I don't think the mainstream media [MSM] is always, or even frequently, dishonest. I think they often are sloppy or get details wrong, but not out of a desire to mislead, but rather due to not fully understanding the issues or getting a distorted view.
Also Mr. Masnick:
I don't always agree with Glenn Greenwald, and over the last few years have grown increasingly frustrated with either his confusing and contradictory positions or his bizarre stubbornness in being purposefully obtuse in his explanations of his positions.
The 1st comment, written last May, irritated me. It was written during election season, no less, when the media is nearly at peak terribleness. The MSM has become practically dishonest by definition, routinely telling flagrant lies. Media now has "fact checkers" who also flagrantly lie... It is powerful enough to build its own bubble to exist in. AND it draws others in also. Unreality is the prime attribute of bubbles. It allows those in the bubble to appear honest, if you choose not to notice the falsehoods.
But, it gets worse. MSM is not only dishonest and thus miseducates, it teaches people how to interpret and react to information and experiences. Like most politicians, MSM stokes negative human tendencies creating control and conformity. One of its effects is relatively new: In the information age people have become adept at converting their biases, prejudices and desires into falsehoods and aggressive certainty and then projecting them outward. Truth is a function of what one can successfully assert. MSM style. True discussion is almost impossible, instead we have a battle of bubbles. Fake truths are a function of human powers, not reality.
Media is an extremely important function. Media's power is meant to serve that function. Mr. Masnick first's quote above is the typical way people talk about powerful, influential or privileged entities. He's practically shrugging in that comment. Causal justification and excuse making. Like the way your boss talks about your lazy, incompetent co-worker, who's the boss' favorite. No frustration. No sharp language. Compare that with the Greenwald comment: Greenwald is easily outside the mainstream and thus less powerful and more vulnerable. That comment? No casual justification. No excuse making. Sharp language and frustration for a person, from what I can tell, appears to be a brave and responsible journalist.
ICE took the initiative and was given the go-ahead from those involved.
And, more importantly, they have the needed institutional extralegal attitude that allows them to do this with least internal, cultural and structural friction.
The configuration of the lawlessness derived from (and tolerated because of) their immigration activity must be compatible with copyright mafia activity.
Put another way. Immigration is the "hot hand" and the copyright cartel is riding that hot hand.
The government cannot legally create conditions that makes their own illegal actions undiscoverable. That is the very essence of whistleblowing. Airtight criminality is not a thing that is allowed in a society.
Re: 'Sir, the protesters aren't violent.' 'Not YET anyway...'
Exactly.
Though, I would note that police would NOT have to sue successfully. It is problematic enough just to be able to discourage protests by way of legal harassment.
Furthermore, most protests that cops are tasked with "chaperoning" have nothing to do with the cops themselves. BLM protests are directly about the police. There is a sort of conflict of interest. Anonymously suing a protest leader adds yet another layer of bad on top.
Cops are nearly invulnerable to any consequences of actions they themselves take. Should a protest leader be responsible for actions another takes?
Being able to sue a protest leader would make infiltrating and sabotaging a protest that much more effective.
When should it be "legal" (or acceptable) to make useful protest activity illegal?
Too often justice is not blind at all.
There are politicians (including the POTUS) who should be FAR more vulnerable to liability through "incitement" than this protest leader should ever be.
What we are seeing may be a further unbalancing on the judgments of legality. Increasingly, objectivity illegal and immoral acts are treated as both legal and acceptable. Meanwhile, the (often direct) reactions and responses to those acts are treated with escalating hostility. The consequences of this thinking go beyond the simple question of 'legal or illegal?'.
In past situations, I've had different suspicions about the motivations for seemingly frivolous litigation. Courts often act as a single point of failure. Bombard courts with similar suits and find a weak spot, a way to tailor suits to get past the rejections or even adjust the court's POV or posture on a subject matter. Like a body of water slowly eroding a natural dam, I imagine it has happened in other situations.
Your argument against name calling and dogma is the basis of pretty much every organized religion.
