You must log in or register to comment.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
I’m so glad this stuff is starting to finally bubble to the top of the public consciousness.
Now, everybody read Marx.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
Hey now. They don’t own and operate the state. They simply receive large low-interest loans to trade parcels of real estate that happen to account for the overwhelming bulk of developed property in the country. It’s you, the people, who are afforded the opportunity to meet and choose between the California Criminal Prosecutor and the New York Land Baron.
Just look out! One of them is a soulless fascist who will invoke the powers of the state to terrorize migrants, minorities, and labor activists. Meanwhile, the other is a goofy dimwit who will be too hobbled by bureaucracy to effectively delivery any of their campaign promises.
Find out which one during our Full Team Electoral Spectacle News Coverage! And remember, if the wrong person wins, you know know exactly who to blame. <JillStein.jpg>
Now, everybody read Marx.
Nice try. But I have it on good authority that learning to read makes you a Communist, so I dodged that bullet early on.
Propublica is a great nonprofit investigative journalism site that could use your support! They often partner with local news agencies to help give them interesting content and further the impact.
Their stories hold powerful entities accountable for pollution and corruption and have a really good track record of initiating legal or regulatory consequences.
Also there’s never a paywall
I also like AllSides, which I believe is part news agragator and part unbiased reporting.
It give you unbiased headlines, then links to the L/C/R articles that they come from:
And also articles like “Why CBS and Fox Selectively Editing Interviews Is Bad for Voters” that cut out the bias.
There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.
We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It’s one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.
Free to be overrun with capitalist interests.
Freedom^TM brought to you by The Panopticon Corporation. Do what you like, we’re just watching!
Also in partnership with Justice Industries. Come watch the latest Tribute to Justice as well punish the guilty LIVE! ON! AIR! If you love people getting what’s coming to them, you won’t want to miss T2J!
“Would you like to know more?”
six? wow it’s more diverse than I thought!
oh wait they all have the same values.
As George Carlin said, they don’t need to have a conspiracy to know what’s in their best interest.
That’s why uncensored social media like Mastodon, Lemmy and the wider Fediverse is so valuable, as we can get direct reports from the people around, without being filtered or censored by anyone.
I’d say the whole free software culture is about breaking free from the confines of large companies and whoever owns the communication platforms. They usually aren’t motivated by freedom and what their “users” want/need. Free software has been around since the 80s? The Fediverse is available for us, too. I’d say people who like freedom have some opportunities to enjoy it.
It doesn’t really replace proper journalism, though. For example all of the local news about my city and area sadly aren’t shared on any free platform. But it works alright for some other topics like IT news.
“It doesn’t really replace proper journalism though”
Yeah, that’s an even bigger problem that doesn’t really have much of a solution. Things like Fediverse might allow for the distribution of news outside the control of corporations but it doesn’t help in actually getting access to unbiased journalism.
I’m glad the Fediverse doesn’t have any “algorithm”. But still, it’s a filter bubble. And very biased. And it has the same issues as every other place on the internet. People like to spread emotional stuff, like to complain and mainly post negative stuff, because they’re more motivated to write something when they’re agitated. And less so in other cases… I don’t think there is a solution to this.
My current way is to (occasionally) put away my phone and talk to my neighbors and friends. See what they’re up to. But in turn that doesn’t inform me about world politics (or tech news) 😉 And to read some random forums and blogs where people write longer, and well reasoned articles. Yeah and I also consume social media (Lemmy) and regular media. And lots of Youtube. I still feel like I’m super biased. But I’m stopping myself from reading too much news anyways. I don’t think it’s been healthy for me.
It’s still extremely censored
Individual instances are, but the beauty is that you can still find one that isn’t, and interact with most other instances.
I really wish someone would develop multi-instance front-end where you could seamlessly view posts across multiple instances, even if they de-federated from each-other, without needing to switch between accounts.
Else, the account switching does create a bit of a barrier.
I hope world (where I am) doesn’t federated from ml. Because while there are some tankies on ml, I’d rather be exposed to all of it if I wish to be, without needing to jump between accounts to view multiple feeds.
