Previous  1  2

Same. That's how I was taught. I just think it's wrong to label her one thing, and her son another - for the exact same reason she has been labelled.

If she's 'black' because her mom was, then Archie is too. If Archie is white, why can't she be?

   

   

He’s one of the biggest loudmouths on earth, he’s not being censored for his views. He’ll be working for one of Murdoch’s daily shitrags or channels by the end of the week I’m sure of it.

   

Him and Tucker are posterboys for bad faith yellow journalism. Murdoch is just William Randolph Hearst reincarnate. As long as there are trolls there will always be a clamoring for someone to do something to reign them in. The only cure is a population with media literacy. I have zero faith that there will ever be a means to this end as the knuckledraggers will always outnumber the egalitarians. It is a lesson we will need to learn again and again for eternity.

There is a happy medium between the two extremes of draconian regulation and unregulated snake oil salesman but that requires the general public to have a stake in the narrative. When the rich remove that seat at the table by owning all the media the situation becomes untenable and something will explode.

   

What a bunch of bullshit, this is complete garbage.

According to Reporters without Borders, the US ranks 10 spots BELOW the UK on freedom of the press.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

   

And that says a lot about the state of the US newsscape, because the UK tabloids are total scum.

   

"More freedom" for the press isn't the answer. If anything Britain needs much stronger laws against slander and defamation to put a permanent end to the disgusting activities of their hideous press. Giving more freedom to psychopathic assholes is about the worse thing that can ever be done. The Royals, and other celebrity types, actually win lawsuits all the time in British courts but it means nothing because there's very little to prevent the tabloids from just finding another avenue of slander to exploit. It would take the bankrupting of the entire Murdoch chain via a trillion-dollar court defeat at this stage to put a stop to their evil, given how weak British laws are right now.

   

Having fewer owners, and a more enlightened readership is the answer.

   

^^ This

   

Enlightened readership yes, but more owners would be better. Murdoch has gotten as powerful as he has because he buys up as many papers and tv stations as he can. Same with Sinclair in the US and how they’re buying up as many local stations and blasting local markets with right wing propaganda. More ownership makes for more diversity in perspectives and hopefully dilutes the power of people like Murdoch.

   

You're playing the Don Quixote role to the hilt if you ever expect anyone in this rapidly declining world to become more enlightened.

   

That's the catch-22. Fewer authoritative voices chanting the same message makes for a dumber audience.

   

Keep in mind that the British press has been a nest of slime for it's entire existence. Look at the reporting during the Jack The Ripper killings as a very early example of them behaving their absolute worst, from undermining the police investigations to nearly triggering pogroms against Jews in London's East End. The tabloid gutter-shit behaviour long pre-dates the arrival of Murdoch, and multiple paper owners did nothing to bring in any code of journalistic ethics. All he did was concentrate the revenues for himself.

   

I miss front page challenge. Yes, they could be stogy and stuck up but Pierre Burton and his ilk had a professionalism that you just can't get without working the trade of journalism. It is also why I supported independent journalism upstarts such as Canadaland.

We DO need more owners of media voices, they just need to be more local and not just support the ultra-rich.

   

Thought that was interesting and related to the topic of a free and independent media.

   

Previous  1  2