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
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.
So why did you say the silly thing you said in the first place? And why do you consider corporate press to be more free than government press?
I’ve explained this already. I largely reject the notion that token dissent is less free than no dissent. As do both of the authors you cited.
Do you have proof that there is no dissent within socialist countries? Because based on my readings there is plenty of lively debate. Hell, you can look at streams of the vietnamese assembly.
I literally know nothing about Vietnamese politics. But I also don’t think I’ve made any assertion that press/individual freedoms are incompatible with socialism. In fact, I think I’ve been pretty clear about this forum “deserving a better brand of socialist”
Okay, you dont know anything about vietnamese politics and you don’t think there can be press freedom under government control, got it.