zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. alanwr+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-05-24 19:31:04
Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” should be on your bookshelf. Goes into great detail especially regarding the need that media has to toeing the government line. It keeps them relevant and included in general news at all. Telling the truth or at least failing to omit it could equate to biting the hand that feeds you other stories.
replies(2): >>throwa+11 >>garfie+HF1
2. throwa+11[view] [source] 2021-05-24 19:36:20
>>alanwr+(OP)
I should probably read it sometime, but I don't think "toeing the government line" aptly characterizes the media from 2016-2020. On the contrary, the media has had little except harsh criticism for the government in this time frame (which isn't to say that some or all of the criticism is undeserved, only that it seems to contradict the notion that the media toes the government line).
replies(3): >>alanwr+og >>nescio+Ms >>dnissl+Zw
◧◩
3. alanwr+og[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-05-24 21:04:19
>>throwa+11
National politics is a very specific topic - where I agree, depending on your outlet’s leaning (assuming a person listens to only one) you got a very different picture. In truth much of the aforementioned book takes an international look, but I think the timeframe you present is just a local version of our international information spin/silence problems. You do recall when the United States’ previous president barred certain outlets from briefings https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocke... this is probably more rare for how brazen it was rather than common
◧◩
4. nescio+Ms[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-05-24 22:30:20
>>throwa+11
Haven't read it since the 90's but the "toeing the line" bit sounds like the criticism that the media are uncritically dependent on official sources. A reporter's dependence on a particular official as a source of information and the resultant reluctance to alienate such a source was proposed to explain why media outlets have the effect of uncritically promulgating government policy or propaganda.

I don't think this situation has changed in essence. Media outlets may now filter first on party affiliation, but they haven't replaced their dependence on official sources with better independent investigative reporting, for instance.

> On the contrary, the media has had little except harsh criticism for the government in this time frame

Or glowing, fawning reverence. It depends on the media outlet and the official (really the official's party) in question. The screw turned for Cuomo, but I imagine for every Cuomo, there are more darlings that go unchallenged.

◧◩
5. dnissl+Zw[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-05-24 23:03:08
>>throwa+11
A more modern analysis can be found in The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri.

His hypothesis is that what was once an information trickle has become a virtual tsunami with the internet + cell phones + satellite television, etc. Governments have no control over the flow of information, which they had at least a semblance of pre-2000. This wave of information has not only exposed the worst excesses of the elites, but has also exposed the enormous gap between their authoritative promises and the actual results they produce.

This has pissed off a lot of very entitled people, who don't take the fact that the gap has always existed into consideration, who for historical reasons place very high expectations on government, and as a result attribute bad intentions to the previously mentioned poor results.

Not only is the media courting those people, they are made up of those people. So you get a media that just heaps negation on even the smallest failure of government. It's not just for clicks -- they are true believers in that they think they're doing the right thing.

replies(1): >>throwa+oP1
6. garfie+HF1[view] [source] 2021-05-25 10:21:50
>>alanwr+(OP)
Matt Taibbi's _Hate, Inc._ was also a great look at how journalism has (and has not) changed in recent. He cites _Manufacturing Consent_ as an important influence on him.
◧◩◪
7. throwa+oP1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-05-25 11:50:02
>>dnissl+Zw
That’s an interesting theory and I certainly think the difference in the way we access information plays a role, but I don’t think it accounts for the stark contrast in media reporting between Obama and Biden. I don’t think things got bad for the elected the moment Trump became a serious candidate and then became good again the moment Biden took office; however, that’s roughly the portrait the media gave us. Trump comes into office and basically continues Obama’s immigration policy and suddenly we have an immigrant crisis and America is a white supremacist hellscape. Trump leaves office and (barring the Jan 6 riots) America is peachy-keen per the media. It certainly seems manufactured, but not by the government and not reflecting the discontent of the elites. I genuinely don’t have a good hypothesis to put forward. :/
replies(1): >>DenisM+Nm2
◧◩◪◨
8. DenisM+Nm2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-05-25 15:05:29
>>throwa+oP1
Trump policies were disruptive of free trade and favorable of the blue-collar working class. There is your hypothesis.
[go to top]