Original Post:

wNKS3BvvSc8isAa.jpeg

I asked, concisely and simply, what was being hidden from us. Most of them just berated me, one user claimed the Syria conflict to which I provided a link to a recent UN Statement on which quite accurately reflected the conflict start to finish. Another user claimed that the recently declassified Nixon era documents about the Chilean revolution and coup, but I was able to find a 1973 archived Newspaper accusing the Nixon Admin of having a hand in it from Times Magazine meaning it was already a mainstream theory at the time.

LD7NmaffkIAo4Au.png

https://feddit.online/post/1341994

top 79 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 10 months ago* (29 children)

I am not a tankie, but I can help you out - there are many many examples of this

  1. Some journalists will call any policy even slightly to the left of neoliberalism "socialist". This is done because the red scare taught Americans that socialism and communism are evil ideologies, despite Capitalism having a much higher death count - think of all the kids dying mining conflict minerals for our iPhones in Africa.

  2. In mainstream press, criticism is focused on individuals and policies, rather than the system itself. In any kind of financial crisis, there is never much mainstream media coverage suggesting that capitalism itself is at fault, it's always little cracks in the system. There are always going to be more cracks because it is a deeply flawed system.

  3. The media often refers to the democrats as "left wing", despite democrats being very decidedly right wing. This serves capital by shifting the overton window and preventing people realizing there is no left wing alternative in the United States.

  4. Any economic policies which acknowledges the reality, that taxes being spent on things like healthcare and education are always a net benefit to the economy, are dismissed as somehow delusional or wrong. In the mainstream press, the national budget is treated as being like a household budget, which it clearly isn't.

The mainstream media is owned by billionaires. Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Times (UK) are all owned by the Murdoch family. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. The LA Times, the Atlantic, Time Magazine, the Boston Globe, are all owned by billionaires. It's obvious that it is in their best interests to mislead us into thinking that capitalism is the best system.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Exactly. They're not hiding things in the sense of conspiracies, I don't think, rather journalists are also believers of capitalist dogma and won't question it because it never occurs to them. We need to remind people "A better world is possible" because mainstream society and media are telling them it isn't and we're just naive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -8 points 10 months ago* (27 children)
    1. Example, please

    2. In a capitalist financial crisis you receive news about who is at fault. In an authoritarian state owned financial crisis you don't receive that news because the authoritarian state run media wouldn't blame themselves.

    3. Democrats are left wing, every policy stance they hold is progressive barring some foreign affairs politics.

    4. There are countless, literally countless, articles and studies talking about the beneficial aspects of social programs in addition to aversion of suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (22 children)

    Example, please

    Obamacare, social security, medicare for all, et cetera

    Democrats are left wing, every policy stance they hold is progressive barring some foreign affairs politics.

    This I definitely don't agree with. We don't have universal health care and we couldn't get the first iteration of the IRA because the Democrats don't agree with those things (among many other massively mainstream ideas) because they are left-wing policies which will anger their donors. The only left-wing people in American politics are random isolated hotspots like Bernie or AOC who constantly have a target on their back in the media as a result.

    The Republicans are far worse than the Democrats, and oppose those fairly basic left-wing policies rabidly and unanimously instead of only being wishy-washy about them enough so we don't have them, but in almost any Western democracy, the Democrats would be the right-wing party, and a lot of the problems we have are because the vast majority of Democrats are complicit in all sorts of crimes against the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    Obamacare, social security, medicare for all, et cetera

    All of these things have been covered by the media in overwhelming detail nonstop for over a decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    I'm saying that those are things that were described as "socialism" to scare people away from supporting them (the point #1).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    They are socialism, but there are also many articles that only talk about their good points as well. Are you proposing that all western media refuses to say nice things about Obamacare and Social Security? Because I can bring up some examples for you if that's what you're saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

    I feel like this is some kind of friendly fire because the tankies got you all spun up to look for enemies lol

    There's a specific point I am answering here:

    1. Some journalists will call any policy even slightly to the left of neoliberalism “socialist”. This is done because the red scare taught Americans that socialism and communism are evil ideologies, despite Capitalism having a much higher death count - think of all the kids dying mining conflict minerals for our iPhones in Africa.
    1. Example, please

    There's a separate conversation about what are the issues that no big media in the US is willing to talk about, and how that list was in the year 2000 versus today, but that isn't this conversation. I'm literally just answering examples for point number 1, because it definitely is accurate that some (emphasized) journalists (to use the word a little bit loosely) will cover any middle-of-the-road normal Western democratic policy as "socialism" because they are wildly capitalistic. I feel like you are responding to some different point than that here, which again is fine if you want to talk about that, but it's separate from this conversation. Right? Doesn't that make sense?