"The basis of pretty much every organized religion" involve interpersonal relationships, group social dynamics and supposedly shared and unifying beliefs. As such "organized religion" is very similar to most other organization. Ideals are expressed in how they are different or strive to be different from most.
Making mock of viewpoints, especially status quo viewpoints, is also effective - look at anyone who doesn't agree on "settled science" and how they're mocked and derided.
Mocking is a tool. It is routinely misused. Its primary usefulness is getting the subjects of mockery to re-THINK their POV. A common misuse is to pressure dismissal of a POV without due consideration, which promotes 'us vs them' attitudes and group-think. It is critical that we are able to discern the differences and react properly. Especially in this day of mis-education and misinformation.
Anyway, these days, it's a tool that rarely works positively. We should all use it FAR less often then we currently do.
On the post: In A Blatant Attack On Press Freedom, Brazilian Government Charges Glenn Greenwald With 'Cybercrimes' For Reporting On Leaked Documents
Re: Re: Re:
Actual reporters, especially independent ones, are increasingly under attack. Even in the US.
Unfortunately, the 'stenographers' have an increasingly big megaphone that can drown out the real reporting.
On the post: In A Blatant Attack On Press Freedom, Brazilian Government Charges Glenn Greenwald With 'Cybercrimes' For Reporting On Leaked Documents
Re: Re:
Unfortunately most media is now corporate media. So, their behavior can be as complex as the giant, often multinational, companies that own them.
On the post: In A Blatant Attack On Press Freedom, Brazilian Government Charges Glenn Greenwald With 'Cybercrimes' For Reporting On Leaked Documents
Re: Re:
You got me. :)
On the post: In A Blatant Attack On Press Freedom, Brazilian Government Charges Glenn Greenwald With 'Cybercrimes' For Reporting On Leaked Documents
Mr. Masnick:
Also Mr. Masnick:
The 1st comment, written last May, irritated me. It was written during election season, no less, when the media is nearly at peak terribleness. The MSM has become practically dishonest by definition, routinely telling flagrant lies. Media now has "fact checkers" who also flagrantly lie... It is powerful enough to build its own bubble to exist in. AND it draws others in also. Unreality is the prime attribute of bubbles. It allows those in the bubble to appear honest, if you choose not to notice the falsehoods.
But, it gets worse. MSM is not only dishonest and thus miseducates, it teaches people how to interpret and react to information and experiences. Like most politicians, MSM stokes negative human tendencies creating control and conformity. One of its effects is relatively new: In the information age people have become adept at converting their biases, prejudices and desires into falsehoods and aggressive certainty and then projecting them outward. Truth is a function of what one can successfully assert. MSM style. True discussion is almost impossible, instead we have a battle of bubbles. Fake truths are a function of human powers, not reality.
Media is an extremely important function. Media's power is meant to serve that function. Mr. Masnick first's quote above is the typical way people talk about powerful, influential or privileged entities. He's practically shrugging in that comment. Causal justification and excuse making. Like the way your boss talks about your lazy, incompetent co-worker, who's the boss' favorite. No frustration. No sharp language. Compare that with the Greenwald comment: Greenwald is easily outside the mainstream and thus less powerful and more vulnerable. That comment? No casual justification. No excuse making. Sharp language and frustration for a person, from what I can tell, appears to be a brave and responsible journalist.
Perhaps, I'm being unreasonable?
On the post: California Makes $50 Million Annually Selling Your DMV Data
I blame Facebook.
On the post: In These Partisan Times, The Only Thing That Gets Bi-Partisan Agreement Is That Blizzard Sucks
I disagree
I disagree. I think Blizzard blows!
On the post: The Cable Industry Makes $28 Billion Annually In Bullshit Fees
Fill in the blank
The ____ Industry Makes $__ Billion Annually In Bullshit Fees.
On the post: Attorney General William Barr Declares War On The General Public
Dystopia
Ahhh, yes. Dystopic scenario #8610027. Sometimes known as a 'Judge Dredd' scenario. So many possible dystopias, so difficult to choose!
