Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of against their masters. That's why "identity politics" has become so resurgent in recent years, as the class divide has sharpened and the middle-class has withered. As long as people are polarized and can be pitted against each other on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexuality, they aren't united against the oligarchs. Its the same exact strategy used by prison guards to maintain control of the prisons. Pit the blacks against the whites against the hispanics and the prison guards can observe safely from the walls. The guards only face a threat from the prisoners when they are united against those who keep them in bondage.
Snowden represents the greatest threat in that regards. If you support Snowden's actions, you are explicitly acknowledging not only that the law is dog shit, but that Snowden was justified in breaking it because of how incredibly repressive the government is. He represents the ultimate repudiation of the system that runs the entire country and most of the world. The corporate media is the voice of this system.
Do you honestly believe this? How do you think an article like this gets written? Do you think that there is some secret puppet master that dictated the talking points of this article or that every journalist including the one who wrote this article is in on some huge conspiracy? Are those options really more likely that some journalists simple have different opinions than you?
This has been one of the annoying side effects of Snowden. Suddenly one conspiracy theory proved to be true, so now some people think that any conspiracy theory has a chance to be true. Soon we end up with people suggesting that tens of thousands of journalists in American are hand picked by the "masters" solely to "disseminate propaganda".
Perhaps the concept of an analogy is alien to your world, so I'll try to make it simpler for you. If you hire someone whose views are well known to write for you, you have a pretty good idea of knowing what you are going to get without having to offer specific instructions. If you hire Robert Kagan to write a foreign policy column in your newspaper, you don't have to send him a secret message urging him to back an invasion. He already backs every invasion. Understand?
As far as your vapid conjecture about conspiracy theories go, the media is literally littered with writers who have either been directly paid, or who stand to gain (financially and otherwise) for endorsing certain positions. These are not conspiracies, its standard practice.
Whether these media pundits are paid by the White House to endorse their policies:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-wi...
Or secretly instructing retired military "analysts" on news networks on how to shape the narrative:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
And when you don't parrot the party line, they get rid of you, like they did to Phil Donahue when he was critical of the Iraq invasion:
http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/
Or when government officials limit press access to only those reporters who are willing to offer the official narrative:
http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2013/News-media-pro...
In short, you are delusional or woefully under informed if you don't think that the media narrative is controlled and shaped by the powerful interests that run this country.
They say, 'You are one of those conspiracy theorists. You think there's a headquarters and they get together at the Bohemian Grove and run the United States.'
Well, they DO get together at the Bohemian Grove and do a lot of picking of Secretaries of State, anyway.
But they don't have to conspire. They all think alike.
It goes back to the way we're raised, the schools we went to -- after all, I'm a reluctant member of this group. You don't have to give orders to the editor of The New York Times. He is in place because he will respond to a crisis the way you want him to, as will the President, as will the head of the Chase Manhattan Bank."
Obviously not. But if those journalists have different opinions than executive management on important issues, like Phil Donahue opposing invading Iraq on MSNBC, then they'll be fired.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQ0xPLiCMAEshrV.jpg
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/B...
http://northsideforum.org.au/wp-content/gallery/forum24-intr...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRJTO25CEAABNsQ.jpg
It isn't limited to Australia, the Murdoch press tried to pull the same thing last US federal election:
http://us2012.bujournalism.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/B...
If you don't think the press exists to control the narritave then you're naive.
"In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies" [1]
Media outlets just act in their owners' best interest (which is to eliminate competition and preserve status quo), that's all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...
I suggest June 10th, if that's the day Snowden left his job. We simply whistle, in every street from Washington to Baghdad, including in Europe.
Edit: Got 9 upvotes from this comment, sounds like there is traction.
According to this timeline it would be 20th May
However, I think you do a disservice to your cause when you use blanket remarks like "Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions" without clarifying. I think we can easily rule out that all corporate news organizations (npr, washington post) are propaganda services (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those). Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).
In 'Manufacturing Consent'[1] Chomsky outlines 5 ways in which the media are systematically biased, and end up acting as propaganda machines despite being staffed with honest and well-meaning journalists. It's a very well known model (although certainly controversial).
This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.
does anyone really believe the media is independant in 2016?
- You should use the most effective word, not the most satisfying word.
- You won't push anybody away by telling the truth, you push people away by being too emotional and appearing unreliable (e.g. exhibiting all-or-nothing thinking, and using emotionally-charged language that impedes logic)
- Lots of people trust the media (~40%) [1].
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-rema...
NPR and the Washington Post are certainly propaganda services.
> (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those)
I'm not suggesting that everyone who works for a corporate news organization is engaged in some sort of grand conspiracy, taking money to consciously do the bidding of the evil oligarchs (though some are). It seems clear that most of them are just as oblivious to their complicity in the degradation of society as the factory worker who collects a paycheck assembling bombs and missiles. Awareness and critical thinking are not attributes that are nurtured and encouraged in modern society. From the time you can crawl, you are conditioned to shuffle around at the signaling of a bell and efficiently absorb and regurgitate the Washington/Wall Street narrative (in public schools and elsewhere). Failure to do so as a child results in, at best, disciplinary action and bad grades. The less fortunate are subjected to the forced ingestion of psychotropic drugs that permanently alter the brain chemistry of developing children.
> Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).
Reporters are not hired by corporate media outlets because of their zeal for truth and their refusal to stop turning over rocks to discover inconvenient truths - quite the opposite. Reporters are hired for their ability and willingness to absorb and regurgitate conventional corporate wisdom. They are hired for their penchant not to turn over any rock that they aren't supposed to turn over.
A reporter that doesn't parrot the Washington/Wall Street narrative soon finds himself without a job. Why do you think Seymour Hersch, an investigative reporter with an incredibly impressive resume stretching back 50 years, has to publish in the London Review of Books? Why do you think establishment reporters from every corporate outlet came out of the woodwork to attack him when he started publishing well-sourced, investigative articles that clashed with the Washington/Wall Street narrative?
To quote Upton Sinclar: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
So Snowden should come home, be robbed of a chance of justice, be robbed of his voice and his freedom, to prove... what, that the NSA was right all along?
You forgot the war liars/criminals Bush, Rice and Powell.
Edit: Am I being downvoted for expressing my knowledge of the situation? If you think I am wrong, say so. Try to educate me. Downvoting for disagreeing does nothing. When he testified about yellowcake uranium, I thought he believed the reports to be true.
But I don't know what he knew.
There's also a link in there to a section of Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack claiming Powell knowingly altered evidence for his UN presentation.
(disclaimer: anarcho-capitalist living in Canada. I have no stake in the game.)
This isn't indirect suffering like 'your laptop was probably built by crying workers', but a clear, direct chain of events.
I consider Snowden's case a mixed bag depending on which leaks we're talking about. Yet, locking him away for damage to national security without giving the rest life imprisonment doesn't begin to be justice.
But you'll be godwin'd if you compare them out loud.