the Guardian that sold out Assange, Corbyn?.....
They are just as bad when it matters, they are controlled opposition.

The Guardian can be too left for me in some cases but I agree that they are more trustworthy. The fact that The Guardian was originally founded with sympathy to those killed by the government for demanding democratic reforms says it all.

It was about the press protecting themselves from any trump backlash.

The shareholders who control the media directly profit off clicks on news articles. Divisive times and chaos drive clicks.

Newscorp / Paramount / Comcast DIRECTLY PROFIT FROM A CHAOTIC TRUMP PRESIDENCY.

What part of trump's government is «"fascist" or whatever» and not fascist to you? I get that you value positive action over hate, but sorry. Let's call a government that

• Violently oppresses minorities
• Obstructs and suppresses political opposition and the press
• Disdains science, values religion
• Is built on nationalism and supremacy
• Is imperialist
• With a strong focus on The Economy, aka interests of the elite

For what it is. It's not being hateful, it's just keeping the seriousness of what's being discussed in sight.

If only they would go back to carpet bombing civilians or droning weddings under moderate non-fascist Reps or Dems like in the good old days.

Or leaked to Venezuela

If the oligarchs don't own the media, how will they guarantee public complicity in the generation of private profits?

You need privatized media. Otherwise you get socialism and 100 zillion dead people.

This Administration, the last Administration or any Administration.

In a real Democracy the Press is an independent Pillar from both the Political Pillar and Judicial Pillar, hence serving as an oversight over the other two.

This explains why in the US Politicians do whatever the fuck they want with little real pushback unless it negative affects some American Money elite or other: the Press in the US isn't at all independent.

this administration.

Sweet summer child

Not sure why this is news when they've done it before and still support it. The NYT has always been pro-imperialism. And they support queerphobes too.

Well that's what he named the group chat

Fuck the troops.

Sounds like these people need to start leaking to reputable but not yet compromised outlets like The Bulwark, Crooked Media, Majority Report, Meidas Touch, etc.

Why would they do that? These leaks came from within the Trump administration with the intention of building support for the invasion. These publications were given prior notice so they could begin building a credible defense of the administration's actions, not so that they could discourage the administration from proceeding.

Any recommendation for YT channels that don't use clickbait and fluff videos? Even Meidas seems to spam meaningless shit every few hours.

Manning leaked classified material she had taken an oath to protect, Assange published classified material without any vetting or redaction of sensitive material (like names of contacts).

Neither are really relevant to the NY Times or WaPo showing us once again that they are not really interested in holding power accountable to the public interest.

Oh, you didn't hear? They're Russian assets now, so you can't leak to them. You have to leak to a respectable newspaper that can respectably kill the story.

probably back in Moscow?

Their leader was very pro trump so I'm not sure they'd be helpful

The way you describe it, its an authoritarianism problem before anything else.

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).

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?

Fear is complicity.

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.

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!

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.

Coercion I believe is the word used in court.

Almost like the rico case had a point

Ok so they're cowards and also complicit.