    Edit: To answer your specific question, no I don't think that it is universally true that the media unanimously refused to say anything good about social security or Obamacare. I do think that it was pretty much universal that they refused to say anything good about universal health care in the mid-1990s when Clinton was trying to do it, which led to its defeat. That's sort of my central thesis in some of my other comments here, that up until about 2000 big business had a total monopoly on media in this country which led it to be pretty easy for them to defeat anything to the left of Thatcher or Reagan that tried to rear its head. When Obama tried again in 2008, they had maybe about 60% control, which was enough to lead a lot of people to hate Obamacare even up to the present day but their control had slipped sufficiently that he was able to do some weakened and distorted version of health care without it being just completely vetoed by the insurance companies because of their and their friends' control of media.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    When I said "Example, please" I wanted an Example of a subject that the "Capitalist Media" has completely kept the USA in the dark about.

    Obamacare was not a valid example. Here, have a look:

    Huffpost - "Health Care Costs Skyrocket For Millions Of Americans As Subsidies Lapse"

    "Capitalist Media" has articles saying all kinds of nice things about that "socialism".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    When I said “Example, please” I wanted an Example of a subject that the “Capitalist Media” has completely kept the USA in the dark about.

    Sounds good. You gotta be more specific then, you were answering a point number 1 with a response numbered number 1 that had nothing to do with that specific question.

    (I made an edit to my answer BTW to answer your specific question with some details and comparing it to health care in the 1990s, check that out if you didn't see the edit yet.)

    This new question, I addressed here:

    https://piefed.social/comment/9553470

    And then there's some back and forth about whether or not there actually was the type of embargo on these topics that I'm claiming there was, which still didn't come to much of any conclusion, but I laid out my side of it at least. I won't say they kept people completely in the dark, but enough so to prevent any useful action from being taken on it until their monopoly broke up in the early 2000s (and still to heavily heavily mute a useful response from taking shape). Other examples include the deaths of Iraqi children under American sanctions or American sponsorship of torture and anti-democratic movements in South and Central American all throughout the late 70s and early 80s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    1 and 1 were figuratively and literally 1:1 given the context of the post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    What was point 1 in the comment you were answering? The exact wording, I mean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not going to sit here and explain things a second and third time when you're not even the one who made the comment in question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    I'm trying to help you. I think if you quote the exact wording, it'll help you realize something, and me quoting the wording didn't seem to make much of an impact, so I'm trying this approach.

    Anyway, I was happy to move past that and address the substance of what we're talking about at some significant length and answer your specific question, because it is an important question and I've got some things to say about it. If you're not happy with that idea I'm not sure what to tell you lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

    They aren't socialism you dingus are you serious? That's literally just spending taxes, what's what every government does. Decides how to spend taxes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    Spending taxes on goods and services for the public is socialism's barest definition. Roads are socialism. Libraries are socialism.

    You want to know what's not socialism? The USSR.

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

    By this logic all governments thought history are socialist. So what's the purpose of the word? Without meaning to sound rude, you are simply incorrect. Socialism is not "spending taxes good". The barest definition might be economic democracy. My own barest definition would be workers controlling the means of production.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Socialism and Communism are the only words in the English language to describe a system of production and redistribution of goods owned by the workers and the general public.

    The fact that these words are also defiled and poisoned by autocratic militaristic dictatorships like the USSR, China, etc is just the circumstances we find ourselves in.

    Their antonyms would be Mercantilism or Capitalism, though mixing of the systems can exist due to the complex nature of markets and society, wherein privatization produces goods and services based on profitability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Socialism isn't just when the government "does stuff" bucko. It involves the restructuring of political economy to one where workers are in charge of state apparatus

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    Perhaps such a system could involve workers voting on how best to allocate resources?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    Yes. Socialism isn't one thing. There are different ways of structuring socialism; the most important thing is that the workers hold power. Your description aligns with the anarchist view.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I just described when the government “does stuff” bucko.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who clearly has their mind made up, if you want to be a slave to daddy capitalism, don't let me get in your way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    So you have no examples? What a surprise.

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

    Believe it or not, I don't wander the fediverse with receipts for propaganda in my back pocket. If I really wanted to, I could spend a few hours putting together a response to your comment with relevant citations, but unfortunately I don't have all day to spend arguing with people on the Internet, and I didn't come here for a debate in the first place. I saw you post this:

    I asked, concisely and simply, what was being hidden from us.

