Media Criticism Thread

[lizkat]

CNN compares Trump’s threatened takeover of Greenland, Canada, and Panama to…. The Louisiana Purchase?



Traditional media has been circling the drain for a while. The final flushes seem to be here.

Nah. When someone's digging a bottomless pit, the end is nowhere near.

Right now though, the press is mostly vamping. They await actual landing of the new administration, and so the onslaught of their share of the threatened retributions against Trump's perceived "enemies of the people".

Still, journalists and their professional associations and counsel have been throwing around ideas about how to defend against the very real possibility of effective attacks on press freedom.

Meanwhile and perhaps picking up vibes from their publishers, they all seem trying not to stand out... like the American Bittern in a marshland full of sedge and cattails... look ma, I'm not even here....

​

It's not reassuring to fans of democracy that the GOP (well, Tom Cotton) Senate blocked The Press Act from coming to the floor after the House had passed it. Without that shield, more journos are likely to end up in jail in future for not revealing sources if they are subpoenaed. I'm afraid It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the First Amendment.

Main thing to remember about press freedom is Use It Or Lose It. Sure it's a dice roll. Kay Graham more than once bet the Washington Post on it. The first time was in June 1971 when the WaPo joined the NYT in publishing parts of The Pentagon Papers and landed in the Supreme Court, which ended up 6-3 in favor of the newspapers. Another time was after Nixon's AG John Mitchell had threatened WaPo reporter Carl Bernstein that Graham would "get her tit caught in a wringer" if she published a piece about a secret slush fund during the front end of the Watergate scandals. She published it anyway and the paper doggedly went on uncovering the trail of wrongdoing all the way to the Oval Office and Nixon's resignation.

It's not at all clear today that media outlets today would take that risk versus the incoming administration. As for the Supreme Court, well... one argument against getting too far out on the limb holding up a free press is that no one's sure if this iteration of the high court would continue to cite NYT Co v Sullivan (1964) as a 9-0 precedent citing "actual malice" requirement in a successful libel suit against a public figure, and so no one on the press side actually wants to test that question. It may in fact be why ABC and Stephanopoulos settled a defamation suit with Trump earlier this month for $15million and an apology.

 

[SouprMatt]

The Bezos move to block presidential endorsements by the Washington Post was just the beginning.

Why I'm quitting the Washington Post

Democracy can't function without a free press

anntelnaes.substack.com

I’ve worked for the Washington Post since 2008 as an editorial cartoonist. I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations—and some differences—about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.

The cartoon that was killed criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump.

Small men with big wallets.

 

[Jay Mysteri0]

Bravo! Now we wait for community notes...

 

[Huntn]

Well, it‘s always been about making a buck. But they used to do that by being trusted and reliable sources of news.

Sadly. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk have proven that people would rather hear what they want to hear, than to hear what’s really happening. This was further proven by ChatGPT. Instead of giving accurate answers to questions it’s asked, it is doing what It was trained to do… recreate the web. It was fed the contents of the internet, disinformation and all. It is spewing it back at its creators.

There is no going back, but perhaps there is a path forward. Long-time respected outlets like NPR and PBS are Intended as public services, not cash generators. I am seeing more nonprofit journalists make their mark lately too. As people move away from cable news, perhaps they will migrate towards such news sources.

“Well, it‘s always been about making a buck.”

Capitalism WILL BE the mechanism that sinks our species, or knocks it down a whole bunch of pegs before we figure out civilizations can’t function under capitalism without harsh regulation that mitigates its ‘end of the world tendencies’.

Happy to say more on request. 🙂

 

[SouprMatt]

21st-century media, the game show:

 

[ronntaylor]

Bravo! Now we wait for community notes...

But it's focusing on the founder, so if Zucky wants to follow in Leon's footsteps, the account will be suspended shortly. 👍

 

[Jay Mysteri0]

A couple of interesting things.

