Fake News or What did Trump Lie About Today!

80 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Fake News or What did Trump Lie About Today!

'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment'

 

Some employees at Fox News were left embarrassed and humiliated by their network's coverage of the latest revelations in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling, according to conversations CNN had with several individuals placed throughout the network.

"I'm watching now and screaming," one Fox News personality said in a text message to CNN as the person watched their network's coverage. "I want to quit."

"It is another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way," one senior Fox News employee told CNN of their outlet's coverage, adding that there were "many eye rolls" in the newsroom over how the news was covered.

The person said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House."

The employees spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. A Fox News spokesperson told CNN the network covered the breaking news accurately and fairly across both news and opinion programming.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/media/fox-news-employees-russia-mueller-...

NorthReport

White House wants credit for Papadopoulos arrest

Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed that Mueller’s probe brought down Papadopoulos only because of White House cooperation.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/trump-robert-mueller-indictmen...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Facebook Is Still In Denial About Fake News

 Mark Zuckerberg’s company is trying to tell Congress—and the American public—that its ads are not especially effective.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/facebook-is-still-in-...

NorthReport

Ukraine says it warned Facebook of Russia fake news in 2015

Social media site denies it failed to act on complaint about Moscow’s ‘propaganda war’

https://www.ft.com/content/c63d76d4-bd1e-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464

NorthReport

Russian fake accounts showed posts to 126 million Facebook users

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/30/russian-fake-accounts-sho...

NorthReport

More fake news to attempt to save his presidency?

A Desperate Republican Scheme to Save Donald Trump

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-desperate-republican-sch...

josh

Conservative media’s attack on special counsel Robert Mueller was in the works far before Mueller brought indictments against high-level Trump campaign officials.

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/31/16571350/fox-news-mueller-credibility

NorthReport

 

 

Trump’s has the winning batting average: since he became President Trump has made 2.8 false claims a day

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/01/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Even Fox News Has Grown Tired Of Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ Lying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EsYg6W8q-M

NDPP

"Edward S Herman, perhaps most famous for writing 'Manufacturing Consent' and other books with Noam Chomsky, has died. His last piece appears to have been 'Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies'..."

https://twitter.com/samhusseini/status/930182430153158656

Mobo2000

RIP, Ed Herman.    Used to read his stuff regularly on zmag back in the day.   Here's the link to his last article:

https://monthlyreview.org/2017/07/01/fake-news-on-russia-and-other-offic...

Mobo2000

... and a nice article by Matt Taibbi on the death of Ed Herman and the need for a new "Manufacturing Consent":

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/matt-taibbi-on-the-death-o...

"The main reasons for this have to do with the structure of the current commercial media. Because of tech companies like Google and Facebook, it is significantly easier to "manufacture" consent today than it was before.

A small handful of monopolistic tech companies like Facebook have life-or-death power over media companies. They can steer traffic wherever they please simply by tweaking their algorithms. Firms that don't themselves create news content wield this monstrous influence.

Controlling how, where and when you got the news was how media companies were paid previously. Since those processes are mostly out of their hands now, news companies no longer control their own economic fates.

They have become vassals to essentially unregulated, monopolistic distribution mechanisms like Facebook, who additionally appropriate the lion's share of the profits that used to fund things like investigative journalism.

Moreover the policing mechanisms are far more powerful now. Herman and Chomsky wrote about flak in the era before social media. Today blowback against dissenting thought is instantaneous and massive."

NorthReport

For Trump and his supporters, the phrase 'fake news' is their most potent weapon: Neil Macdonald

I never anticipated there would come a time when there'd be no set of basic, agreed upon facts

 

Sean Hannity, the Donald Trump adviser who masquerades as a political journalist on Fox News when it suits him, got up on his hind legs recently to scold CNN's Jake Tapper, who is a real journalist and former White House correspondent, a fellow who actually has to follow the norms and rules of the craft, such as they are.

 

Basically, that means Tapper would be fired for knowingly telling a lie on air, whereas Hannity presumably counsels President Trump on making them up.

