You must log in or register to comment.
Ssshhhh… No more observation, only sleep.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
I’m so glad this stuff is starting to finally bubble to the top of the public consciousness.
Now, everybody read Marx.
Yes, we’re all “free” to CONSUME
If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.
Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.
you think you would get anything else if you do pay? honest question. what incentive is there for “individually funded media” to report anything better? In fact, why would they NOT sensationalize stuff? it leads to better sales and a stronger reader retention.
it’s not the solution you think it is, your best bet is to go to news aggregators like ground news and even that isn’t a 100% solution.
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
You might be missing the point of the OP, your news aggregators is an aggregation of a story you’re being told.
you do realize that there are other news sources like DW or AZ who do publish counter to the big cooperate news outlets as well?
Cool. Which one of those has the information about politics and laws and other news in my state that I should be paying attention to?
Because right now, as far as I can tell, it’s either state public media or one of the corporations.
Before shrugging and moving on - ask yourself if you support any smaller private media companies in any way at all - enabling them to bring you news with less bias, less agenda, and more fact checking.
It could be by viewing their ads with your ad blocker off, paying a subscription, or donating.
If you are unwilling to support any such media company in any way, I don’t think a complaint that media is all consolidated and doesn’t have your interests at heart is particularly compelling.
there is one local private media thingy locally. I’d support him, but dude is a far right crank.
I do support organizations like digitalcourage, netzpolitik and the guardian. Organizations that do their job, doing investigative journalism. I don’t support parrots.
You see, corporate monopolies are different than the state because
They are actually much different, as the state owes you an accounting of what it does and the people decide who to vote into control of it.
Corporate monopolies are ran like fascist states.
Till you realize that you actually only have 2-3 realistic voting options in every country and that these candidates are funded and promoted by said corporate monopolies. This is in fact a necessary prerequisite for a successful election campaign. Not to mention the revolving door.
Different roles, same people.
How many voting options do you have for CEO of Xitter?
What is the point of this question? My critique of the current state of “democracy” is about how undemocratic it is and why this is not a good thing and that it should be more democratic. I’m not advocating for even less democracy, I’m advocating for more. It’s not either this oligarchy we are living in, or corporatism
Oh, the “no party tailor made to do exactly what I want” argument.
see, that’s still 2-3 more realistic choices than the literal corpo-fascism that forms around monopolies, but please, keep repeating the BS line literally made by anti-democratic institutions whose entire purpose is to make you a lethargic apathetic voter
“exactly what I want” is so funny to me, when those 2-3 parties are ideologically entirely opposite to me. In every core political topic they are working against what I stand for. So speak for yourself, we are not the same.
In the second paragraph we have the same old stupid false dilemma I’m tired of hearing. I’m a fascist for wanting an actual democracy more than the oligarchy we have now, that protects, serves the interests and perpetuates the existence of these monopolies right?
Also, I’m sure my critique about the revolving door, the oligarchs controlling and funding the politicians and promoting them in their media are the “lines made by anti-democratic institutions”. I’m sure they say those things and I’m sure the mega corporations are not thriving and better than ever with the system we have now lol.
Not only didn’t you answer my critique but you didn’t even acknowledge it. Did it bother you so much that I critiqued the status quo? This is one of the most bad faith answers I’ve ever gotten, good job👍
Kudos to Henry Ford, who admired Hitler.
Corporate entities are typically their own fascist state. The boss says how it goes. Employees typically have little input.
During COVID I had an employee that complained about masks because they were undemocratic. I reminded them that the employees do not vote on policy.
Propublica is a great nonprofit investigative journalism site that could use your support! They often partner with local news agencies to help give them interesting content and further the impact.
Their stories hold powerful entities accountable for pollution and corruption and have a really good track record of initiating legal or regulatory consequences.
Also there’s never a paywall
There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.
We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It’s one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.
I also like AllSides, which I believe is part news agragator and part unbiased reporting.
It give you unbiased headlines, then links to the L/C/R articles that they come from:
And also articles like “Why CBS and Fox Selectively Editing Interviews Is Bad for Voters” that cut out the bias.
Wow, this seems like something I could donate to (once I unbroke myself)
The state and the press is owned by the same small group of people.
That’s why uncensored social media like Mastodon, Lemmy and the wider Fediverse is so valuable, as we can get direct reports from the people around, without being filtered or censored by anyone.
uncensored social media like
Facebook!
Yeah, it cuts both ways.
Facebook isn’t uncensored
true, 4-Chan!
much better news source!
I’d say the whole free software culture is about breaking free from the confines of large companies and whoever owns the communication platforms. They usually aren’t motivated by freedom and what their “users” want/need. Free software has been around since the 80s? The Fediverse is available for us, too. I’d say people who like freedom have some opportunities to enjoy it.
It doesn’t really replace proper journalism, though. For example all of the local news about my city and area sadly aren’t shared on any free platform. But it works alright for some other topics like IT news.
“It doesn’t really replace proper journalism though”
Yeah, that’s an even bigger problem that doesn’t really have much of a solution. Things like Fediverse might allow for the distribution of news outside the control of corporations but it doesn’t help in actually getting access to unbiased journalism.
