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
You're viewing a single thread.
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
Is this comment sarcasm?
is it not well formed?
I thought you were someone that would believe this kind of nonsense from the headline, but fail to look at the substance, like a lib would:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/26/digital-media-core-brand-strength.html
well then I don't believe it like
everya right winger. it's that better?oh ok, you're the one from the other strip of comments. I said I would discuss, so I will. but first things first. that lib part you gave me, is written to be offensive and/or derogative. just this would be enough, on my side, to dismiss you and your opinions: you're too judgemental. also I believe you have multiple accounts.
that said, I don't believe, i think that newspapers and social media are in large part bought to drive certain opinions. In Italy we get news everyday of people trying to go through Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. there are tens of deaths, an all around massacre. small towns which have seen their beaches littered with dead bodies, after months are still mourning that horror. I'm just astonished by how this horror is narrated, and how this narrative fits this or that party narrative. either by "traditional" means (paper and digital outlets) or social media accounts bound to this or that party, again. I won't give you any link. just browse tomorrow italian news outlets, you'll for sure be able to read it - don't use ai or other tools: you're going to lose the more fine grained discourses.
and try to keep your judgemental mouth at rein; not always, just start to try to. and if where you're from that wouldn't be considered judgemental, welcome to a new point of view.
Quite frankly I'm not familiar with the particulars of Italian news as of late.
For American news yes there is not as much criticism of Imperialism. I've noticed that some British outlets like the Guardian can often highlight the US's role in imperialism. However, I think this is due to the owners' distance from the problem. Yes western europeans are part of NATO that have destroyed north African countries, but they'll focus on the US's involvement, but not their own government's complacency in supporting NATO.
Your news outlets in Italy, probably don't have to sell ad space for Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, or Beyond Petroleum. Italian news outlets likely have to suppress news that makes different corporations look bad.
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.
Many of us on lemmygrad are young, but some of us (not me, 26) are older, I've heard people reference being in 30s, 40s, there might be a token or two older.
I meant "we commies," but seeing as we're in the English-speaking web this also means a lot of "USA commies."
You have a good one too!