On the post: Techdirt Sues ICE After It Insists It Has No Records Of The 1 Million Domains It Claims To Have Seized
Re: Re:
My guess, it's a combination of two things:
The configuration of the lawlessness derived from (and tolerated because of) their immigration activity must be compatible with copyright mafia activity.
Put another way. Immigration is the "hot hand" and the copyright cartel is riding that hot hand.
On the post: SFPD Earning Universal Condemnation For Raiding A Journalist's Home During Its Internal Leak Investigation
The front gate resisted arrest.
On the post: US Government Rings Up Another Whistleblower On Espionage Charges
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government cannot legally create conditions that makes their own illegal actions undiscoverable. That is the very essence of whistleblowing. Airtight criminality is not a thing that is allowed in a society.
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Re: 'Sir, the protesters aren't violent.' 'Not YET anyway...'
Exactly.
Though, I would note that police would NOT have to sue successfully. It is problematic enough just to be able to discourage protests by way of legal harassment.
Furthermore, most protests that cops are tasked with "chaperoning" have nothing to do with the cops themselves. BLM protests are directly about the police. There is a sort of conflict of interest. Anonymously suing a protest leader adds yet another layer of bad on top.
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Too many problems
Cops are nearly invulnerable to any consequences of actions they themselves take. Should a protest leader be responsible for actions another takes?
Being able to sue a protest leader would make infiltrating and sabotaging a protest that much more effective.
When should it be "legal" (or acceptable) to make useful protest activity illegal?
Too often justice is not blind at all.
What we are seeing may be a further unbalancing on the judgments of legality. Increasingly, objectivity illegal and immoral acts are treated as both legal and acceptable. Meanwhile, the (often direct) reactions and responses to those acts are treated with escalating hostility. The consequences of this thinking go beyond the simple question of 'legal or illegal?'.
On the post: Another Attempt To Tie Twitter To Terrorist Acts And Another Dismissal With Prejudice
Try, try again
In past situations, I've had different suspicions about the motivations for seemingly frivolous litigation. Courts often act as a single point of failure. Bombard courts with similar suits and find a weak spot, a way to tailor suits to get past the rejections or even adjust the court's POV or posture on a subject matter. Like a body of water slowly eroding a natural dam, I imagine it has happened in other situations.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Nominative antonym
Members spend a ridiculous amount of time begging for money.
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Service Claims $600 Billion-Worth Of Images Are 'Stolen' Every Day
Fraud based economy
On Monday, Mr. Masnick wrote an article about Getty: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190329/15352641901/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license -public-domain-images.shtml. Getty was selling public domain images for big bucks. Maybe that $600 billion is in fraud dollars.
On the post: Just $6,790 Of $208 Million In Robocall Fines Have Been Collected By The FCC
Just $6,790 Of $208 Million
That's ok FCC. I'll collect it for you.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Affirms First Amendment Protections For Flipping Off Cops
Ancient gesture
Wait, the middle finger is an "ancient gesture of insult"?
On the post: Court Dismissed Lawsuit Brought Against Social Media Companies Alleging An Anti-Conservative Conspiracy
Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
"The basis of pretty much every organized religion" involve interpersonal relationships, group social dynamics and supposedly shared and unifying beliefs. As such "organized religion" is very similar to most other organization. Ideals are expressed in how they are different or strive to be different from most.
Mocking is a tool. It is routinely misused. Its primary usefulness is getting the subjects of mockery to re-THINK their POV. A common misuse is to pressure dismissal of a POV without due consideration, which promotes 'us vs them' attitudes and group-think. It is critical that we are able to discern the differences and react properly. Especially in this day of mis-education and misinformation.
Anyway, these days, it's a tool that rarely works positively. We should all use it FAR less often then we currently do.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Rears Its Ugly Head Again: Fox's 'False Testimony' And 'Aversion For The Truth' Leads To $179M Fine
They use "creators" as props in a way similar to how war hawks pretend to care about "the troops".
Next >>