 

Hannity's issue with Tapper that night was foolishness – something about how horrible it was of Tapper to say, on air, just after a man shouting Allahu Akbar had mowed down several Manhattan pedestrians with a rented truck, that Allahu Akbar is a phrase sometimes uttered as a beautiful sentiment, and has been corrupted by bad people.

 

What caught my interest was the way Hannity set up the CNN-loves-terrorists smear: "You have liberal fake news CNN's fake-Jake Tapper," he explained in his pained, self-righteous tone. 

Unleashing the angry id

 

It was crude and puerile. But then, like the president he advises, Hannity is unconcerned with grownup language (or even proper spelling). He instead packs his sentences with emotives and epithets designed to stimulate the angry id. He and Trump are linguistic gunsmiths, and the phrase "fake news" is their most potent weapon.

 

 

 

In the bumper-sticker realm of Trump Nation, it's the etymological equivalent of a Bushmaster with a bump stock; turn it on your enemy and spray. It's particularly handy for dealing with inconvenient facts. Just nock a fake-news arrow onto your bowstring, aim it at your tormentor and let the exploding head tear into truth and reality.

 

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help!

4:18 PM - Nov 11, 2017 · Vietnam

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

Climate change is fake news. Collusion with Russia is definitely fake news, and gets faker with every guilty plea and criminal indictment of Trump campaign aides, and every new account of them meeting with people they thought represented Russia and had dirt on Hillary. The poor attendance at Trump's inauguration, documented by aerial photographs set beside those of Barack Obama's big day, was fake news. Multiple accusations of sexual harassment against Trump himself are fake news. Fake, fake, fake.

 

In a masterpiece of theatrical irony, Trump himself actually claims to have invented the phrase. Remember, this is the guy who for years pushed the idea that Obama was born abroad, and that his parents covered it up. Or that Republican Sen. Ted Cruz's father was in league with Lee Harvey Oswald. Not for nothing has Trump declared his love of uneducated people.

 

Donald Trump

In a masterpiece of theatrical irony, Trump himself actually claims to have invented the phrase 'fake news.' (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trump-fake-news-1.4400598

Mobo2000

The above piece is to my eye typical of the genre.   It is a polemic against Trump disguised as media criticism, but the media criticism is paper thin and missing the point.    It's largely a lament that the uneducated masses aren't as trusting as they used to be.  When the writer makes a relevant point he disregards the conclusions that come from it:

"The media is guilty of atrocious hypocrisy: we assign value to life based on race (disasters in the Third World usually merit coverage after the death toll rises above several thousand), reporters posing as experts repeat conventional wisdom, we insist on the delusion of objectivity, we often make it more about ourselves than the actual news, we are hopelessly bourgeois and we genuflect obsequiously to authority, all the time posing as stern watchdogs.

That has always been the case, though. There are poor reporters and brilliant ones. I've always had faith that educated readers and viewers (I love educated people) will identify and trust the best of us. Hence the New York Times and the Economist and the New Yorker and the Washington Post, among others."

The New York Times is one of the most widely studied media properties in the world.   It's reporting of Cambodia was featured heavily throughout Manufacturing Consent.   That the writer takes the NYT and Washington Post (!) as worthy objects of trust (for educated people) tells me all I need to know.   

 

Sean in Ottawa

The argument that is often made is that we have been lied to all along.

The truth is not at all supportive.

We have been rushing down a slippery slope where truth has been twisted and parts replaced with lies and a steady diet of interpretation that has become dogma in a culture without critical thing.

We reached a point where no longer would truth be required to distort and twist or paint over here and there. Now we are where it is not relevant and you can create an entire canvas of lies where there is no longer a need for truth. Seen numerically the truth has slid for a majority to a minority of content until it is no longer required in the manufacture of information and propaganda.

You cannot blame Trump for this entirely. The culture moved to the point that he recognized that truth was no longer a necessary ingredient.

This is an issue of global culture. Sure, some may be ahead of the others but this effect is related to many things including technology and information delivery so that you can be sure that no part of the world can avoid it. Most of all it is based on public demand. There is no strong public demand for truth.

