The US Could Use Some Separation of Media and State | Hacker News Reader

The US Could Use Some Separation of Media and State

caitlinjohnstone.com

9 pointswunderland8 comments

This is a symptom. The root issue is control of the media is in too few hands.

Journalism by definition attempts to be objective and thorough. Today, much of what gets passed off as journalism is op-ed. It's tilted reporting that reflects the desired narrative of ownership. It asks too few questions, buries ledes, leaves out key facts, etc.

It might not be fake news by most people's definition, but it not journalism.

https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for...

That sounds an awful lot like some things Karl Marx told us 150 years ago.

It's Orwellian as well. In plain sight. And too few notice.

That would be a goal towards democracy.

However their target is fascism, as they are implementing fascism in all the other states they are invading. Military of economically. That works pretty well for them, so why should they go for limiting their industrial/military/surveillance power system?

"journalists are meant to hold the government to account"

This has never actually been true though it is often repeated. Even if a media organisation tries or just purports to be neutral, its staff are not. Those who oppose the government will hold it to account, the others won't.

On top of that, they need separation of state and religion.

Having traveled a lot of the world the US does a good job of separation of church and state, even though it's not something specifically enumerated. I believe your core point of contention is not state and religion but religious people who participate in the democratic process.

These two things are drastically different. I challenge you to go to a country where religious ideology is part and parcel of their system of government. Explore that for a while and see what it's really like when the state endorses a religion and then come back to the United States. Nowhere on any government issued ID card is anyone required to list the religion. Even if you were agnostic or wanted to be atheist in some countries you're still required to list an actual religion. Show me where in the United States there is a state sanctioned religious police force ensuring that doctrine is followed. I've not seen it anywhere. I've seen individual bad actors do things and held to account for them.

There is a big difference between the state picking an ideology or a religion and then mandating that religion or ideology enforcement powers and individuals who are religious participating in the democratic process to ensure that laws align with their value system. The first option the people have no choice in the matter. The second option the laws themselves are not a religious doctrine they are laws based on the societal principles that the people voted for and there is a review process to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of the people.

People who are religious do have the ability to participate in the democratic process and get to vote and make proposals about things that align with their value system. Just like people who are not religious get to do the exact same thing. It is very important not conflate things.

This is a very difficult thing to do since the state has been actively in the process of controlling the media for more than 100 years in the United States. The entire point of the FCC was not to enforce the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and ensure that with modern communication technologies those rights could be preserved. Instead that organization was built with the mindset of destroying the first amendment protection on freedom of speech and instead flipping it around to grant people the freedom to listen. Well NPR the PBS get cranky over the tag Elon musk wants to put on their Twitter the reality is anyone who is granted a license by the FCC to broadcast is some sort of state-backed media.

While defenders made point out that limited broadcast bandwidth necessitated something like the FCC to ensure that this limited space was protected I don't buy that that's a sufficient argument to destroy and gut the first amendment. Even if I was to accept that that one limited resource could be preserved in part for large media companies why did the FCC so regulate the citizens band or the band's reserved for shortwave radio and the people's use. The really sad thing is those individuals using those frequencies that are reserved for the people are often the staunchest defenders of the onerous regulations around using them directly in violation of the core principles of the first amendment.

This is exactly what people warn about when they say the slippery slope. 100 plus years ago when radio was first a thing and we needed to decide how to regulate the airwaves and the bandwidth available no one could envision the idea of effectively unlimited communications bandwidth. So they trotted down the path of ignorance and this is what we're left with a legacy that says the state can absolutely choose the media.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com