1st. Talk about WaPo



If you don't want the watch the vid

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/kara-swisher-on-why-she-wants-to-buy-the-washington-post.html

Over the last year, the Washington Post has often been at the center of the news itself. The storied publication contended with controversial new leadership and an 11th-hour spiked political endorsement that sparked a wave of subscriber cancellations. Amid questions over Jeff Bezos’s continued interest in owning the paper, Axios reported in December that Pivot co-host Kara Swisher was looking to form a group to buy it. In the most recent episode of the podcast, Swisher and Scott Galloway discuss her potential bid.

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/20/scoop-kara-swishers-long-shot-kara-swisher-washington-post-ownership-bidpost-bid

Kara Swisher, the popular podcaster and pioneering tech journalist, is trying to round up a group of rich people to fund a bid for the Washington Post, she told us.

• One big problem: Jeff Bezos, the owner, has shown no interest in selling.

Why it matters: Swisher — who started in the Post mailroom, and became an early tech reporter at the paper (and later one of the first at The Wall Street Journal) — believes the Amazon founder will eventually want to sell, since the paper has become a managerial nightmare.

Like many, Swisher thinks Bezos should sell since he has other financial and personal interests — like space tech — that are more important to him, and can conflict with his Post ownership.

• "The Post can do better," she told us. "It's so maddening to see what's happening. ... Why not me? Why not any of us?"

The backstory: Oliver Darcy reported this fall in his newsletter, Status, that Swisher was "interested in assembling a consortium of wealthy investors to make a bid for the paper."

• Since then, a banker who worked with Swisher in the past has been helping her think through how to move the idea forward.
• The storied paper would be run by a board of civic-minded people willing to write a big check to be part of something important. She'd be open to Bezos remaining a partial investor.

 

[Jay Mysteri0]

2nd. Progressive media, that's realized being progressive doesn't work for them currently.

If you haven't been following things you may not have heard about how the heads of 'The Young Turks' the leading progressive channel on Youtube, have made a sudden pivot to cozying up to the right. Pissing a lot of people off & causing all sorts of drama. Before that, you are probably aware of the Joe & Mika of MSNBC's morning talk show going to have a private meeting with 45. Supposedly unaware of the backlash that may cause, as their ratings plummeted. One thing Joe isn't happy about is hearing that backlash / pushback. Recently he got to hear some of it on his own show, from Michael Steele of all people.



The schism in Progressives & dems continues...

 

[P___X]

2nd. Progressive media, that's realized being progressive doesn't work for them currently.

If you haven't been following things you may not have heard about how the heads of 'The Young Turks' the leading progressive channel on Youtube, have made a sudden pivot to cozying up to the right. Pissing a lot of people off & causing all sorts of drama. Before that, you are probably aware of the Joe & Mika of MSNBC's morning talk show going to have a private meeting with 45. Supposedly unaware of the backlash that may cause, as their ratings plummeted. One thing Joe isn't happy about is hearing that backlash / pushback. Recently he got to hear some of it on his own show, from Michael Steele of all people.



The schism in Progressives & dems continues...

This left wing urge to show civility is like reading poetry to a rock and getting offended by the lack of appreciation.

 

[SouprMatt]

2nd. Progressive media, that's realized being progressive doesn't work for them currently.

If you haven't been following things you may not have heard about how the heads of 'The Young Turks' the leading progressive channel on Youtube, have made a sudden pivot to cozying up to the right. Pissing a lot of people off & causing all sorts of drama. Before that, you are probably aware of the Joe & Mika of MSNBC's morning talk show going to have a private meeting with 45. Supposedly unaware of the backlash that may cause, as their ratings plummeted. One thing Joe isn't happy about is hearing that backlash / pushback. Recently he got to hear some of it on his own show, from Michael Steele of all people.



The schism in Progressives & dems continues...

The argument usually seems to be something like this: “If we are too mean to [insert Nazi here], they won’t do interviews with us!”

If they won’t agree to an interview unless you promise to softball them, you shouldn’t be interviewing them at all!

 

[Jay Mysteri0]

The argument usually seems to be something like this: “If we are too mean to [insert Nazi here], they won’t do interviews with us!”

If they won’t agree to an interview unless you promise to softball them, you shouldn’t be interviewing them at all!

I think that was a thing during previous dem presidential runs.