When people did not employ critical thinking to determine truth from fact, they get rewarded by having the truth component taken away entirely as it is not needed any more.

Truth is like many things-- use it or lose it. A failure of critical thinking and lack of demand for truth, is the direct cause of abandonment of truth as a component of information.

NorthReport

If I want entertainment I'll watch SNL.

Trump-Russia investigation: Paul Manafort charges leave President's 'fake news' defence exposed

The Donald's common claims about the probe haven't added up so far

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-inv...

NorthReport

It is this kind of nonsense which undermines the news. Good on Stephanie Ruhle for calling out this sicko.

Moore Lawyer Cites MSNBC Anchor Who Hails From Canada To Defend Candidate

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/moore-lawyer-children-get-consensu...

Mobo2000

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/16/the-honest-ads-act-fundamental-r...

"Hobert asserts, Americans have a ” fundamental right to know who is trying to influence our votes and our views on public policy.”

Well, no. Americans — and Russians — have a fundamental right to say what they want to say, with or without their names attached to it.

“Who the Author of this Production is,” reads an old political pamphlet, “is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man.”

That old pamphlet is Common Sense, the manifesto of the American Revolution. We know its author’s name — Thomas Paine — now, but its first readers didn’t. From Cato’s Letters to The Federalist Papers, anonymous and pseudonymous political speech defined early American free speech in ideology and in practice.

There’s a right to speak. There’s a right to listen or not listen to what someone says. There’s a right to ask who’s saying it, and to condition one’s belief or non-belief on the answer. But that answer may be “none of your business,” and there’s no right to forcibly dictate otherwise.

Don’t let demagogues like McCain, Klobuchar, and Warner exploit the current moral panic to manufacture fake new rights at the expense of old real ones."

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/16/the-honest-ads-act-fundamental-r...

"Hobert asserts, Americans have a ” fundamental right to know who is trying to influence our votes and our views on public policy.”

Well, no. Americans — and Russians — have a fundamental right to say what they want to say, with or without their names attached to it.

“Who the Author of this Production is,” reads an old political pamphlet, “is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man.”

That old pamphlet is Common Sense, the manifesto of the American Revolution. We know its author’s name — Thomas Paine — now, but its first readers didn’t. From Cato’s Letters to The Federalist Papers, anonymous and pseudonymous political speech defined early American free speech in ideology and in practice.

There’s a right to speak. There’s a right to listen or not listen to what someone says. There’s a right to ask who’s saying it, and to condition one’s belief or non-belief on the answer. But that answer may be “none of your business,” and there’s no right to forcibly dictate otherwise.

Don’t let demagogues like McCain, Klobuchar, and Warner exploit the current moral panic to manufacture fake new rights at the expense of old real ones."

When information is designed to manipulate a result and it affects not only the listener but the behaviour of the listener who affects others, then this is not a fair comment.

When we are bombarded by messages, if there is a hand behind a large number of them, we have a right to know whose hand that belongs to. 

Individuals, with a low reach should be able to preserve their anonymity but when the reach is so broad that it will effect many people initially and then even more people through secondary reach and when it is an organization that can use economic power to shout over individuals, that is another story.

Yes, we have the right to determine if we want to believe something or not. That right includes the basics in giving information credibility -- knowing the source. We should not be put at disadvantage where experts create information that may not have any truth and manufacture it to pass our individualk defences or conceal the information that would allow us to understand it. To say otherwise is to stress the concept of consent without a requirement that there be an ability to have informed consent.

This is an article seeking permission to decieve and over power others in the information age. It is effectively asking for a coup given the power information has because no democracy can exist without reliable information and the strength of those that do exist lies in the strength of the information that underpins social consent. The fact that this article could be written and well received by a large number of people is an indication of a direction away from any democratic principle that has survived to this point.

NorthReport

So we can have more of this?

Sounds like comments from someone who gets their news from Fake, I mean, Fox News.

Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal

Inside the web of conspiracy theorists, Russian operatives, Trump campaigners and Twitter bots who manufactured the 'news' that Hillary Clinton ran a pizza-restaurant child-sex ring

 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/pizzagate-anatomy-of-a-fake-ne...

