Certified_Heterosexual
The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
Corporate journalism is the greatest threat to public discourse today, for two reasons.
1) As I detailed in my other journalism essay, these outlets still serve as our society's information gatekeepers and interpreters (by virtue of their access to copious corporate funding and the residual "reputation" these outlets maintain). Someone might counter that the widespread availability of the Internet has allowed for the rise of alternative sources of information and interpretation. This is true, however it brings us so the second threat generated by journalism as it is currently practiced:
2) Censorship, or "unpersoning," as a Twitter wag recently put it. These alternative sources, whether they are large entities like Infowars or an anonymous shitposter on Twitter, are under the constant threat of deplatforming (i.e. losing access to the mechanism by which they can spread information) largely due to journalists. If journalists didn't create the current deplatforming phenomenon (credit goes to mentally unstable academics and student activists), they've certainly been responsible for spreading it from college campuses into every facet of public life.
At the root of censorship is controversy. If your speech isn't controversial, then nobody will try and shut you up. And if the person upset by your speech isn't powerful, then he can't shut you up. It's really that simple. To that end, it's somewhat ironic to point out that the loyal subject in a dictatorship has, in effect, total free speech— because it would never occur to him to speak out against that dictatorship.
Similarly, in the United States, those who belong to the mainstream Left— which almost the entire media class does— are never for one second under any fear of censorship, and simply cannot understand those who are. Worse than that, like the loyal subject in a dictatorship, they are suspicious, fearful, and hateful towards those who are. Again, this all applies most consequentially to the media class by virtue of their role as information gatekeepers. They determine whose speech becomes controversial. Or perhaps more accurately, they determine whose controversial speech becomes amplified, attacked, and misrepresented. Alex Jones questioning mass shootings wasn't controversial when he did it, because nobody cared. It only became controversial, or became an important controversy worthy of wall-to-wall coverage, five years later when he started openly supporting President Trump instead of ranting about how all politicians were dupes of the New World Order. In short, the corporate media possesses the power to slander totally and effectively— unlike, as I noted in my other essay, any of us who do not possess the funding or "reputation" that these outlets do.
But being able to slander is not on its own enough to silence. It requires a social environment conducive to accepting, propagating, and acting on slander. The slander promoted by corporate journalism is regarded as acceptable, both legally speaking due to New York Times v. Sullivan (which allows media outlets to fall back on the circular argument that by slandering their target he ipso facto becomes a public figure), and socially speaking due to the continued perception of these media outlets as "reputable" sources of information among certain segments of the population. Their slander is propagated, not merely by the outlet that initiates the campaign, but also by other outlets who lazily and maliciously spread the slander.
Corporate journalism is not engaged in some grand conspiracy (merely a bunch of smaller penny-ante conspiracies), but by virtue of journalists existing in the same milieu and sharing the same set of beliefs and assumptions it is all but guaranteed that they will serve to amplify each other's lies. Their slander is acted on, by the companies that do possess the power to censor— social media firms like Twitter, payment processors like Paypal, online vendors like Amazon— and who accept the slander at face value. So while journalists themselves may not directly censor, and in fact will disingenuously disassociate themselves from censorship ("I'm merely reporting on this troubling trend..." etc.), they are the chief drivers behind our nation's dangerous descent into corporate authoritarianism.
At every level of this story there are complexities and contradictions that need to be broken down. What do I mean when I say that there's "the continued perception of these media outlets as 'reputable'?" After all, the media is more distrusted now than perhaps every before. But crucially the media continues to maintain its "reputation" among the corporations it reports on, interacts with, and is funded by (their residual "reputation" is traded for corporate funding, and that funding in turn allows these outlets to continue to maintain a "reputable" visage). These outlets also continue to be widely read by intellectual, cultural, and political elites (to whom access is conditionally granted) as well as by a national minority of rabidly politicized citizens for whom the increased partisanship of the media is precisely what drives their patronage of it. This is part of why corporate media has remained remarkably resilient (though journalists continue to get fired by the dozens, the outlets themselves press on with impunity) in the face of massive declines in readership, embarrassing scandals, and increased competition.
