All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie
All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie
I sure am glad communist press doesn't have to rely on a single source of income. 🙂
eh, luckily this is all false. look at modern, contemporary newspapers, social media.
EDIT Lol, in a few hours, I gathered almost more downvotes than community subscribers. furthermore, in a community dedicated to literature which isn't able to understand the most simple, totally in line with the instance, sarcasm example.
good job dudes, you're doing great (am I taking to ai bots, though?)
I can look at fox news, CNN, Newsmax, Washinton Post, New York Times and I can see them all push a pro corporate pro imperialist line.
I can see that Prager U gets many advertizements in youtube despite me never wanting to watch that kind of drek.
Also look at the Cambridge Anylica scandal. It is possible for social media to push people in particular directions if it is easy to game the algorithm.
1 he was talking about his time and probably could not forsee social media.
2 look at corporate media consolidation trends. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/media-consolidation-means-less-local-news-more-right-wing-slant
I don't understand if you understood my dry two liner. anyway, thank you for your elaborate answer. I'm open to discuss this topic
You mean the social media where people pay for content to be shoved down your throat? That social media?
since my humor is very far from yours... Our throat.
I think this is an issue of tone being lost over text, and the fact that us commies genuinely have a lot of experience dealing with people who unironically think WaPo and WSJ and the Guardian and all their favorite YouTubers make a holy amalgamation of truth and reason.
I think I understand your point, although I don't agree with it in these terms. assuming you're talking about the edit, I still think that in a literature context you should be able to understand what you're reading. failing to do so, it's a grave matter. put in the fact that chances are that I'm older than the people writing in this thread - and just by this I've been on the far left point of view for a lot much more time - you understand why I get to cut to the thick of it and stand my point.
that said, "us commies" as in "we commies" or "U.S.A. commies"? imho, there's a huge difference.
have a nice time, thank you.