Thanks a lot, Appreciate. It is not I don't want to pay the washingtonpost.com. I just don't have time to read them.
I've had better luck with subscription based aggregators, but nothing exciting enough to want to plug one in particular.
Always looking for new options to try.
This revealing interview gives an interesting perspective on the media business around the turn of the century. Note that this is a pdf archive copy saved to draw attention to a particular segment, and I'd urge you ignore that and rad the whole thing. I can't link to the original as it vanished some time ago, and this archive predates the establishment of the internet archive. Thus the presentation is biased (sorry) but it's the only complete copy of the interview I know of. https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Weekly_Standard_M...
In that regard, WaPo is pretty good but you can still do better: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
If you want recent proof, look at that debacle with that Toledo kid. Some reported police shoot an armed thug, some report police shoot an unarmed kid. The video proof shows neither side is telling the whole truth.
Example: Cops have shot a thousand people a year for several years in a row (maybe a decade). About 300 of those each year have been black, which is a disproportionate amount by some measures.
However, it is nowhere near the biggest problem in our country even for black people. But because the media has chosen to report on that problem near constantly since Colin Kaepernick took a knee, it has dominated the public consciousness and therefore influences thousands of people to loot, burn, protest, riot and thousands more to develop opinions and attitudes that create more and more division in our country.
Most of what they report is factual but is it as important as the lofty position they are giving it in the news? Is it helping?
Even my comment is derivative, the point is that news and media outlets are able to control public opinion even by being honest and factual. By simply ignoring some facts it's trivial for these outlets to skew their audiences perspectives on current events. The whole "left vs right" ideology is toxic and cancerous to a healthy society and it sickens me. It's increasingly difficult to hold a moderate opinion about a subject without being demonized by one group of extremists or another.
The "you're either with us or against us" mentality leads to the eradication of moderates and further extremism.
A healthy society needs balance.
How can we counteract this?
Michelle Obama tried to make this her primary focus through the entire Obama administration. Like everything else the Obamas did, the Right wing that is currently engaging in the same whataboutism and dogwhistles as this sentence, chastised it at the time as elitist and un-american.
> let's revolt against black on black violence in the inner cities
* https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterschoolsnack/VOX-5-R...
* https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-black-crime-loaded-controver...
> let's "defund" platforms which encourage division and turmoil.
While I broadly agree with you that social media platforms are a problem that needs fixing, "defunding" them is a nonsensical statement that only makes sense in reference and in direct contrast to "defunding the police".
These platforms are not "funded" because "funding" in this context refers to allocation decisions of PUBLIC TAXPAYER FUNDS. Private companies are not collecting tax dollars then spending them on fun riot gear to go cosplaying in as they gas people exercising their first amendment rights.
The whole premise of "defunding the police" is to reallocate public funds to different programs that we currently task our police with (mental health, drug addiction, sex work, etc))
Cops have done horrible things to every race, they are especially aggressive with black people.
No, systemic racism caused by capitalism is the root cause of that.
The capitalist media is but one contributing factor of this.
The root cause for this rioting is hundreds of years of systemic oppression: redlining (now digital redlining in the digital age), racist banking policies (for a detailed analysis see ‘The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap‘ and ‘How The Other Side Banks‘, both by law Professor Mehrsa Baradaran), the school to prison pipeline, the CIA and Reagan’s ‘war on drugs‘ that flooded inner cities with crack in the 1980’s causing the crack cocaine epidemic (journalist Gary Webb exposed this), the CIA also systemically murdered the leaders of socialist black liberation movements (Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, etc.), and more (these are only a few examples that I can think of right now).
Wage slavery of course exploits and oppresses all of the working class (the 99% of us who don’t own capitalist property: technology in the form of trade secrets, patent claims, etc. (the means of production)). Yet black and brown people (both in the global north and the global south) have especially had a harder time simply because of the color of their skin.
Something tells me you're not qualified to speak on the behalf of black people (even if you were black).
Something tells me that when you choose to categorize what is happening in the US as looting, burning, and rioting (with a casual acknowledgement to protest), then you don't have a very empathetic understanding of the message people are trying to carry across, or why they believe this is a much bigger problem than you deem it to be.
It's not about the pure numbers of deaths. It's about the countless other scenarios just like the infamous ones that led to deaths that black people encounter throughout the US every single day, and have to wonder if they're about to become yet another name, or worse, just a statistic. It's about living in a continual state of terror that the forces of the state that are OSTENSIBLY there to "protect and serve you" do anything but. It's like living in East Germany and being constantly afraid of the STASI, only it's 2020 and it's the US.
That can be a much bigger problem then poverty, drug addiction, or anything else you might point to as a "bigger problem in this country for black people".
curl https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/?outputType=amp |grep -o "<p data".*</p>" > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htmI'm partial to Reedy because it tends to fall "safe" and include more content rather than less, but other similar apps should work just as well (SmartNews has a similar function, as do Article Reader Offline, wallabag, and Webreader; I find Reedy has the best UI/feature set for my use).
What is the problem you're seeing?
In fact I really rarely have any issues with FF whatsoever, and if I do it is always either uBlock Origin blocking a little bit too much, or a site that specifically rules out Firefox (like https://business.apple.com ), probably for no real reason other than not bothering to test their site with it.
PS I understand that websites need to monetise.. But getting a subscription to read one linked article per month or so is just not going to happen. The sites I use a lot I do pay a membership for.
I actually had an online subscription to the Guardian for a while because they were really good on the privacy advocacy news. I wanted to support a paper with deep dives into privacy issues. However the last couple of years I got annoyed with too much Brexit stuff (not surprising for a UK based paper obviously but as I don't live in the UK I don't want to read about it every day). So I let it lapse.
But there's another thing holding me back. If I subscribe I have to give all my personal details. I don't want to have too many sites where I have that around, data leaks are now happening too often. Even a couple days ago I got yet another notification from haveibeenpwned (this time it was the Spanish company phonehouse.es that was hit).
Anyway, I just wanted to say that while I use paywall avoiding tools I'm not blind to the problem of monetisation and the cost of real journalism :)
I just keep it around next to my regular browser for the occasional paywall.
I wish they just supported sideloading of extensions. I wonder how developers are supposed to test their stuff on mobile.
personally I find outlets like NYT or NYPost to be too filled with the type of 'state-level bias' that I have a mental allergy to.