What do I mean when I say that their slander is spread both "lazily and maliciously?" The motivations of the journalist are an open question, and I think generally there are two lines of thinking— journalistis either a lazy, cynical mediocrity who slanders for money and power, or he is a blinkered ideologue who slanders for the cause. Naturally the best analyses combine these two explanations which more often than not act in concert. In fact, I think that is what makes journalists so dangerous. Furthering their own careers and advancing their blinkered sociopathic ideology go hand in hand. The journalist does not, and cannot, distinguish between the two, leading to a sort of feedback loop whereby their worst instincts are continually reinforced. Also, in my opinion, any explanation of events that assumes self-awareness on the part of the journalist (for example, that they knew they were slandering the Sandmann kid but did it anyways) is always going to be flawed. They aren't even aware that the articles they produce are mangled messes of misrepresentations because it is standard practice in the field, because it propagates their own personal viewpoint, and because such productions are financially remunerative. It would never even occur to the journalist to give a smug-looking kid wearing a MAGA hat the benefit of the doubt. Why would it?
What do I mean when I say that "their slander is acted on?" It is a bit misleading, after all. "Acted on" implies that journalists are a sort of bystander to the actual performance of censorship, unaffiliated with the third party (corporations) doing the censoring. But this, as we all know, is untrue. Media outlets are directly funded by the censors. For instance, Amazon bankrolls the Washington Post. Through its Google News Initiative, Google is distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to various journalistic programs and Facebook maintains a similar fund (the Facebook Journalism Project). Indeed Google's manipulated search service, and its news service, generate huge amounts of clicks for media outlets. The various "Trust and Safety" councils at places like Twitter, and "Fact Checking Partners" at places like Facebook— which are to a certain degree responsible for the censorship policies of these corporations— are replete with journalists. Not to mention that the various slander campaigns in which journalists continually engage often occur largely on the social media platforms from which they demand censorship. That is, they use Twitter to demand that Twitter deplatform people— while the people being deplatformed are unable to defend themselves... by virtue of being denied access to the platform!
To this point, as the Internet gets larger, corporations have a tighter grip on content. This is because beyond a certain volume, people are forced to rely on intermediate services to find content. (With some websites this went even further, with corporations refusing access to domain registration.) Google can effectively purge sites and video creators from the Internet, because if you can't be found on their massive monopolistic platforms, you simply cease to exist for a large number of people.
Social media came at just the right time for liberals, and due to the ideology of tech companies it delivered unprecedented levels of social control... while simultaneously the social effects of technology made liberals more paranoid, and hence more willing to use their new power to censor enemies.
I find myself drifting away from my main topic, but it is also a factor in the growing anti-conservatism of journalism. Journalists share presumption, sense of mission, and ideological affinity with Big Tech, which, just when media consolidation has made journalists more powerless and answerable to corporate oligarchs, gives them an outlet and influence for punishing their ideological enemies.
What exposes the ethical depravity of journalism is its willingness to idly spectate as government and corporations are allowed to become more invasive and more punitive toward dissent. There have been no dark warnings from the liberal media establishment about the dangers of corporate censorship or the unpersoning of harmless individuals; they, as liberals, embrace it out of paranoia, petty hate, and injured ego.
Corporate media is driven by a set of perverse incentives. Their slanderous censorship campaigns are financially beneficial (both in the sense that it harms competing alternative media and the controversy generated drives clicks) and ideologically sound (their Leftist worldview being premised on the idea that the only way to stop authoritarianism is to engage in it). Bad practice is standardized and celebrated. Megalomania sets in. Journalists are incapable of accepting criticism, much less self-criticism. They believe their own power over the distribution and interpretation of information should be unlimited, and actively work towards that end. The corporate media, in short, is an organized crime ring, and it must be broken up.