Mobo2000 wrote:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/16/the-honest-ads-act-fundamental-r...

"Hobert asserts, Americans have a ” fundamental right to know who is trying to influence our votes and our views on public policy.”

Well, no. Americans — and Russians — have a fundamental right to say what they want to say, with or without their names attached to it.

“Who the Author of this Production is,” reads an old political pamphlet, “is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man.”

That old pamphlet is Common Sense, the manifesto of the American Revolution. We know its author’s name — Thomas Paine — now, but its first readers didn’t. From Cato’s Letters to The Federalist Papers, anonymous and pseudonymous political speech defined early American free speech in ideology and in practice.

There’s a right to speak. There’s a right to listen or not listen to what someone says. There’s a right to ask who’s saying it, and to condition one’s belief or non-belief on the answer. But that answer may be “none of your business,” and there’s no right to forcibly dictate otherwise.

Don’t let demagogues like McCain, Klobuchar, and Warner exploit the current moral panic to manufacture fake new rights at the expense of old real ones."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So wait!  Counterpunch.org opposes cracking down on fake news??

I'm shocked.  Shocked!

NorthReport

A failed 'Swedish flag' hoax shows the decline of the extremist 4chan message board

By Mike Wendling

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42003496

bekayne

https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-twitter-account-with-two-fake-ids-accuse...

A woman claiming to be from Connecticut made an explosive allegation of sexual assault against Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) on Friday. Her account quickly made its way through conservative chat forums, where contributors roundly called for the Senator to address the allegations and be held accountable for them.

But it is not entirely clear that the woman making the charge actually exists. In fact, a quick search shows that the account ripped off bio photos of women in Texas and London and misspelled the name of the accuser’s Connecticut hometown. The account was quickly shut down once the accusation went viral on rightwing media, with the user then emerging to claim she’d been hacked. After that, the account was suspended.

NorthReport

The Roy Moore Accusations Have Been a Magnet for Fake News

Somehow, the Alabama special election has managed to get even uglier in the last week, this time thanks to hoaxes.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qv35gp/the-roy-moore-accusations-have...

NorthReport

NDPP should put his posts here.

----------------------------------------------------

Behind Steve Bannon's misrepresentation of Chuck Todd's comments on Roy Moore

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/15/steve-ban...

Pondering

Fake and manufactured political news is prevalent but we don't seem to mind if it's on our side.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/richard-bergeron-valerie-plante-p...

Ousted in the election, Richard Bergeron seeks a job with the party he founded

A reporter went to Bergeron and asked him if he would be willing to work for the Plante administration. Obviously he said yes. That doesn't mean he was looking for a job with them. The reporter then went to see Plante to ask if she would be willing to hire Bergeron implying that he wanted to.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Fake and manufactured political news is prevalent but we don't seem to mind if it's on our side.

It's not even a patient tolerance for it.  The fringe-y left loves some good fake news.

Vaccines probably cause autism and GMO canola is going to give us all cancer and that condensate high in the air is a "chemtrail" and Lockheed-Martin is legally compelled to share our census data with the State Department and Hillary Clinton is dying of a consumptive disease she won't disclose.

We believe easily that which we yearn for earnestly.  <-- I've spent years trying to source that quote.

NDPP

CrossTalk Bullhorns: Fake Diplomacy (and vid)

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/410361-rt-foreign-agent-media/

"RT America was required to register as a foreign agent. Why have prominent media outlets and civil liberties groups been largely silent?..."

NDPP

dp

Mobo2000

Sean says:

"When information is designed to manipulate a result and it affects not only the listener but the behaviour of the listener who affects others, then this is not a fair comment.

When we are bombarded by messages, if there is a hand behind a large number of them, we have a right to know whose hand that belongs to. 

Individuals, with a low reach should be able to preserve their anonymity but when the reach is so broad that it will effect many people initially and then even more people through secondary reach and when it is an organization that can use economic power to shout over individuals, that is another story.

Yes, we have the right to determine if we want to believe something or not. That right includes the basics in giving information credibility -- knowing the source."

Sean:  I don't agree with most of this, and would reword the parts I do agree with.  

