independence, except for the part where Marc Thiessen has had a platform to spew nonsense for an additional decade.
In the immediate aftermath of the likely overturn of Roe, the House of Representatives in Louisiana has passed out of committee a bill that, among other things: https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB813/id/2549012 - Allows women who get an abortion to be charged with murder. - Allows women who get an IUD to be charged with murder, as they prevent implantation, and it declares that life begins at the moment of fertilization. - Declares that it supersedes any federal law to the contrary (this is not a thing, but states in the South have been trying the nullification idea for a good two centuries). - Declares that any judge who concludes that the law runs afoul of the state or federal constitution will be impeached. So they're already pushing the boat out further. The previous (nakedly unconstitutional) bill established penalties, albeit not the charge of murder, from the moment of implantation, but the change in verbiage means that they can also now charge people who use certain types of contraception with murder. That's directly targeted: there are absolute no abortions happening before implantation. You wouldn't even register a positive on a pregnancy test. And given that a lot of Republicans have been arguing for years that hormonal birth control prevents implantation (that's not how anything works), I'd imagine they'll have that in their sights soon as well.
I disagree with reality. Nothing unreasonable there imo, reality is deeply annoying. I'm going to listen to Syd Barrett singing about gnomes now.
I have one of those - it a dressed in Saints kit and as you walk past it it plays OWTSGMI. Oh you said singing about gnomes not singing gnomes.
My dad has a Saints gnome in the garden. He had to hide it beside the shed, because my mum is not a fan of gnomes. He's actually managed to sneak two gnomes in, the Saints one and another generic one he somehow got past the Committee. No chance he'd get away with a singing gnome...
My singing gnome is not outside as it isn't waterproof, I do though have 2 gnomes in the garden - a traditional one I got from Chattanooga in the US, and a Saints gnome. I did have a third one a MLT Saints gnome, but that got cancelled.
For those saying I’m crazy for thinking that the media shapes narratives and what people should be outraged by… The final batch of the Panama papers just dropped. Many rich and wealthy people caught in tax evasion and fraud. Have you heard a peep about it anywhere?
