They never see any of that, nor do you. All news is filtered through the big western agencies, AP/Reuters/AFP, to ensure that only the approved narrative is reported.
It’s not that corporate news in the western world has to be well organized to put out the same perspective. Rather, they operate under the same kinds of selective pressures and as such they develop similar biases.
A good example is all the reporting on WMDs in Iraq that went unquestioned by much of the western press until well after it mattered. Unfortunately nothing has really changed since the invasion of Iraq.
And yet, there was a considerable portion of the western press that very much did question the WMD narrative, most notably in the US, Gannet, which still owns more newspapers than any other publisher in North America.
I had recently finished up an undergrad degree in journalism at the time and it was very obvious to anyone who was paying attention that people were selectively consuming whatever news told them what they wanted to hear. A huge portion of the country went bat shit crazy after 9/11 and had no interest whatsoever in listening to anyone who urged caution. At the time I worked for a local paper in California’s Central Valley and we were basically called traitors every time we questioned the narrative at all.
And yet somehow you found room to believe that they are able to secretly control the major wire services. In a thread full of deeply stupid ideas, this one is probably the stupidest of all.
I’m sorry, there’s just no way to be polite about it.
Go talk about Tiananmen Square in China and get back to us about countries and approved agencies.
And consider, any event or topic you whatabout for the West will be a far lower severity since we can actually talk about it with repercussion, and do research on it
They never see any of that, nor do you. All news is filtered through the big western agencies, AP/Reuters/AFP, to ensure that only the approved narrative is reported.
You really have a lot of faith in the organising capacity of all collective western governments when they can’t even agree on some pretty basic stuff.
It’s not that corporate news in the western world has to be well organized to put out the same perspective. Rather, they operate under the same kinds of selective pressures and as such they develop similar biases.
A good example is all the reporting on WMDs in Iraq that went unquestioned by much of the western press until well after it mattered. Unfortunately nothing has really changed since the invasion of Iraq.
And yet, there was a considerable portion of the western press that very much did question the WMD narrative, most notably in the US, Gannet, which still owns more newspapers than any other publisher in North America.
I had recently finished up an undergrad degree in journalism at the time and it was very obvious to anyone who was paying attention that people were selectively consuming whatever news told them what they wanted to hear. A huge portion of the country went bat shit crazy after 9/11 and had no interest whatsoever in listening to anyone who urged caution. At the time I worked for a local paper in California’s Central Valley and we were basically called traitors every time we questioned the narrative at all.
Incorrect, I have no faith in the US government or the governments of any of its poodles.
And yet somehow you found room to believe that they are able to secretly control the major wire services. In a thread full of deeply stupid ideas, this one is probably the stupidest of all.
I’m sorry, there’s just no way to be polite about it.
Go talk about Tiananmen Square in China and get back to us about countries and approved agencies.
And consider, any event or topic you whatabout for the West will be a far lower severity since we can actually talk about it with repercussion, and do research on it
if you say so