Just my two cents, and obvious begging, since I can’t make these wonderful free apps and websites we’ve been blessed with. The option of switching is wonderful, which is why I am here.
All fediverse needs now is a solid, fully end-to-end encrypted, Facebook replacement (retro Facebook, where you just got posts from your friends, in order).
All fediverse needs now is a solid, fully end-to-end encrypted, Facebook replacement (retro Facebook, where you just got posts from your friends, in order
Sounds like you’re describing Friendica. I made an account forever ago, realized I didn’t actually know anybody because I was a shut in who never left the computer chair and haven’t really thought about it in like a decade
Yes, though (it seems) minus the end-to-end encryption :/
uncensored social media like
Facebook!
Yeah, it cuts both ways.
Facebook isn’t uncensored
true, 4-Chan!
much better news source!
Could we crowd source some press? How much money should a journalist who isn’t biased be making? What kind of operation costs are there?
I’m pretty sure the goal of public radio and television is basically this. Maybe see how you can help your local stations.
Yes, we’re all “free” to CONSUME
Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here’s American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you! -Bill Hicks
I’m in a book club that is reading Brave New World. Several members bristled when I pointed out that sporting events and booze are basically our equivalent of Obstacle Golf and soma.
Sadly, I haven’t read that one. I’ll add it to the reading list.
Always intended, I’m guessing. As soon as Ben Franklin realized the power to sway public opinion he must have known.
He wasn’t a stupid person.
We have state funded news where I live and I feel like it’s keeping the other commercial news channels in check in term of tone. It’s obviously not without biases but it’s a lot better than the situation in the US in my opinion.
That said the current coalition wants to cut funding to it because of the unfavourable coverage.
I still love the BBC. It’s not without bias, but still keeps largely to a culture of don’t directly lie, in an English way, so I feel I can read between the lines when they try to push a viewpoint their facts don’t support.
Bit by bit the ruin of their app is pushing me away, though.
Six perspectives is a bit better than one. And that’s only counting mainstream media, there’s plenty of good independent journalism.
Is it six different perspectives or is it one perspective by six conglomerates that are colluding?
The latter. Six billionaires’ opinions are not diverse enough.
Is it really those 6 billionaires opinions in every one of the stories their media presents every day? Seems like a stretch. I could see them imprinting their biases and blocking stories that they don’t want out, but colluding to control the narrative gives them too much credit I think. I’m lucky enough to have some decent independent journalism in my area, but I would love if there was more!
No, its called free and open because you can blog about damned near anything without getting thrown out of a window. Some small time blogs get big views so no, your premise has no merit.
Before shrugging and moving on - ask yourself if you support any smaller private media companies in any way at all - enabling them to bring you news with less bias, less agenda, and more fact checking.
It could be by viewing their ads with your ad blocker off, paying a subscription, or donating.
If you are unwilling to support any such media company in any way, I don’t think a complaint that media is all consolidated and doesn’t have your interests at heart is particularly compelling.
There used to be laws in place that prevented this, but our government is far too corrupt and were paid off to do away with them via the 1996 telecommunications act, which did several good things, but opened the doors wide open to allow conglomerations the go ahead to buy and own many more news outlets and communications outlets across the country.
And Citizens United
You see, corporate monopolies are different than the state because
They are actually much different, as the state owes you an accounting of what it does and the people decide who to vote into control of it.
Corporate monopolies are ran like fascist states.
Till you realize that you actually only have 2-3 realistic voting options in every country and that these candidates are funded and promoted by said corporate monopolies. This is in fact a necessary prerequisite for a successful election campaign. Not to mention the revolving door.
Different roles, same people.
Oh, the “no party tailor made to do exactly what I want” argument.
see, that’s still 2-3 more realistic choices than the literal corpo-fascism that forms around monopolies, but please, keep repeating the BS line literally made by anti-democratic institutions whose entire purpose is to make you a lethargic apathetic voter
“exactly what I want” is so funny to me, when those 2-3 parties are ideologically entirely opposite to me. In every core political topic they are working against what I stand for. So speak for yourself, we are not the same.
