997
The US Media is equally complicit (discuss.online)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 10 months ago (19 children)

They are afraid to publish. Not complicit or just partially or whatever. But everyone is afraid, because they know they will be attacked and they know when they'll be attacked nobody will want or be able to help them.

That's not exactly complicit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That fear that stops them from helping others is the same fear that condemns them. I’d give them a break 80 years ago, but we know how to defeat fascism this time (solidarity, always).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I’d say that’s still compliance. They have every legal right to post that, and a history of free press. Caving to the fascist regime is compliance.

    If you don’t have a press that dares to report, then what good is it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    They are in it for the long haul. If they break trust now, no one will ever trust them again.

    The press has been doing this forever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    So, by not doing their job and caving to a fascist authoritarian regime, they've retained trust? They're part of the fascist authoritarian regime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    I think the previous poster was talking about "trust" in the sense of the politicians and fatcats trusting those newspapers, rather than in the sense of the public trusting them.

    Certainly it's the only way that post makes any logical sense since a newspaper that choses to selectivelly hide unlawful actions by the Politicians from the public cannot be trusted by the public, but they certainly look much more trustworthy to said politicians and the moneyed elites who own them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    You're part of the regime, too.

    You're still paying taxes and obeying the law.

    And even if you go out and start throwing bombs, you'll be providing them with an excuse to be even worse.

    Life isn't a video game with easy answers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You do understand that they take taxes out of your paycheck before they give it to you right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I was thinking about this scenario

    Supposed the press had announced the attack. Trump would have gone ahead anyway, and arrested the 'traitors.'

    Nothing would have changed, except maybe a few more US troops would have died.

    Anything wrong with my analysis?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    You're presupposing they would have 1) done it anyway and 2) at the same time it actually happened. They may have reconsidered their attack or delayed it. The delay could have given opportunity for the dynamics to change.

    Arresting journalists from a huge news company would come with some blowback. The internal weighing of that potential blowback and how it affects the regime's relations could have changed things. At the very least, it complicates things for them further - stalling them, making them waste time on listening and responding and managing the media to craft the narrative.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 28 points 10 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I'd argue 404 media, Meidas Touch (sp?), a number of others, they do still exist and do good work. PBS made that recent documentary despite enormous pressure to not do so.

    But I totally agree with your sentiment that by and large, US journalism is a pathetic gaggle of idiots and evil bastards... its just not quite entirely dead yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    Unlike most everyone else, it is their job to convey news. If they are too afraid to do that, then they are indeed complicit, because they are journalists, not your average civilian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    No, no, that's exactly what complicit is.

    If you have prior knowledge of an intricate and credible conspiracy to commit a crime... and you... don't do anything with that information, whereas if you had released that information, it may well have made the commission of the crime much more difficult...

    Then you are complicit with the conspiracy to commit the crime, even if you're not directly involved in carrying out the crime.

    If you friend knows your partner is cheating on you, and doesn't tell you... they're not complicit with the cheating per se, but they are complicit with keeping you in the dark about it.

    This really isn't that complicated.

    Oh, excuses? They're afraid?

    Ok, sure, yep, they have reasons to be complicit, doesn't mean they're not complicit though.

    Just following orders!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    If you have an opportunity to act and it's your fucking job to report stories of public interest, and you choose not to - you're complicit.

    Trump attacks both of them regularly already, so what are they afraid of - more name-calling? Media regulations? No. They're not afraid of journalists being imprisoned, that would be an enormous boon to their reputations. They're afraid of their owner's and executives wealth being targeted. Bezos obviously re WaPo, and the NYT is chaired and owned by a sea of corporate interests and billionaires.

    The media is supposed to be the fourth estate, but in the US it's just another corporate-captured tool serving the status quo and the billionaire class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)