Over the past two years, Israel has lost the support of the American public and is now losing one of its last bulwarks in the political arena — prominent voices in the mainstream media.
I think the fact that these kinds of interviews are happening at all is significant. While they’re doing everything they can to suppress this, the public opinion is not really going along with the narrative. And that creates a dilemma for them. Either they continue to deny the genocide and continue losing credibility or they have to start discussing it however tepidly.
IMO it is only significant if a significant portion of the MSM does this.
I hope they will but I’m sceptical about it.
When you say they worry about losing credibility it is more or less the same as my comment saying they are doing it to maintain the illusion of neutrality.
My guess is they will only moderately allow it, just enough to placate the public opinion and have them not lose faith in their ‘news’
As long as the US regime supports the genocider regime the vast majority of news will continue to reflect that.
It’s not going to happen overnight, but if they continue to ignore this then people become more and more disillusioned. A lot of people already have lost faith in mainstream outlets, so there could just be a collapse in public trust. And there’s a greater context for this too because the standard of living is collapsing at the same time. So, people see their lives get worse, they see the media talk about how great DOW is doing, and then they start connecting things and realizing they live in a house of mirrors.
MSM has to maintain the illusion for the majority of their subjects,
so they have to balance between pushing-as-hard-as-they-can to manage their population’s “knowing”…
but they have simultaneously to keep owning their subjects, & that obliges them to hold-back enough to retain credibility…
Not an enjoyable tightrope to walk.
I prefer the more-cutthroat culture of journalism/science, where disagreement is normal.
That isn’t going to be preferred by humankind in-general in my lifetime…
So, instead of survival-of-the-fittest ( the disagreement-is-normal cultures ), we’ve got survival-of-the-momentarily-dominant-consensus, with no roots-to-objectivity … & then … viability is only … political-moment, or social-moment: it isn’t robust, or strongly-rooted.
Right, there’s nothing wrong with disagreement because it just means people have different perspectives. Discussing these perspectives in a civilized fashion creates a more complete understanding for everybody. That’s what debates are meant for, people present their positions and defend them, so that the counterparty can point out problems or inconsistencies. And through this process you build shared understanding of things.
But when debate happens in our media is just a spectacle of idiots yelling at one another and talking over each other incoherently. And that’s presented as providing different views. There’s no depth, no substance, and no actual debate happening. It’s just a bunch of people yelling I’m right.
And that’s a broader problem in the media too now where there’s no more investigative journalism. The media outlets simply parrot whatever the official narrative is, there’s no analysis, no historical context, and no push back. In a sense, the only real debate happening is the one between mainstream and social media. And, in a way, it’s kind of hilarious how regular people do a better job explaining things now than professional news outlets. Hence why social media is winning the debate.
I think the fact that these kinds of interviews are happening at all is significant. While they’re doing everything they can to suppress this, the public opinion is not really going along with the narrative. And that creates a dilemma for them. Either they continue to deny the genocide and continue losing credibility or they have to start discussing it however tepidly.
IMO it is only significant if a significant portion of the MSM does this.
I hope they will but I’m sceptical about it.
When you say they worry about losing credibility it is more or less the same as my comment saying they are doing it to maintain the illusion of neutrality.
My guess is they will only moderately allow it, just enough to placate the public opinion and have them not lose faith in their ‘news’
As long as the US regime supports the genocider regime the vast majority of news will continue to reflect that.
It’s not going to happen overnight, but if they continue to ignore this then people become more and more disillusioned. A lot of people already have lost faith in mainstream outlets, so there could just be a collapse in public trust. And there’s a greater context for this too because the standard of living is collapsing at the same time. So, people see their lives get worse, they see the media talk about how great DOW is doing, and then they start connecting things and realizing they live in a house of mirrors.
You get it:
MSM has to maintain the illusion for the majority of their subjects,
so they have to balance between pushing-as-hard-as-they-can to manage their population’s “knowing”…
but they have simultaneously to keep owning their subjects, & that obliges them to hold-back enough to retain credibility…
Not an enjoyable tightrope to walk.
I prefer the more-cutthroat culture of journalism/science, where disagreement is normal.
That isn’t going to be preferred by humankind in-general in my lifetime…
So, instead of survival-of-the-fittest ( the disagreement-is-normal cultures ), we’ve got survival-of-the-momentarily-dominant-consensus, with no roots-to-objectivity … & then … viability is only … political-moment, or social-moment: it isn’t robust, or strongly-rooted.
< shrug >
_ /\ _
Right, there’s nothing wrong with disagreement because it just means people have different perspectives. Discussing these perspectives in a civilized fashion creates a more complete understanding for everybody. That’s what debates are meant for, people present their positions and defend them, so that the counterparty can point out problems or inconsistencies. And through this process you build shared understanding of things.
But when debate happens in our media is just a spectacle of idiots yelling at one another and talking over each other incoherently. And that’s presented as providing different views. There’s no depth, no substance, and no actual debate happening. It’s just a bunch of people yelling I’m right.
And that’s a broader problem in the media too now where there’s no more investigative journalism. The media outlets simply parrot whatever the official narrative is, there’s no analysis, no historical context, and no push back. In a sense, the only real debate happening is the one between mainstream and social media. And, in a way, it’s kind of hilarious how regular people do a better job explaining things now than professional news outlets. Hence why social media is winning the debate.