1) As I detailed in my other journalism essay, these outlets still serve as our society's information gatekeepers and interpreters (by virtue of their access to copious corporate funding and the residual "reputation" these outlets maintain). Someone might counter that the widespread availability of the Internet has allowed for the rise of alternative sources of information and interpretation. This is true, however it brings us so the second threat generated by journalism as it is currently practiced:
2) Censorship, or "unpersoning," as a Twitter wag recently put it. These alternative sources, whether they are large entities like Infowars or an anonymous shitposter on Twitter, are under the constant threat of deplatforming (i.e. losing access to the mechanism by which they can spread information) largely due to journalists. If journalists didn't create the current deplatforming phenomenon (credit goes to mentally unstable academics and student activists), they've certainly been responsible for spreading it from college campuses into every facet of public life.
At the root of censorship is controversy. If your speech isn't controversial, then nobody will try and shut you up. And if the person upset by your speech isn't powerful, then he can't shut you up. It's really that simple. To that end, it's somewhat ironic to point out that the loyal subject in a dictatorship has, in effect, total free speech— because it would never occur to him to speak out against that dictatorship.
Similarly, in the United States, those who belong to the mainstream Left— which almost the entire media class does— are never for one second under any fear of censorship, and simply cannot understand those who are. Worse than that, like the loyal subject in a dictatorship, they are suspicious, fearful, and hateful towards those who are. Again, this all applies most consequentially to the media class by virtue of their role as information gatekeepers. They determine whose speech becomes controversial. Or perhaps more accurately, they determine whose controversial speech becomes amplified, attacked, and misrepresented. Alex Jones questioning mass shootings wasn't controversial when he did it, because nobody cared. It only became controversial, or became an important controversy worthy of wall-to-wall coverage, five years later when he started openly supporting President Trump instead of ranting about how all politicians were dupes of the New World Order. In short, the corporate media possesses the power to slander totally and effectively— unlike, as I noted in my other essay, any of us who do not possess the funding or "reputation" that these outlets do.
But being able to slander is not on its own enough to silence. It requires a social environment conducive to accepting, propagating, and acting on slander. The slander promoted by corporate journalism is regarded as acceptable, both legally speaking due to New York Times v. Sullivan (which allows media outlets to fall back on the circular argument that by slandering their target he ipso facto becomes a public figure), and socially speaking due to the continued perception of these media outlets as "reputable" sources of information among certain segments of the population. Their slander is propagated, not merely by the outlet that initiates the campaign, but also by other outlets who lazily and maliciously spread the slander.
Corporate journalism is not engaged in some grand conspiracy (merely a bunch of smaller penny-ante conspiracies), but by virtue of journalists existing in the same milieu and sharing the same set of beliefs and assumptions it is all but guaranteed that they will serve to amplify each other's lies. Their slander is acted on, by the companies that do possess the power to censor— social media firms like Twitter, payment processors like Paypal, online vendors like Amazon— and who accept the slander at face value. So while journalists themselves may not directly censor, and in fact will disingenuously disassociate themselves from censorship ("I'm merely reporting on this troubling trend..." etc.), they are the chief drivers behind our nation's dangerous descent into corporate authoritarianism.
At every level of this story there are complexities and contradictions that need to be broken down. What do I mean when I say that there's "the continued perception of these media outlets as 'reputable'?" After all, the media is more distrusted now than perhaps every before. But crucially the media continues to maintain its "reputation" among the corporations it reports on, interacts with, and is funded by (their residual "reputation" is traded for corporate funding, and that funding in turn allows these outlets to continue to maintain a "reputable" visage). These outlets also continue to be widely read by intellectual, cultural, and political elites (to whom access is conditionally granted) as well as by a national minority of rabidly politicized citizens for whom the increased partisanship of the media is precisely what drives their patronage of it. This is part of why corporate media has remained remarkably resilient (though journalists continue to get fired by the dozens, the outlets themselves press on with impunity) in the face of massive declines in readership, embarrassing scandals, and increased competition.