Regarding information effecting a result and influencing behaviour, that is what most political speech aims to do and I don't see why you feel this distinction is necessary or relevant.   If the speech was unimportant and had no effects, I doubt anyone would care how it was labelled or who made it.

Regarding bombardment of messages and the disparate "volume" of speech between organizations and individuals, this is somewhat of a modern problem now that the means to distribute speech are so developed and entirely privatized.  However the bombardment is, curiously, almost entirely opt-in.   And the distribution method is a large for profit company that filters traffic and prioritizes certains kinds of posts from certain kinds of posters using an internal, private process, over which we have no knowledge or control.     I agree it is a problem for democracy that a large movement or consensus around an issue can be "faked" on social media.   I don't think it's a new problem, just made more acute by the internet and social media.   But I think focusing on a few actors spending money on a social media buys, rather than the companies running the distribution networks privately, for profit, is seeing the tree instead of the forest.

" This is an article seeking permission to decieve and over power others in the information age. It is effectively asking for a coup given the power information has because no democracy can exist without reliable information and the strength of those that do exist lies in the strength of the information that underpins social consent."

There is no deception involved in anonymous political speech.   You are free to disregard all "unsourced" speech if you want.   Sometimes an argument is valid, logically sound and persuasive regardless of who says it.    And sometimes people making valid persuasive political arguements fear punishment by the powerful, and need to be protected.    Stripping that protection will hurt democracy.

I agree that there is a relatively new increased tolerance for censorship and repression on the left.   There are progressives pleased that Fox news is being investigated by the FBI for collusion with Russia, that the US Senate is seeking authority to classify and label messaging on Facebook and Twitter, and the recent requirement for RT to register as a foreign agent, for example.

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000

I think you missed the point and do not recognize anything in your "re-wording" Sorry.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
However the bombardment is, curiously, almost entirely opt-in.

Agreed.  We're not talking about the government broadcasting propaganda over loudspeakers night and day.  We're talking about people who WANT their source of information to be, well, Breitbart, or Counterpunch (or Goop, the Facebook feed of some stranger, or Swiftboat Veterans For Truth, or Paul Craig Roberts' blog, or whatever).

I think that the people who want k00K information aren't that worried about who, specifically, is "pulling the puppet strings".  More like those who (reasonably IMHO) reject that information wanting to know.

50 years ago we might have been concerned with "journalistic integrity" -- is a journalist or a news organization honest about their biases?  Do they have conflicts of interest?  Have they gone so far as to "create" or fabricate "news"?

But today, thanks to the internet, we get news sites whose "photos" of a war crime are screengrabs, or whose "photos" of a missile attack came from a video game or whatever.  But even when those forgeries originate with a news site, it's still the people who so earnestly wish them to be true who forward them to everyone in their address book.  If it were just this or that "news" site, we could agree to shut them down or block them maybe.  But the real problem arises when they go viral because someone really wanted to believe.

FWIW, Snopes.com is a great place to just go and read, and find out what people are personally invested in believing, even when the "evidence" is ridiculous.

NDPP

~172~ Redacted Tonight: RT America A Foreign Agent...

https://youtu.be/ttrIsFZPV_0

Who sells Us Russiagate?

https://twitter.com/disruptivesigna/status/932749369790496769

NDPP

Google Will 'Derank' RT Articles

https://youtu.be/8eFJbwHism8

"Eric Schimdt, the Executive Chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, says the company will 'engineer' specific algorithms for RT and Sputnik to make their articles less prominent."

"Cheering googlenews' decision to de-rank RT and Sputnik? It's part of the company's ongoing crackdown against 'offensive sites'. Here are some of the other apparent targets..."

https://twitter.com/KevenRothrock/status/932742868678201344

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I wish they would de-rank right wing propaganda sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller, which I find all too often in Google News headlines.

NDPP

Google Announces Moves To Censor RT and Sputnik

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/21/gacl-n21.html

"The blacklisting of media platforms like RT and Sputnik is part of a broader campaign of internet censorship, backed by the US intelligence agencies and supported politically by the Democratic Party, in particular..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The blacklisting of media platforms like RT and Sputnik is part of a broader campaign of internet censorship, backed by the US intelligence agencies and supported politically by the Democratic Party, in particular.

