Once upon a time that would have been a simple answer, given the concentrated ownership of news that could reach any one person. But now with the Internet, there is less and less control by any one group. Certainly the age of the rich effectively controlling the media is over.
But now with the Internet, there is less and less control by any one group. Certainly the age of the rich effectively controlling the media is over.
Pr teams have successfully learned how to use social media, and social media giants promote views that are beneficial to them like fascism while suppressing left wing content.
I dont think the internet existing makes us a democracy, the parasocial nature of a lot of internet content actually makes it so people are more able to sell their propaganda.
There is plenty of media that exists outside of media giants. Case in point, there is a local blogger here in Portland, OR that runs bikeportland.org to cover bikes and related subjects. His blog posts and discussions on them are a major part of the local discourse around infrastructure in Portland. He’s not rich, but he exercises influence.
If independent media, as a whole, got too influential to the point that it was threatening the system, it would be targeted. We’ve seen this play out over and over again under capitalism. You literally just have to look to history to see this.
Targeted with what? At least in the US, there has been a build up of case law over the past century and a half or so that provides vigorous protections of freedom of speech. The Red Scare is remembered as a scar on the US’s past, not to be repeated. Yes, there are still people with a vigorous taste for censorship, but there’s vigorous pushback against them.
At least in the US, there has been a build up of case law over the past century and a half or so that provides vigorous protections of freedom of speech. The Red Scare is remembered as a scar on the US’s past, not to be repeated.
This is funny because we are currently going through a red scare.
Once upon a time that would have been a simple answer, given the concentrated ownership of news that could reach any one person. But now with the Internet, there is less and less control by any one group. Certainly the age of the rich effectively controlling the media is over.
Pr teams have successfully learned how to use social media, and social media giants promote views that are beneficial to them like fascism while suppressing left wing content.
I dont think the internet existing makes us a democracy, the parasocial nature of a lot of internet content actually makes it so people are more able to sell their propaganda.
There is plenty of media that exists outside of media giants. Case in point, there is a local blogger here in Portland, OR that runs bikeportland.org to cover bikes and related subjects. His blog posts and discussions on them are a major part of the local discourse around infrastructure in Portland. He’s not rich, but he exercises influence.
Okay, but you do see how thats pretty boutique compared to the local news channels, let alone the giants, right?
Small things are allowed to exist that oppose the dominant ideology until they meaningfully threaten it.
Any grassroots media is going to be “boutique”. That doesn’t make it not influential, especially when considered as a whole.
If independent media, as a whole, got too influential to the point that it was threatening the system, it would be targeted. We’ve seen this play out over and over again under capitalism. You literally just have to look to history to see this.
Targeted with what? At least in the US, there has been a build up of case law over the past century and a half or so that provides vigorous protections of freedom of speech. The Red Scare is remembered as a scar on the US’s past, not to be repeated. Yes, there are still people with a vigorous taste for censorship, but there’s vigorous pushback against them.
This is funny because we are currently going through a red scare.