In the second paragraph we have the same old stupid false dilemma I’m tired of hearing. I’m a fascist for wanting an actual democracy more than the oligarchy we have now, that protects, serves the interests and perpetuates the existence of these monopolies right?
Also, I’m sure my critique about the revolving door, the oligarchs controlling and funding the politicians and promoting them in their media are the “lines made by anti-democratic institutions”. I’m sure they say those things and I’m sure the mega corporations are not thriving and better than ever with the system we have now lol.
Not only didn’t you answer my critique but you didn’t even acknowledge it. Did it bother you so much that I critiqued the status quo? This is one of the most bad faith answers I’ve ever gotten, good job👍
well damn, if you really can’t find a difference between the 2–3 parties, that generally means you don’t actually care much about what they do.
As for being a fascist, if you help fascists, I think you’re a fascist, and the anti voting BS does in fact help the fascist. the oligarchs control politics in large part because of the same voter apathy you are spreading right now, we had governments, be it in Europe, America, Asia, or Africa that worked against corporate interests, until people became apathetic about it.
but you claim to critique the status quo, when you don’t even understand the status quo and how we got here.
I didn’t say I don’t find differences between them, you are putting words in my mouth once again. I said that the differences are miniscule to me considering how ideologically opposite they are to me. I deeply care about what they do, if I didn’t care, I wouldn’t hate them so much. This argument doesn’t make any sense. If I don’t care about what they do, then why would I hate them?
Am I spreading voter apathy? Apathetic are the people that go vote for these two oligarchs without thinking about it ever. These fanatics are apathetic. I’m actually trying to make people think about it. I hate them and I’m explaining why it is so, I’m not apathetic about them and I don’t want people to be so, I want people to hate them as well, why is it so hard to grasp? Why do you say unrelated, wrong stuff and have me waste my time answering them? This is so clearly not what I said.
For the last part I don’t know what to say honestly. You say I don’t know how the status quo works(?) and your argument for it is some of the most vague phrases out together ever. “We had governments in Europe, America, Asia and Africa that worked against corporate interests until people became apathetic about it”. What am I supposed to say to this lmfao. No justification, nothing specified, no thought put into this, just vague, unrelated words put together.
If people like you, on the dnc payroll call me fascist(even in the most shameless way) I’m doing something right. This was such a waste of time lol
How many voting options do you have for CEO of Xitter?
What is the point of this question? My critique of the current state of “democracy” is about how undemocratic it is and why this is not a good thing and that it should be more democratic. I’m not advocating for even less democracy, I’m advocating for more. It’s not either this oligarchy we are living in, or corporatism
If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.
Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.
you think you would get anything else if you do pay? honest question. what incentive is there for “individually funded media” to report anything better? In fact, why would they NOT sensationalize stuff? it leads to better sales and a stronger reader retention.
it’s not the solution you think it is, your best bet is to go to news aggregators like ground news and even that isn’t a 100% solution.
You might be missing the point of the OP, your news aggregators is an aggregation of a story you’re being told.
you do realize that there are other news sources like DW or AZ who do publish counter to the big cooperate news outlets as well?
DW or AZ
You might want to spell those out. I follow a lot of indie journalists and I have no idea what these stand for.
Cool. Which one of those has the information about politics and laws and other news in my state that I should be paying attention to?
Because right now, as far as I can tell, it’s either state public media or one of the corporations.
they both have reporters around the world in unlikely places, go check them out yourself
They don’t have them in Indiana. And they certainly don’t have any reporting regularly on state issues.
did you actually look? or are you just assuming? because they both have an India branch
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
That is a lot of wish thinking there my friend. do you know why sensationalism works with the Google feed? because it works at getting people to consume your media. any business that relies on people consuming media wants as many people consuming said media as possible, incentivizing them to sensationalize.
You on the other hand made the moral argument in capitalism, something that should be so obviously wrong that unrealistic is an understatement. And look at you, it worked, by sensationalizing the issue of news, you now mainly consume their media.
You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.