This time the pivot I think is very different. It's a pivot for financial & survival needs. At the time of joe & mika's pilgrimage we heard the early rumblings of the jailing of political enemies / critics, the FCC may look at licenses, and the shocking news that MSNBC & other networks will be spun off from Comcast.

Then we had this fickle asshole, shift again with the changing political winds.



Biden never threatened to jail anyone involved, just complained ineffectually.

Yet there's zuck trying to carry on like meta was persecuted for the bullshit they disseminated with no worries. Completely ignoring what led to their being called out.

Facebook accused by survivors of letting activists incite ethnic…

Fact checkers and civil society organisations describe company's virtually 'non-existent' support for their work tackling misinformation

www.thebureauinvestigates.com

We've got Tim Cook donating to 45's inauguration, a president that you know is diametrically opposed to his personal views, along with a host of big business leaders. Apple the company isn't donating itself, as that would be a hit to the company's reputation.

I think these pivots are more about survival in the next four years as you have a petty vindictive asshole in charge, who has the support of our new oligarch class that controls an awful lot of the information we get.

 

[hulugu]

Nah. When someone's digging a bottomless pit, the end is nowhere near.

Right now though, the press is mostly vamping. They await actual landing of the new administration, and so the onslaught of their share of the threatened retributions against Trump's perceived "enemies of the people".

Still, journalists and their professional associations and counsel have been throwing around ideas about how to defend against the very real possibility of effective attacks on press freedom.

Meanwhile and perhaps picking up vibes from their publishers, they all seem trying not to stand out... like the American Bittern in a marshland full of sedge and cattails... look ma, I'm not even here....

View attachment 1800​

It's not reassuring to fans of democracy that the GOP (well, Tom Cotton) Senate blocked The Press Act from coming to the floor after the House had passed it. Without that shield, more journos are likely to end up in jail in future for not revealing sources if they are subpoenaed. I'm afraid It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the First Amendment.

Main thing to remember about press freedom is Use It Or Lose It. Sure it's a dice roll. Kay Graham more than once bet the Washington Post on it. The first time was in June 1971 when the WaPo joined the NYT in publishing parts of The Pentagon Papers and landed in the Supreme Court, which ended up 6-3 in favor of the newspapers. Another time was after Nixon's AG John Mitchell had threatened WaPo reporter Carl Bernstein that Graham would "get her tit caught in a wringer" if she published a piece about a secret slush fund during the front end of the Watergate scandals. She published it anyway and the paper doggedly went on uncovering the trail of wrongdoing all the way to the Oval Office and Nixon's resignation.

It's not at all clear today that media outlets today would take that risk versus the incoming administration. As for the Supreme Court, well... one argument against getting too far out on the limb holding up a free press is that no one's sure if this iteration of the high court would continue to cite NYT Co v Sullivan (1964) as a 9-0 precedent citing "actual malice" requirement in a successful libel suit against a public figure, and so no one on the press side actually wants to test that question. It may in fact be why ABC and Stephanopoulos settled a defamation suit with Trump earlier this month for $15million and an apology.

As someone involved in pushing the Press Act, watching the Republicans kill the act was incredibly frustrating. This was a good piece of legislation that would have protected even Murdoch's band of idiots from an aggressive AG. And, yet, because Cottonhead saw it as a weapon against Trump, he killed it.

We'll keep pushing for a version of the act, and in the meantime, we do our jobs.We're not at war, we're at work.

 

[hulugu]

I think that was a thing during previous dem presidential runs.

This time the pivot I think is very different. It's a pivot for financial & survival needs. At the time of joe & mika's pilgrimage we heard the early rumblings of the jailing of political enemies / critics, the FCC may look at licenses, and the shocking news that MSNBC & other networks will be spun off from Comcast.

Then we had this fickle asshole, shift again with the changing political winds.



Biden never threatened to jail anyone involved, just complained ineffectually.

Yet there's zuck trying to carry on like meta was persecuted for the bullshit they disseminated with no worries. Completely ignoring what led to their being called out.



We've got Tim Cook donating to 45's inauguration, a president that you know is diametrically opposed to his personal views, along with a host of big business leaders. Apple the company isn't donating itself, as that would be a hit to the company's reputation.

