Fascinating.
Fascinating. Esp considering most major media outlets have been owned or run by people who personally vote or fund conservative, or at least GOP causes politically far more than any Democratic or liberal/progressive ones. Not to mention Pat Robertson and Roger Ailes and their media empires that were specifically created to promote agendas and views that could be described as anything other than liberal or progressive. I think Rush Limbaugh is as old as they are, and probably others.
Of course, there's the more modern and more internet based outlets, that do include some specifically founded to be left not right media platforms (aka HuffPo), but they were part of an expansion that included opposite right, righter, and rightest platforms (aka Breitbart). So a generous assessment might consider that roughly balanced.
Thing is, it seems far more of a tactic and article of faith, indeed, a test of really being a "conservative", now, that you mistrust the media and consider all outlets to be liberal, left-leaning, socialist, biased, reactionary, unpatriotic, and so forth. Key to this is setting up a scenario where journalists are criminals, and any outlet that questions or criticizes "the state" should be shut down. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that a classic dictator/fascistic type of approach?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/business/media/cpac-news-media-attacks.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/business/media/cpac-news-media-attacks.html
Of course, there's the more modern and more internet based outlets, that do include some specifically founded to be left not right media platforms (aka HuffPo), but they were part of an expansion that included opposite right, righter, and rightest platforms (aka Breitbart). So a generous assessment might consider that roughly balanced.
Thing is, it seems far more of a tactic and article of faith, indeed, a test of really being a "conservative", now, that you mistrust the media and consider all outlets to be liberal, left-leaning, socialist, biased, reactionary, unpatriotic, and so forth. Key to this is setting up a scenario where journalists are criminals, and any outlet that questions or criticizes "the state" should be shut down. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that a classic dictator/fascistic type of approach?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/business/media/cpac-news-media-attacks.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/business/media/cpac-news-media-attacks.html
Yes, quashing and belittling dissenting voices is very common in both the development of fascism and in dictatorships. However, the US development here is slightly different from the typical, that one can see in eg Turkey, Russia, or Hungary. There, the state directly influenced the media landscape by shutting down independent or regime-critical media outlets, making it hard for journalists to work, and so on. The US isn't there at all.
ReplyDeleteThe far-right in the USA has used an approach that is a lot more organic and populist, by sowing distrust among viewers towards established news and media outlets. There is also a real strategy of using free speech defenses to protect misogynistic and racist propaganda.
I believe the anti-media speeches here are not part of a government-led strategy against the free press, but rather simply more populist in its approach. This also means that the American media landscap estill has a far better situation than eg the Russian one has, but also that any media crackdown from the government will have a lot of groundwork laid already.
Yep. And these populists would be the first to cry foul if you called them out on it. We're not commies/socialists/fascists, etc. We're saving America for Americans!
ReplyDelete