    I responded, concisely and simply, with a few examples of mainstream media acting defensively on behalf of capitalism which I suspected that most people would have personal experience of noticing themselves. I don't want to waste hours of my time on this, either accept the truth or don't. It's not my problem, it's yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Two things are happening, I think:

    1. It's not anymore, but the cartoon when it was printed was pretty accurate. Before the internet, it used to be functionally impossible to run across anyone who had any kind of platform anywhere in the US who thought that universal health care was a good idea, or that Israel was anyone other than the good guys, or that publicly funded elections would fix 85% of our problems. Or that global warming was a problem. The magnitude of the catastrophe-on-purpose that resulted from that distorted media is still with us to this day. It's why we still don't have a functioning health care system, for example, because everyone in Washington's picture of the world froze in around 1995 when their brains reached the age where they stop making new worldviews. I actually don't think it's fair to blame that on capitalism specifically, since powerful people seizing the methods of media and distorting them to prevent the people from figuring out what's going on is a pretty universal problem in any economic system, but it is certainly accurate and in the US it takes the forms of capitalism (and is still going on today, just in a different form; it's why no one published the whistleblower's warning about the US invading Venezuela for example.)
    2. What the .ml contingent means by posting that is that the capitalist press is hiding the truth that Ukraine started the Ukraine war, that Biden was the biggest threat to world peace and it was therefore important not to vote for Kamala, and so on. They're adopting a time-honored very effective propaganda technique of reversing the roles, and then screaming the role-reversed framing of reality with so much vigor that it's hard for anyone within the bubble to point out that the truth they claim is being censored is readily available to literally everyone, and that they are the ones constantly banning people who don't agree with their carefully curated worldview. Because EVERYONE KNOWS and then they get an inch away from your face and start aggressively repeating what it is that everyone knows.
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Before the internet, it used to be functionally impossible to run across anyone who had any kind of platform anywhere in the US who thought that universal health care was a good idea, or that Israel was anyone other than the good guys, or that publicly funded elections would fix 85% of our problems.

    what

    Those were all popular ideas before the advent of the internet. Israel's supremacy in US foreign policy didn't even come about until the mid-80s, universal healthcare was one of Clinton's main running points in '92, and the private funding floodgates didn't open until Citizens United in 2010, and was deeply controversial with the public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Those were all popular ideas before the advent of the internet.

    I'll ask you the same thing I asked Diplomjodler: Show me one article in the mainstream press that simply reports the objective truth that Al Gore is right about global warming.

    They were "popular" ideas, sure. What I'm saying is that the media's unanimous opposition to them was very effective at preventing them from getting real traction by distorting the thinking of a lot of people in the country. For example:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

    The effort also included extensive advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous "Harry and Louise" ad, paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's complex, bureaucratic nature.[18][19] Time, CBS News, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and The Christian Science Monitor ran stories questioning whether there really was a health care crisis.[20] Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by conservative[21] University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said,

    "In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.[22]"

    The 1994 mid-term election became, in the opinion of one media observer, a "referendum on big government – Hillary Clinton had launched a massive health-care reform plan that wound up strangled by its own red tape".[31] In that 1994 election, the Republican revolution, led by Newt Gingrich, gave the GOP control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time since the 83rd Congress of 1953–1954, ending prospects for a Clinton-sponsored health care overhaul. Comprehensive health care reform in the United States was not seriously considered or enacted by Congress until Barack Obama's election in 2008, and the U.S. remains the only developed country without universal health care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Nothing of this indicates that it's in any way urgent. That was my point. The closest it comes, way way down after it's talking about some flowers maybe doing some weird things, is:

    A warming of 3.5 degrees, according to experts, would cause widespread climatic and environmental dislocations, producing more extreme weather, raising the global sea level, causing precipitation patterns to change and shifting climatic and agricultural zones.

    Doesn't sound too bad. What Gore said, during the election while the press criticized him for it and later when he found financing for a platform of his own, was:

    There are good people, who are in politics in both parties, who hold this at arm's length, because if they acknowledge it and recognize it, then the moral imperative to make big changes is inescapable. ... unless you fix the biggest damn crisis in the history of this country.

    Tony Blair's scientific advisor has said that because of what's happening in Greenland right now, the maps of the world will have to be redrawn. If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen to San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, one of the low countries. Absolutely devastating.

    The area around Beijing that's home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east, Bangladesh. Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees when they're displaced by an environmental event. And then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more.

