Hacker News Reader

Comment by FeloniousHam | Hacker News Reader

> Another factor is that rich oil and gas people figured out they could just buy the media.

Who is this "media"? Is this the same "media" that Trump and his dullards claim is so corrupt and contrary to The Truth? Are you influenced by this "media"? I don't read The Guardian or Jacobin, but I'm occasionally exposed to their headlines and they are certainly reporting on climate change. Are they part of the "media"?

There is no monoculture "media" and to the extent there is, it is (in the US at least) overwhelmingly left-leaning. And ironically, when there were fewer outlets for information, those outlets (because they served such a large and diverse audience) hewed to a common sense/conventional wisdom understanding of the facts.

No is one controlling media. Maybe the CCP through TikTok steering.

View on HN

The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by the Scott Trust Limited. The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference". (wikipedia)

This is highly unusual for a newspaper, most media don't have that kind of independence. The Guardian is also unusual in having made a commitment to covering the climate crisis very extensively. I don't think it's a coincidence.

As I mention below, it's Trump news overwhelming everything. If WaPo was publishing 100% more climate news, no one would notice, because... no one would click those articles!

It's not even news! MAGAs I bet are resigned to a warmer climate, just arguing over cause and mitigation.

I guess was drives me nuts is "mysterious Greedy Fatcats are controlling the world" when much simpler explanations satisfy. (I'll allow that I'm sympathetic CCP steering of TikTok).

> Is this the same "media" that Trump and his dullards claim is so corrupt and contrary to The Truth? Are you influenced by this "media"? I don't read The Guardian or Jacobin, but I'm occasionally exposed to their headlines and they are certainly reporting on climate change. Are they part of the "media"?

This would have any meaning behind it if e.g. Jacobin had the same reach and viewership as Fox News. But it doesn't, so your entire argument rests on false assumptions.

Fox News' influence is greater than its (pathetic by historical standards) geriatric audience share, but it far far less influential than its opponents imagine. What changes if they were gone? Another right-leaning organization would rise a la MSNBC to fill that demand.

I would love to think that http://thedispatch.com would become the standard bearer of thoughtful conservation of liberal values, but it would probably be ONN or some shit.

the "media" means "the media that the majority of the people consume" -- that is most certainly not the Jacobin, or even the Guardian

in the US, it's Fox "News", and the other big networks - NBC, CBS, ABC, to a letter extent CNN, NYT, WaPo

look up the ownership of those networks. why do you think the Ellisons and Trump are trying so hard to get Paramount to take over Warner Bros after it already took over SkyDance?

The reason your favorite issue is not the cause celebre: Trump has flooded the zone with shit.

He holds the microphone, all day, everyday. The World Cup provides a moment's respite, until... Trump grabs the microphone.

If the lurch to the left succeeds, the leftist agenda will dominate the headlines (modulo Trump's extraordinary ability to dominate all conversations, national to dinner table).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com