I’m glad the Fediverse doesn’t have any “algorithm”. But still, it’s a filter bubble. And very biased. And it has the same issues as every other place on the internet. People like to spread emotional stuff, like to complain and mainly post negative stuff, because they’re more motivated to write something when they’re agitated. And less so in other cases… I don’t think there is a solution to this.
My current way is to (occasionally) put away my phone and talk to my neighbors and friends. See what they’re up to. But in turn that doesn’t inform me about world politics (or tech news) 😉 And to read some random forums and blogs where people write longer, and well reasoned articles. Yeah and I also consume social media (Lemmy) and regular media. And lots of Youtube. I still feel like I’m super biased. But I’m stopping myself from reading too much news anyways. I don’t think it’s been healthy for me.
It’s still extremely censored
Individual instances are, but the beauty is that you can still find one that isn’t, and interact with most other instances.
I really wish someone would develop multi-instance front-end where you could seamlessly view posts across multiple instances, even if they de-federated from each-other, without needing to switch between accounts.
Else, the account switching does create a bit of a barrier.
I hope world (where I am) doesn’t federated from ml. Because while there are some tankies on ml, I’d rather be exposed to all of it if I wish to be, without needing to jump between accounts to view multiple feeds.
Just my two cents, and obvious begging, since I can’t make these wonderful free apps and websites we’ve been blessed with. The option of switching is wonderful, which is why I am here.
All fediverse needs now is a solid, fully end-to-end encrypted, Facebook replacement (retro Facebook, where you just got posts from your friends, in order).
I’d rather be exposed to all of it if I wish to be
This is why I switched from .world - they defederated from Hexbear and piracy comms. I’d rather choose what I want and don’t want to see.
friends run a site with an rss feed, posts are pgp encrypted
There used to be laws in place that prevented this, but our government is far too corrupt and were paid off to do away with them via the 1996 telecommunications act, which did several good things, but opened the doors wide open to allow conglomerations the go ahead to buy and own many more news outlets and communications outlets across the country.
And Citizens United
We have state funded news where I live and I feel like it’s keeping the other commercial news channels in check in term of tone. It’s obviously not without biases but it’s a lot better than the situation in the US in my opinion.
That said the current coalition wants to cut funding to it because of the unfavourable coverage.
I agree. I think people might have the idea that the states dictates the contents, but that’s not at all how it works in well functioning democracies. It’s there to serve the public interest: to have a relatively unbiased news outlet that’s accessible to all and without (or with little) commercial interests. It coexists with commercial news outlets.
I still love the BBC. It’s not without bias, but still keeps largely to a culture of don’t directly lie, in an English way, so I feel I can read between the lines when they try to push a viewpoint their facts don’t support.
Bit by bit the ruin of their app is pushing me away, though.
Same here in Slovenia. We have RTVslo and they produce a lot of (mostly) unbiased news. Thankfully the right wingers no longer have control over it, which they did while Janez Janša was the prime minister.
Are you Canadian? Because defund the CBC ( gov funded - not operated) has been increasing in volume by the bros here over the past few years.
Nope, I’m Dutch.
When CNN was bought a couple years ago one of the biggest investors in WB (obviously a right wing billionaire) flat out said the goal was to make CNN more like Faux News…
And people are still shocked CNN acts like Faux News now.
The mainstream media will always want to drag both parties as far to the right as possible, because you don’t become rich enough to own mainstream media if you value literally anything over money.
Edit:
We’re fifty fifth out of 180
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
Well behind every other first world country
xiph.org ftw
No, its called free and open because you can blog about damned near anything without getting thrown out of a window. Some small time blogs get big views so no, your premise has no merit.
Hard disagree my friend.
A small time blog is hardly journalism. You won’t see Joe’s blog as a reference for the news at 11.
There’s a shitload of blogs out there, and even if they’re trying to be the “news”, it’s 99% opinion based “reporting” on blogs.
It’s hard to compare someone’s personally owned blog with someone like Fox News, which has publications (websites, and blog-like content) as well as TV channels and webcast videos, both audio and video content available in every location where people consume news.
Unless it’s the largest blog to ever exist, it likely won’t hold a candle to the media giants that run most news organizations.
I get what you’re saying here friend, but no.
I agree about regular news, but a niche subset of this are blogs by academics, which straddle the line between academic writing work and news. I’m thinking of stuff like https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ , a blog with multiple authors, but I am most familiar with Andrew German. They have a blogroll with many other examples.
A specific example of what I mean is that a while back, there was a big hub-bub about the shocking discovery of potentially arsenic based life. Turns out that this revelation was based on shoddy science and a dash of non-academic press picking up the exciting headline. A pretty thorough debunking was done on Rosie Redfield’s blog, where the quality of the scientific analysis is good, but is more opinionated than you’d typically find in a published paper(which can be good in some scenarios). This led to a bizarre situation where later news retrospectives of the hype did actually rely on Redfield’s blog as a reference.
Of course, this is still incredibly niche, and I think this subsection of blogs only end up like this because of the informal peer review networks that you get when a bunch of scientists make blogs, but I find it cool and interesting nonetheless.
(youtube link)