    Here's Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. And after the horrible events of 9/11, we said, "Never again." But this is what would happen to Manhattan.

    All emphasis is mine. I just picked random stuff from his movie's script. That's the reality. I think people still don't really grasp it, because the "business as usual" malpractice press got replaced with getting your news from Facebook instead of being replaced with something better, but it is at least possible to broadcast that message to a mass audience now without having to finance your own movie. In 1999, it wasn't, and the news was refusing their duty to as the only ones who could do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Nonsense. There was a free press that freely discussed all the topics you mentioned. It's true that the mainstream was pretty supportive of the status quo but even there you'd find, for instance, plenty of warnings of climate change and open discussions about it.

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

    Noam Chomsky wrote a bunch of books about the free press's coverage of geopolitical issues and one of his biggest points of emphasis was how the whole spectrum of permissible debate was basically indistinguishable. That's why I used Israel as one example.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a single newspaper article in the run-up to 2000 that was willing to simply say plainly that Al Gore was objectively right about climate change and what a fucking emergency it was, for example. It was always represented as a "debate" and his absolutely voice-in-the-wilderness diagnosis was a "viewpoint." He had to make a whole movie of his own to be able to speak plainly about what was going on, because literally no one in the news was explaining what needed to be explained about it. And that was all after counterculture news started to get a little bit of early traction on the internet and puncture the monopoly a little bit.

    It is almost impossible for people who grew up post-internet to grasp how constrained the news in the pre-internet era was. It sounds like we're making it up, like of course it couldn't have been like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    You mean the guy who was all buddy buddy with Epstein? Well, in that case it must be true, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'm going to need you to look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary, it's not just for internet insults

    Also let me know if you find one of those climate change articles or anything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    I'm actually old enough to remember reading those back in the day. And if you go to any library that has old magazines or newspapers you won't have any trouble finding stuff. As for Chomsky, this motherfucker (note the ad hominem) has lost every bit of credibility he might ever have had for associating with the kind of people he's been arguing against all his life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/us/2000-campaign-environment-favorite-issue-gore-finds-himself-2-front-defense.html

    Just a bunch of shit, from beginning to end. Not a whisper of the idea that this might actually be an emergency. In fact, it's kind of treated as a liability for Gore that he keeps saying that it is.

    About as good as it gets is this:

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/121898sci-global-warming.html

    ... which, even if we're not going to take any points off for "While there are dissenters who believe the warmer climate can be explained by normal variation," doesn't really address even to the slightest degree why this kind of thing might actually be important let alone a globe-spanning catastrophe.

    That's what I mean about why Gore had to make his own movie. The media was simply violently opposed to the idea of telling anyone the truth about it, limiting itself to sometimes making a grudging acknowledgement that maybe some of the most basic facts about the present might be true, with nothing at all indicated about what it meant for the future.

    Okay, your turn. Where's the newspaper article where they made it clear that it was an emergency? You said anyone could find them without any trouble, so it should be easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, Noam Chomsky is openly siding with Russia's invasion, isn't he? "A Stronger NATO is the last thing we need" he said.

    Even then, he's been a prominent figure and part of the available media in the USA for a very long time, so clearly an example of not being censored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, Noam Chomsky is openly siding with Russia’s invasion, isn’t he? “A Stronger NATO is the last thing we need” he said.

    Yeah. He went off the deep end once he got elderly and his viewpoint of the world ossified. It doesn't invalidate his earlier scholarship, though.

    (Also, his support for Russia is overblown by the disinfo machine. Mostly what he's saying in things that I have read is that NATO and the West have done ten times worse than Russia is doing in Ukraine right now, so the freakout is a bunch of hypocrisy, which is of course completely accurate. The disinfo likes to spin it like he's saying Russia is the good guys, which isn't at all what he's saying. But yes, I also think he's missing the central point in Ukraine because it doesn't fit with how he likes to look at things.)

    Even then, he’s been a prominent figure and part of the available media in the USA for a very long time, so clearly an example of not being censored.

    Well... the US doesn't have state-sponsored censorship like most socialist countries. That part is true. My point, and I think the OOP cartoon's point, is that because our media is capitalist, it was more or less impossible before non-big-business media developed out of the internet for certain messages to get out. I do think that's a fair point. Just the fact that one academic was able to get one counterculture message out (and generally be regarded by 100% of the external political spectrum as a terrorist as a result) doesn't invalidate that to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago

    We had those beliefs in print and more, actually. For example, people used to think our supply of oil would have been completely used up by now, it caused a lot of fear and panic back in the day. Al Gore was running a presidential campaign on a Climate Change platform starting in 1999.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I've got a nice one too. Some olympic level mental gymnastics there.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I’m not sure why people waste their time on these subs.

