Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Kinda like how they control the narrative and release / orchestrate propaganda at the same time...

https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1420050776785883136/photo...

???

Weird comparison given the events aren’t all that similar. We know COVID transmission risk is much higher when people are indoors. The Capitol riot involved large numbers of people being indoors, the BLM protests mostly did not.

The only reason to compare coverage of the BLM marches and Capitol riot is, ironically, in service of propaganda that seeks to portray both events two sides of the same coin. Why not compare the Capitol riot and, I dunno, coverage of an indoor sport event? It would be a more accurate comparison but it wouldn’t serve a partisan political purpose, so it’s not done.

And “release at the same time” is just kind of funny as accusations go: an event occurred. Multiple news organisations wrote it about it shortly afterwards? Some even publishing stories on the same day? How very, very suspicious.

Both the Capitol protest and antifa/BLM riots involved Democrat politicians shirking their sworn duty to provide security and policing.

The 2 people in charge of adding Capitol policing were the House Manager and Nancy Pelosi. Note Pelosi's Jan. 6 committee doesn't want to talk about that - she cherry-picked Republian members who wouldn't demand that.

Trump offered the National Guard to the Democrat cities that were burned, but mayors refused.

The antifa/BLM riots stopped just before the Presidential election, since the Democratic Party knew it was hurting their support.

You’re proving my point. This is all partisan political nonsense, not evidence of some coordinated media narrative.

That's a weird way to spin competent reporting (of misdeeds by the powerful).

If you look closely, the point is that media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda. When you collect the headlines and list them side by side, the implicitly (or explicitly?) coordinated propaganda becomes obvious.

> If you look closely, the point is that media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda.

One is more likely to read political/cultural agendas into everything they can when one primarily consumes media that compulsively frames everything it doesn't like in political/cultural terms.

> One is more likely to read political/cultural agendas into everything they can when one primarily consumes media that compulsively frames everything it doesn't like in political/cultural terms.

Well, when one sees how much evidence there is that the corporate press has an agenda[1], one tends to believe that the corporate press has an agenda[2].

The medical arguments[3] given for why January 6th was a greater COVID risk than the BLM protests are quite weak. Each one of the arguments either relies on contested science (asymptomatic spread) or exaggeration of the facts (ignoring that the majority of the January 6th protesters remained outside). This is not the work of people who are engaged in the disinterested pursuit of the truth.

[1]https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1348352300746731523?...

[2]https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1361011464513880065

[3]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/was-the-capitol-siege-a-co...

No, it really is as simple as "media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda." It's blatantly obvious, and not even questionable. However, it's also not new.

"blatantly obvious, and not even questionable."

Is it objectively true?

This narrative presents “the media” as one collective group. People have different opinions even within the same program so of course they’ll have different points of view across an organization. The people working there are also human, bias and all.

I'm looking closely and not seeing the contradiction. I see a bunch of stuff about corona virus and super-spread events occurring when people aren't masked and show up even if they're sick. Which is exactly what I would expect.

You seem to be implying that any gathering has the exact same odds of being a super-spread event regardless of personal responsibility and precautions. That's not how this works...

The contradiction is in the spin.

Neither the peacful capitol protest or the thousand days of violent riots in Portland lead to significant upticks in corona virus spreading, but some spreading did happen.

And to hammer the point home, the spin is consistently and ubiquitously slanted against anything right leaning. Its way past confirmation bias, and yeah, one could argue that the right has its own media wing, except right leaning sources have unilaterally been defined as "unreliable" and are collusively excluded from all manner of popular information sources - stackexchange, wikipedia, default news/politics subreddits...

Reality's supposed liberal bias is an illusion, concocted by a decentralized network of activists who have quietly infiltrated all of our institutions and suppress right leaning opinions with what amounts to bullying. Don't believe me? Try editing any remotely political article on wikipedia with anything but the "approved" narrative carried by lefwting sources with a suspicious consistency.

There is more than enough uncertainty in the reporting of contemporary events for news agencies to disagree while remaining factual; yet, suspiciously, the set of "reliable" sources are nearly always consistent in their interpretation of events and the language they choose to slyly inject political bias into their articles.

Objective journalism is dead, and was long ago replaced by increasingly naked political activism. Sure, it's impossible to be truly objective, but that's not an excuse to constantly manufacture one sided propaganda. Apparently people are so hung up on diversity of skin color/gender/sexuality that they've lost sight of the entire point, diversity of thought.

Not sure where to even get started with this.

Could you elucidate your point a bit more without the clickbaity link?

Tim Pool is also a cherry-picker and propagandist in his own right. He creates a cult following by sowing distrust in the legacy media while pushing alt-media as a beacon of truth.

There are tons of fair and valid criticisms to be made of existing media, but this fails to hit the mark.

I don't know - I saw most BLM protestors wearing masks. There was a distinct lack of them at the capitol ... that's what happens when a sensible public health measure becomes politicised I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com