Hate to break it to you but the media as ALWAYS been rightwing; the outlets are owned by Oligarchs who benefit the most from in-class fighting among citizens as long as theyre distracted from the wealth inequality.
Hate to break it to you but the media as ALWAYS been rightwing; the outlets are owned by Oligarchs who benefit the most from in-class fighting among citizens as long as theyre distracted from the wealth inequality.
Dragonstaff@leminal.space 1 week ago
Why be a dick? You don’t need to break anything to me. If you don’t understand that the present media consolidation is indeed novel, perhaps you should study history. But nothing I said suggested things used to be good.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
He wasn’t being a dick, just pointing out that all mass media has always been owned by oligarchy. This isn’t consolidation of the media under right wing, that is nonsensical because it happened since the beginning of history.
You say study history? What about Edward Murrow’s warning during the Red Scare when the US disowned and kicked out all the leftist. Sound like what we are still dealing with.
youtu.be/ZUMEq24tqtU
Newspapers were always owned by the wealthy and acted as their mouthpiece since the inception of this country which was founded on violence and propaganda.
I do see your point though, but it is important to point out the truth lest we fall into propaganda traps like “independent media” or “left wing” media.
Dragonstaff@leminal.space 1 week ago
Starting with “Hate to break it to you” is starting an argument with someone on your own side for no reason.
We used to have laws against media consolidation. Yes, the wealthy have always owned media, however, this is still new
You’re making a point slightly different than mine. It’s weird and unnecessary to act like I didn’t know that.
Mac@mander.xyz 1 week ago
Hate to break it to ya but “hate to break it to ya” aren’t fighting words.
That’s a ‘you’ problem.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I appreciate that you consider us on the same side. This often seems to be a sticking point and causes a lot of unnecessary postering.
While his comment might be considered to be a little flippant, I don’t take it as the insult you did. We will just have to disagree here.
We used to have laws against media consolidation but no law preventing the wealthy from controlling all media as long as it wasn’t all directly owned by the same entity. This isn’t than panacea you seem to think it is, although I do lament things like the end of the fairness doctrine from time to time.
I believe it should have been expanded to all media as opposed to be being abolished. Actually, I don’t even think it needs to be a law if we had a strong culture of considering all sides of the argument fairly. Of course, that is not the world we live in.
Another poster brought up the Internet and how it was not originally a mouthpiece for the wealthy. I remember back in the days of IRC and then blogging and I can attest to the downward trajectory discourse has taken. The rise of social media turned the Internet from a playground for techies into a propaganda machine for the oligarchy.
I didn’t mean to to insinuate you didn’t know all this already. I am just talking and I apologize if my word salad cones across as arrogant.
brendansimms@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think the modern consolidation of digital age mass media has been novel in that the media isn’t just newspapers, magazines, or tv. In the past, it was consolidation of print media, because there was no internet or tv. Then came consolidation of tv media, which was probably easier because the delivery method was already oligarch-owned. Internet opened up all new means of mass media, and they weren’t necessarily oligarch owned when they began i.e. blogs and apps and all that. First, the blogs/sites/apps had to gain a following. Only then were they ripe for takeover because they had reach. So I guess then…yea…once it becomes mass media it is taken over, so maybe I am agreeing that all mass media is right/oligarch owned. On the rise to becoming ‘mass’ media, though, not necessarily.