What do I mean when I say that their slander is spread both "lazily and maliciously?" The motivations of the journalist are an open question, and I think generally there are two lines of thinking— journalistis either a lazy, cynical mediocrity who slanders for money and power, or he is a blinkered ideologue who slanders for the cause. Naturally the best analyses combine these two explanations which more often than not act in concert. In fact, I think that is what makes journalists so dangerous. Furthering their own careers and advancing their blinkered sociopathic ideology go hand in hand. The journalist does not, and cannot, distinguish between the two, leading to a sort of feedback loop whereby their worst instincts are continually reinforced. Also, in my opinion, any explanation of events that assumes self-awareness on the part of the journalist (for example, that they knew they were slandering the Sandmann kid but did it anyways) is always going to be flawed. They aren't even aware that the articles they produce are mangled messes of misrepresentations because it is standard practice in the field, because it propagates their own personal viewpoint, and because such productions are financially remunerative. It would never even occur to the journalist to give a smug-looking kid wearing a MAGA hat the benefit of the doubt. Why would it?
What do I mean when I say that "their slander is acted on?" It is a bit misleading, after all. "Acted on" implies that journalists are a sort of bystander to the actual performance of censorship, unaffiliated with the third party (corporations) doing the censoring. But this, as we all know, is untrue. Media outlets are directly funded by the censors. For instance, Amazon bankrolls the Washington Post. Through its Google News Initiative, Google is distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to various journalistic programs and Facebook maintains a similar fund (the Facebook Journalism Project). Indeed Google's manipulated search service, and its news service, generate huge amounts of clicks for media outlets. The various "Trust and Safety" councils at places like Twitter, and "Fact Checking Partners" at places like Facebook— which are to a certain degree responsible for the censorship policies of these corporations— are replete with journalists. Not to mention that the various slander campaigns in which journalists continually engage often occur largely on the social media platforms from which they demand censorship. That is, they use Twitter to demand that Twitter deplatform people— while the people being deplatformed are unable to defend themselves... by virtue of being denied access to the platform!
To this point, as the Internet gets larger, corporations have a tighter grip on content. This is because beyond a certain volume, people are forced to rely on intermediate services to find content. (With some websites this went even further, with corporations refusing access to domain registration.) Google can effectively purge sites and video creators from the Internet, because if you can't be found on their massive monopolistic platforms, you simply cease to exist for a large number of people.
Social media came at just the right time for liberals, and due to the ideology of tech companies it delivered unprecedented levels of social control... while simultaneously the social effects of technology made liberals more paranoid, and hence more willing to use their new power to censor enemies.
I find myself drifting away from my main topic, but it is also a factor in the growing anti-conservatism of journalism. Journalists share presumption, sense of mission, and ideological affinity with Big Tech, which, just when media consolidation has made journalists more powerless and answerable to corporate oligarchs, gives them an outlet and influence for punishing their ideological enemies.
What exposes the ethical depravity of journalism is its willingness to idly spectate as government and corporations are allowed to become more invasive and more punitive toward dissent. There have been no dark warnings from the liberal media establishment about the dangers of corporate censorship or the unpersoning of harmless individuals; they, as liberals, embrace it out of paranoia, petty hate, and injured ego.
Corporate media is driven by a set of perverse incentives. Their slanderous censorship campaigns are financially beneficial (both in the sense that it harms competing alternative media and the controversy generated drives clicks) and ideologically sound (their Leftist worldview being premised on the idea that the only way to stop authoritarianism is to engage in it). Bad practice is standardized and celebrated. Megalomania sets in. Journalists are incapable of accepting criticism, much less self-criticism. They believe their own power over the distribution and interpretation of information should be unlimited, and actively work towards that end. The corporate media, in short, is an organized crime ring, and it must be broken up.