I think these pivots are more about survival in the next four years as you have a petty vindictive asshole in charge, who has the support of our new oligarch class that controls an awful lot of the information we get.

Well, it's pretty clear that Cook, et. al. understand the inauguration is a slush fund for Trump, and he's building a dam to protect Apple from Trump's tariffs. This will hilariously fail, and Cook will find out just how quick Trump will burn someone, if for no other reason that he can.

 

[SouprMatt]

I think that was a thing during previous dem presidential runs.

This time the pivot I think is very different. It's a pivot for financial & survival needs. At the time of joe & mika's pilgrimage we heard the early rumblings of the jailing of political enemies / critics, the FCC may look at licenses, and the shocking news that MSNBC & other networks will be spun off from Comcast.

Then we had this fickle asshole, shift again with the changing political winds.



Biden never threatened to jail anyone involved, just complained ineffectually.

Yet there's zuck trying to carry on like meta was persecuted for the bullshit they disseminated with no worries. Completely ignoring what led to their being called out.



We've got Tim Cook donating to 45's inauguration, a president that you know is diametrically opposed to his personal views, along with a host of big business leaders. Apple the company isn't donating itself, as that would be a hit to the company's reputation.

I think these pivots are more about survival in the next four years as you have a petty vindictive asshole in charge, who has the support of our new oligarch class that controls an awful lot of the information we get.

In my opinion, Zuckerberg and others aren’t acting out of fear. They like this system, where a single oligarch can shut down the government with a tweet. They don’t fear Musk. They imagine being in his place, or at least getting a seat at that table.

 

[hulugu]

In my opinion, Zuckerberg and others aren’t acting out of fear. They like this system, where a single oligarch can shut down the government with a tweet. They don’t fear Musk. They imagine being in his place, or at least getting a seat at that table.

I tend to agree. Zuckerberg seems to have gone through a bro-transformation through MMJ, and I suspect the Congressional hearings on Facebook, plus the SEC's review, probably made him realize how much he hated the idea of democratic oversight.

Also, he's probably secretly terrified they'll just kill him.

Better to be at the table and among the Legion of Doom than get choked out by Gorilla Grodd in some boardroom.

So, he's burning down the DEI stuff and the "Safety" part of Facebook, in the hopes that his product lasts through a Republican administration. I suspect that once grandma starts seeing Nazi content and weird porno ads, Facebook is doomed. And, I suspect that Instagram is similarly doomed, especially once people realize its mostly AI-slop.

 

[Jay Mysteri0]

In my opinion, Zuckerberg and others aren’t acting out of fear. They like this system, where a single oligarch can shut down the government with a tweet. They don’t fear Musk. They imagine being in his place, or at least getting a seat at that table.

But I do think that is a fear. A fear of a petty vindictive asshole with onion layer thin skin, who won't hesitate to use the gov't against them. They had no such worries with previous governments, in fact they laughed at the last one. Now it's become a legitimate concern.

I tend to agree. Zuckerberg seems to have gone through a bro-transformation through MMJ, and I suspect the Congressional hearings on Facebook, plus the SEC's review, probably made him realize how much he hated the idea of democratic oversight.

Also, he's probably secretly terrified they'll just kill him.

Better to be at the table and among the Legion of Doom than get choked out by Gorilla Grodd in some boardroom.

So, he's burning down the DEI stuff and the "Safety" part of Facebook, in the hopes that his product lasts through a Republican administration. I suspect that once grandma starts seeing Nazi content and weird porno ads, Facebook is doomed. And, I suspect that Instagram is similarly doomed, especially once people realize its mostly AI-slop.

Exactly! It's better to sit at the table currying favor from the head of the table / dictator, than being outside the target of his & his followers ire.

I wonder if it will be the 2nd or 3rd year, when the new administration starts floating the idea of taking control of things in name of "national security". Or how does he rationalize his Greenland nuttery / distraction on not delivering on campaign promises? Oh yeah, "national security".

 

[P___X]

In my opinion, Zuckerberg and others aren’t acting out of fear. They like this system, where a single oligarch can shut down the government with a tweet. They don’t fear Musk. They imagine being in his place, or at least getting a seat at that table.