    These aren’t places for useful discussion on improving society, especially in the US. They are full of people who don’t even really share or uphold socialist views, but are engaging to disrupt and affect the vote or contaminate the outlook of younger progressives.

    They’re on Team Trump, Netanyahu and Putin and if they aren’t operatives themselves, they’re farmed useful idiots. I hate saying that about the latter, because they’re essentially good people led down the wrong path. That said, they’re also quite irresponsible.

    There’s no space for genuine discussion in those places. You’ll first be bullied by fools then removed when you present arguments. Don’t waste your time.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    The state want to take my wife away from me

    Well, that’s sad.

    and you’re calling me a Trumper

    Does the shoe fit?

    Go fucking die…

    Lovely.

    If you didn’t vote I don’t have any sympathy for you. Your wife yeah and doubly so because she’s got to put up with…how did you put it…a piece of shit like you as well as watch you (not) vote to deport her.

    Unless of course you did vote and vote Harris, in which case I don’t know why you’re mouthing off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    all Americans deserve death

    I never said that at all, nor do I believe it.

    bombs people for breakfast

    Well perhaps if irresponsible people such as yourself learned the limits of your political process and voted accordingly people your country wouldn’t be there and others wouldn’t think that.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 1 point 10 months ago* (24 children)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago* (23 children)

    It's Media which is available to the West. The original post's logic takes some hoop jumping but if I flat out said that "capitalist media isn't state controlled and therefor cannot actually block ideas, literally every opinion is present" the stupid Tankies wouldn't be able to clump up enough braincells to process that concept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    Literally every opinion is not present though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    Is your contention that there is no censorship whatsoever in American media?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    Look, mate, we both know you don't have an answer, just like the dozen people before you who tried and failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    I'm not really trying to argue what they are, I just am genuinely asking. How could that possibly be the case is your view? Cops are arresting journalists without cause lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    The original post above and the discussion at hand is that the Tankies claim Capitalist Media is hiding the Truth from the USA, and I simply ask what they are hiding.

    Personally, I'm not sure a capitalist media system is capable of hiding something, because that would imply nationwide coordination, which simply doesn't exist in a free market. It's one of those "Jews Control the Weather" level of conspiracies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    Why does that imply coordination? I suppose there's a subtle difference between hiding something, and it simply not being there. You don't think that there's plenty of stuff that just doesn't get printed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    You know what you haven't done? Present an example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Wouldn't that be logically impossible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    You just said there are things which do not get printed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Surely there are right? Every day, millions of choices end up on the editing room floor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    On tens of thousands of different editing room floors, by different editors? No, I don't think they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

    Not enough to justify the claim that "Capitalist Media is hiding the truth from you".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

    Well... I mean don't a lot of voices and stories get LATRGELY silenced by the capitalist machine? I'm not saying that it DELIBERATELY stops any particular news, but rather that by design news basically needs to be profitable to survive in a capitalist society, and lots of news isn't profitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    What a great example, i'm sp glad you finally provided simple evidence of your claim. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    You don't agree with my characterization? You're not interested in engaging intellectually with this conversation?

    You're just going to keep demanding that I find you a specific news story that "corporate media" didn't run?

    Do you think this is a logical line of reasoning?

    For arguments sake and to give you something to work with, how about the catholic sex abuse scandals?

    Sure EVENTUALLY corporate media picked up these stories, when it was profitable and the social/political fallout was minimised, but at the same time those stories were buried for years (probably decades) by corporate media looking out for their own interests

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    What story? You've wasted so much of both of our time with failed attempts at sophistry and hypotheticals and presented zero fucking stories.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I don't understand what you are looking for here, I literally just told you that catholic sex abuse scandals were routinely buried by corporate media for decades.

    If you are looking for a specific story, it doesn't exist because they didn't write it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I can pull up catholic sex stories for you as old as the 14th century, mate. The West is not in the dark about Catholic Sex Stories.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'm talking about the deliberate network of coverups knowingly moving accused priests to different jurisdictions to obscure this, which was eventually first outed in Boston in the early oughts.

    The minute before that story was printed, and the preceding decades where journalists and other figures were aware of this but did not publish the stories out of fear of reprisal, is an example of the capitalist media censoring a story through process rather than by deliberate action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›