Yep, get back to basics. But it's a long way back. Can anyone see WaPo or NYT breaking something like the Pentagon Papers ever again? That took guts, resources and a devotion to some pretty lofty journalistic ideals. I'm no fan of the Sulzberger family, but kudos to them for that. That was a real contribution to society and culture. Not …
Yep, get back to basics. But it's a long way back. Can anyone see WaPo or NYT breaking something like the Pentagon Papers ever again? That took guts, resources and a devotion to some pretty lofty journalistic ideals. I'm no fan of the Sulzberger family, but kudos to them for that. That was a real contribution to society and culture. Not all news can be like that, but that should be the aspiration. Not just playing fast and loose with the truth (or just straight up making stuff up) because your newsroom needs their delicate feelings soothed.
And that is the kind of journalism that new media can't do (which is really much more like infotainment). They don't have the resources or the motivation. They are going to be subject to a different kind of audience capture as time goes on unless they have that same kind of courage and vision that the New York Times used to have.
It's something 'new media' i.e. Wikileaks were doing exceptionally well, before legacy media, and (allegedly) freedom and democracy loving, countries colluded to destroy their editor. On behalf of corporations would be my guess. I wouldn't even be surprised if the malignant Schwab had involvement somewhere.
Wikileaks documents were instrumental in some small countries winning court cases against corporations doing damage in their countries. See link below for a short summary, by Flick Ruby.
Edit: Thread has been archived luckily, as it now appears to have disappeared of the internet and Twitter.
I think it was because of this that he was persecuted, and not because of the Manning leaks; the US military have never cared what people thought of them, but corporations couldn't very well go after Wikileaks, it would have been a bad look.
It is a shame the fickle public, and downright shameful most independent', 'informed', alternative media journalists, jumped on the bandwagon. Now that irreplaceable resource has been lost forever.
Precisely .. look at their character assassination attempt of Tulsi Gabbard for refusing to label Eric Snowden a traitor for revealing the NSA is literally and secretly reading our emails - a revelation that makes the Pentagon Papers a piker .. and far less of a security breach to have obtained that inside information.
Wikileaks/Assange illustrates why you need a strong institutional brand to really do that kind of journalism. You need deep/committed pockets to speak truth to power and live to tell about it. Otherwise I agree, the US government is just too powerful for one individual.
What msm outlet would have the courage? They are all beholden to the owners, that is why we are in this mess. They don't report anything except what they are 'allowed to'. That's why people who can think, don't trust them, and many new media too. And they mostly joined in the persecution of Assange, probably because Wikileaks existance embarrassed them, and demonstrated how they don't do their actual job: hold the powerful to account.
New media doesn't succeed because it is a different format, it succeeds because people don't want to be lied to. They won't stop lying, so I can't see things getting better for them.
Yep, get back to basics. But it's a long way back. Can anyone see WaPo or NYT breaking something like the Pentagon Papers ever again? That took guts, resources and a devotion to some pretty lofty journalistic ideals. I'm no fan of the Sulzberger family, but kudos to them for that. That was a real contribution to society and culture. Not all news can be like that, but that should be the aspiration. Not just playing fast and loose with the truth (or just straight up making stuff up) because your newsroom needs their delicate feelings soothed.
And that is the kind of journalism that new media can't do (which is really much more like infotainment). They don't have the resources or the motivation. They are going to be subject to a different kind of audience capture as time goes on unless they have that same kind of courage and vision that the New York Times used to have.
Hi Andrew,
It's something 'new media' i.e. Wikileaks were doing exceptionally well, before legacy media, and (allegedly) freedom and democracy loving, countries colluded to destroy their editor. On behalf of corporations would be my guess. I wouldn't even be surprised if the malignant Schwab had involvement somewhere.
Wikileaks documents were instrumental in some small countries winning court cases against corporations doing damage in their countries. See link below for a short summary, by Flick Ruby.
Edit: Thread has been archived luckily, as it now appears to have disappeared of the internet and Twitter.
I think it was because of this that he was persecuted, and not because of the Manning leaks; the US military have never cared what people thought of them, but corporations couldn't very well go after Wikileaks, it would have been a bad look.
It is a shame the fickle public, and downright shameful most independent', 'informed', alternative media journalists, jumped on the bandwagon. Now that irreplaceable resource has been lost forever.
Blessings,
Janey
https://web.archive.org/web/20240223182303/https://staging.threadreaderapp.com/thread/1021009604333875200.html
Precisely .. look at their character assassination attempt of Tulsi Gabbard for refusing to label Eric Snowden a traitor for revealing the NSA is literally and secretly reading our emails - a revelation that makes the Pentagon Papers a piker .. and far less of a security breach to have obtained that inside information.
Wikileaks/Assange illustrates why you need a strong institutional brand to really do that kind of journalism. You need deep/committed pockets to speak truth to power and live to tell about it. Otherwise I agree, the US government is just too powerful for one individual.
What msm outlet would have the courage? They are all beholden to the owners, that is why we are in this mess. They don't report anything except what they are 'allowed to'. That's why people who can think, don't trust them, and many new media too. And they mostly joined in the persecution of Assange, probably because Wikileaks existance embarrassed them, and demonstrated how they don't do their actual job: hold the powerful to account.
New media doesn't succeed because it is a different format, it succeeds because people don't want to be lied to. They won't stop lying, so I can't see things getting better for them.
Blessings,
Janey
Bezos seems to be perhaps gathering the courage.