If I were a billionaire, I'd consider Musk a crash test dummy. He tests billionaire's powers without much direct risk for his peers (until people start "eating the rich"). Concurrently, I think Musk did more damage to the billionaire ethos than anybody else in modern history.

I suspect the Congressional hearings on Facebook, plus the SEC's review, probably made him realize how much he hated the idea of democratic oversight.

Agree. He's like, I'll make more money and get harassed less. I do think social media should get, at the bare minimum, EU level scrutiny.

So, he's burning down the DEI stuff and the "Safety" part of Facebook, in the hopes that his product lasts through a Republican administration. I suspect that once grandma starts seeing Nazi content and weird porno ads, Facebook is doomed. And, I suspect that Instagram is similarly doomed, especially once people realize its mostly AI-slop.

I doubt he has such existential concerns though. Your grandma/pa won't realize what is AI generated content, and may even be secretly into the weird porno ads... I find my parents' generation (i.e., boomers) almost completely incapable of distinguishing disinformation or even AI slop. BTW, saw Zuckerberg dissing Apple on the JRE, claiming that facebook's profits would be double without Apple's hostility. (He also said that apple isn't innovating and still riding the iPhone wave, which I won't even comment on beyond a chuckle). In my opinion, this was the best apple advertisement to date, even beating the 1984 version. Considering that Apple's hostile actions agains facebook/meta included limiting tracking and reducing integration into apps, it's sort of a confession from Zuckerberg of being a digital mega stalker. But he did manage to turn it into something worse: into a digital MAGA stalker. Yay.

 

[SouprMatt]

The Onion properly skewers the new policies on Facebook:

‘We Must Protect The Pure Aryan Bloodline,’ Says Child After 9 Minutes Of Unsupervised Facebook Access

PEABODY, MA—Having discovered the social media website open on his father’s unattended laptop, local 6-year-old Oliver Sherman stated “We must protect the pure Aryan bloodline” Friday after nine minutes of Facebook access without supervision. “There’s a white genocide going on in this country...

theonion.com

 

[SouprMatt]

Following up on Zuckerberg’s changes at Meta, The NY Times did a story and interviewed multiple sources.

Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era

After visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump in November, Mr. Zuckerberg decided to relax Meta’s speech policies. He asked a small team to carry out his goals within weeks. The repercussions are just beginning.

www.nytimes.com

In interviews, more than a dozen current and former Meta employees, executives and advisers to Mr. Zuckerberg described his shift as serving a dual purpose. It positions Meta for the political landscape of the moment, with conservative power ascendant in Washington as Mr. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. More than that, the changes reflect Mr. Zuckerberg’s personal views of how his $1.5 trillion company should be run — and he no longer wants to keep those views quiet.

So it seems like this is about Mark being a right-winger, which he’s hoping to slightly mask by saying it’s all about protecting Meta from Trump? Or maybe it’s a dual thing. He gets to be on Trump’s good side, while expressing who he really was all along.

One seemingly pointless thing he did? Users previously could create LGBTQ+ Pride or transgender color schemes for the app as they use it. Those have been removed.

Meta Deletes Trans and Nonbinary Messenger Themes

Amid a series of changes that allows users to target LGBTQ+ people, Meta has deleted product features it initially championed.

www.404media.co

I thought, why do something so petty when people can just choose NOT to use them? Then I remembered how triggered many forum denizens at MacRumors would get anytime Apple released a Pride-themed watch band.

And then we get the specific rule changes, made for only one reason: to allow racial and gender discrimination on the platform:

Among its changes, Meta loosened rules so people could post statements saying they hated people of certain races, religions or sexual orientations, including permitting “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” The company cited political discourse about transgender rights for the change. It also removed a rule that forbade users to say people of certain races were responsible for spreading the coronavirus.

Let’s be clear on who is protected from these rules though

Some training materials that Meta created for the new policies were confusing and contradictory, two employees who reviewed the documents said. Some of the text said saying that “white people have mental illness” would be prohibited on Facebook, but saying that “gay people have mental illness” was allowed, they said.

This goes beyond “politics” and straight into allowing Nazism. No platform anywhere should allow that kind of content. Do we want everything on the internet to be 4chan?