LOL.

"... by the Democratic Party, in particular...".  I'm honestly surprised they didn't mention Hillary Clinton by name.

Also, are we back to misusing the word "blacklisting" again?

Mobo2000

Michael:   Would you agree with me that Google rankings  and the criteria by which they list search results should be public information ?   

It seems to me that in an ideal world, rankings would reflect broader interest by the public in a transparent way.   So for example, if CNN is the most popular news site for Americans, when an american searches for a news item, CNN would show up high on the list, regardless of their ideology, politics or spin.  

 

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mobo2000 wrote:

Michael:   Would you agree with me that Google rankings  and the criteria by which they list search results should be public information ?   

Yes I would. Of course, Google would say that these are trade secrets, which they must hide from their competitors. I think Google should be a publicly owned utility, but the problem is that since it is everywhere, there is no national government that can control it, even if the political will existed. The same argument applies to Facebook. This is another of the problems (like environmental degradation) that will never be solved until capitalism is replaced by a better economic system.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think Google should be a publicly owned utility, but the problem is that since it is everywhere, there is no national government that can control it, even if the political will existed.

Having read many opinions of our national broadcaster, the CBC, and the vehement assertion that they're either deep in the pocket of the Conservatives, deep in the pocket of the Liberals or deep in the pocket of the NDP, I shudder to imagine the complaints if the goverment also literally controlled the way we find things on the web.

NorthReport

Facebook Will Tell You Whether You Saw Russian Propaganda During The 2016 Election

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/facebook-will-tell-you-whether-yo...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think Google should be a publicly owned utility, but the problem is that since it is everywhere, there is no national government that can control it, even if the political will existed.

Having read many opinions of our national broadcaster, the CBC, and the vehement assertion that they're either deep in the pocket of the Conservatives, deep in the pocket of the Liberals or deep in the pocket of the NDP, I shudder to imagine the complaints if the goverment also literally controlled the way we find things on the web.

Well, you certainly have a point, but do you really believe that a totally unaccountable private bureaucracy, with profit as its one and only motive, would be better than a somewhat corrupt but also somewhat accountable public bureaucracy with a statutory mandate to be truthful and fair?

NDPP

The Plutocrats Are Pursuing Internet Censorship And They're Barely Even Hiding It

https://t.co/c5yHUu7kB6

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Chomsky

Mobo2000

Michael and Magoo:   This is the crux of the problem for me.   Your question at post 47 is particularly apt:

 " ..do you really believe that a totally unaccountable private bureaucracy, with profit as its one and only motive, would be better than a somewhat corrupt but also somewhat accountable public bureaucracy with a statutory mandate to be truthful and fair?"

My answer would be yes, I do think the unaccountable private bureaucracies of Google/Facebook/Twitter are preferable to US government regulation of web traffic and search results .   In an ideal world, media companies with global reach should be regulated by a democratic agency with a global mandate, perhaps through the UN or the UN's human rights frameworks.   But in the right here and now, the current spate of regulation by the US government is neither transparent or democratic, and I think the US government in its present unhinged form is about the last government entity on earth we should be trusting to regulate the internet.

ETA -- the article posted above by NDPP is pretty good for a random blog, and gives a good summary of the effects of the new filters on Google and Facebook have on progressive or anti-imperial sites that are outside mainstream DNC-led  progressive politics.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I do think the unaccountable private bureaucracies of Google/Facebook/Twitter are preferable to US government regulation of web traffic and search results.

I'm inclined to agree and I'd add that no other government, including our own, would be preferable either.  There's something relatively pure about the quest for filthy lucre -- I trust that more than I trust a government with political goals.

And despite what doomsayers may insist, Google does have competition.   If you don't trust them, for this or any other reason, try DuckDuckGo. 

The lingering problem, of course, is that even if you take your searching elsewhere, other people might not, and then heaven forbid they'll never be "woke" by RT's awesome truth machine. 

Pages