cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
I am quite curious to know your methodology for measuring press freedom so we can compare and perhaps find something which can be considered locally objective.
You’re retreating into “locally” objective. In this topic you’re not going to get agreement on what constitutes press freedom, so it is pointless. My point is that the claim of objective press freedom existing is ridiculous. You walked it back, but to a position that still seems ridiculous to me.
For example, I dont believe there is such thing as a free press. Any org that can produce a press machine is going to influence that press, whether that is a government or private interests. Editorial freedom isn’t possible, editorial control just ranges from the subtle to the overt.
You are the only one making assumptions here. I want to find some common ground.
So let’s pull this thread. I agree that bias is inevitable, but do you believe this negates the value of even trying to protect press freedom? And if so, do you extend this to all forms of truth seeking?
Of course bias is inevitable, Im saying institutional bias will always be enforced down the chain onto journalists and writers.
Can you give me your definition of press freedom? Because it seems contradictory if the owner of a press will influence what is published but journalists of that press somehow have press freedom.
Well so first of all, I don’t consider only corporate or state owned media outlets to be “the press.” But certainly, editorial freedom is a big part of press freedom. One media outlet can only exert editorial control over its own journalists. It cannot force editorial restrictions onto all media the same way a government can. I think this is pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to press freedom - individual bias can be averaged out, but centralized, legally enforced bias cannot. This feels axiomatic to me, but it may not be to others whichbis why I think these conversations are so interesting.
Yes they can, it is called private (as opposed to personal) property rights enforced by the state. The range of opinion will always be broadly supportive of the capitalist government.
Please read inventing reality or manufacturing consent. I am tired and I feel like you aren’t interested in learning, with or without changing your opinion.
I don’t know why you think I have not read those books. I’m quite familiar with both, and agree with many aspects of them. I assure you though, Chomsky is not a press skeptic they way I think you are implying. And not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. You are the one shutting down conversation and making accusations.
But either way, this is quite easy to back test. Is there no western media you can think of which is critical of Capitalism? Maybe even someone you just cited?
Are you saying the west has trustworthy press because Parenti and Chomsky were allowed to publish books?
Based on what you’ve said you really need to read those books again.
Point out the flaw in this rhetoric like Parenti would, given you’ve read him.
The corporate media will always serve the elites over token dissent. And token dissent protects capitalists from Capitalism. He is quite funny and self aware when he wants be.
Trust me I get it. What I don’t recall is Parenti expressing general skepticism of press freedom as a first principle. He mostly argues that capitalism corrupts the media. Again, this is laughably self evident.
Parenti and Chomsky are more left-libertarians though. Chomsky in particular is a outspoken and vocal critic of Lenin’s centralism and is a vehement defender of press freedom. I would say that my ideas of press freedom are quite aligned with theirs, and it seems as if you are one who has fundamentally missed the message.