After reading that full article, I feel convinced that Zuck always hated employees telling him to protect minorities. A second Trump term gave him cover for creating the hateful platform he always wanted ever since he started with a site for men to rate womens’ bodies without their consent.

 

[P___X]

Following up on Zuckerberg’s changes at Meta, The NY Times did a story and interviewed multiple sources.

Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era

After visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump in November, Mr. Zuckerberg decided to relax Meta’s speech policies. He asked a small team to carry out his goals within weeks. The repercussions are just beginning.

www.nytimes.com

So it seems like this is about Mark being a right-winger, which he’s hoping to slightly mask by saying it’s all about protecting Meta from Trump? Or maybe it’s a dual thing. He gets to be on Trump’s good side, while expressing who he really was all along.

One seemingly pointless thing he did? Users previously could create LGBTQ+ Pride or transgender color schemes for the app as they use it. Those have been removed.

Meta Deletes Trans and Nonbinary Messenger Themes

Amid a series of changes that allows users to target LGBTQ+ people, Meta has deleted product features it initially championed.

www.404media.co

I thought, why do something so petty when people can just choose NOT to use them? Then I remembered how triggered many forum denizens at MacRumors would get anytime Apple released a Pride-themed watch band.

On one hand i never understood those theme names. On the other, I use themes based on esthetics purely. So people who get upset about things like this have an issue.

And then we get the specific rule changes, made for only one reason: to allow racial and gender discrimination on the platform:



Let’s be clear on who is protected from these rules though



This goes beyond “politics” and straight into allowing Nazism. No platform anywhere should allow that kind of content. Do we want everything on the internet to be 4chan?

After reading that full article, I feel convinced that Zuck always hated employees telling him to protect minorities. A second Trump term gave him cover for creating the hateful platform he always wanted ever since he started with a site for men to rate womens’ bodies without their consent.

While I find this whole thing super disturbing, in the US it's only pandering unless FB changes its algorithm concurrently which essentially obscures all meaningful content and stymies human-to-human interaction already. To list these matters:

1. Algorithm-forced garbage on Timeline.
Most people's Timelines are 70% low quality meme page recommendations and ads, which are now often sexually suggestive (something I've never seen until 2023).

2. >99% of people don't post regularly anymore.
If one figures out how to purify their feed (Feeds/Friends only), you can see how little actual posting people do (I have >1000 friends, of whom sans the 2-3 over sharers, people made about 30 posts a day even during the holiday season).

3. Comment sections are arbitrarily filtered by the algorithm.
Even if it's a non-controversial topic, if there are more than 3 comments on a post, it takes 3 clicks to see all responses as it defaults to "Only relevant" comments, the relevance of which is a mystery.

4. Auto filtering political / disinformation content.
At one point FB implemented an opt out type blocking of disinformation and political content. Finding this setting takes diving 3 levels deep into settings menus, so I guarantee that >99% of people will never find it. Also, I bet ya that the algorithm would still label and limit the spread of disinfo, they'll just do it on the DL.

5. FB's moderation and fact checking was already super iffy outside the USA
For example, Orbán, besides funding >95% of his propaganda media, their primary spending is on FB. Threats are not necessarily checked that well in non-english languages, which is an opportunity for authoritarian states to prosecute people based on their posts.

The way this looks in practice is best shown by what happened in Myanmar:

Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya; Meta owes reparations – new report

www.amnesty.org

The term "radical buddhist nationalist" is probably the best one to describe the issues with humans' rendition of religion (and nobody else can render it, so...)

--------
To summarize it, FB in the US is controlled so tightly by the algorithm that they might be able to make these policy changes without a lot of practical changes so it's an opportunity to Zuck up to Trump without much risk. On the other hand, this can have very significant consequences outside of the USA even without algo changes.

About Zuck's political orientation. Dunno, he went to an Ivy league prep boarding school in the middle of nowhere in New England and then to Harvard. He's one of the more out-of-touch human beings from the start. I'm curious (and dreading) to see whether this is just Zuck going from being Data from Star Trek into ZuckerBro (i.e. all for the show) or he's truly eager to see the world burn because catastrophes are business opportunities for billionaires.