So US media censors US content, containing bits about China censors, due to financial and other unknown reasons, but when it comes to US happenings, good and bad, they want and have complete freedom of press and speech.
Oh, the irony.
Oh, the irony.
Ironically, I had to turn off ad block to view it. Does anyone know of a better service like this?
[edit: the screenshot is for a different article, but I get the same spy-wall on the one linked above]
Can you really blame them for blocking Adblock users? They're a business, if you're both not logged in (ie, not a subscriber) and blocking ads, you're preventing them from capturing any revenue. How do you suggest the New York Times stays in business?
I for one would much rather NYT block adblock users than increase their reliance on native ads. Also, native ads are relatively new, what do you mean “for 150 years”?
I was under the impression the New York Times didn't allow companies to pay for custom articles until recently, but I could be wrong. Do you know when this happened?
That's not true, and there is a publishing industry term for it: "pass-along." It's used to calculate readership for...advertising rates.
https://prod-cdn.sumo.mozilla.net/uploads/gallery/images/201...
it doesn't and it never will till we hold our politicians accountable for not holding China accountable and the only way to do so is with trade restrictions. if not directly on China than any company which chooses to move their manufacturing there.
China has such a massive trade presence globally that companies are willing to abandon domestic values to make them happy. The media certainly aren't the only party guilty of this (tech & military companies selling surveillance technology, etc.)
It's easy to blame everything on the media because they market themselves as the purveyors of transparency and democracy in our society. But they're just businesses too, and businesses sacrifice ethics all the time to stay alive.
As Ice-T once said: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
It's possible to be ethical in a capitalist system. I don't believe it's acceptable to give them a free pass because they chose the option that might be the most profitable (and that's arguable).
So, CBS will let that run, but will censor anything that offends the communist party of China.
Edit: For everyone jumping on the downvote train: I don't think either should be censored, but what they do censor is very telling of their ethics.
In context, this was a list of the words that are being monitored by the NSA. It stands to reason that the NSA would want to track people who discuss assassinating the president.
I don't understand why this is controversial.
It is wildly inappropriate to be doing such a thing.
[1] https://i.redd.it/nldbz62by4s21.jpg
Edit: forgive the annotations on the image. It's what I found on reddit when I looked around for a source on what GP was talking about.
As others have mentioned in the thread, it's just a plausible list of NSA watchlist words. (Unfortunately, my post here probably wound up in one of their datacenters now.)
I think the NSA is concerned about the assassination of any president.
The words themselves are far too easily decontextualized by people, they have power on their own.
CBS is hiding behind that, it's utterly inappropriate.
The context would have to be glaringly and completely clear, basically explained, in order for it to be approaching 'ok'.
They've been engaging in mass censorship of right-leaning figures due to the nebulous excuse of "supporting hate".
There is a difference between government censorship and a corporation acting in its own best interests. The Chinese government never told them to drop the story, just as the US government never tells people to drop stories. News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. Profit means striking a balance between giving the viewers what they want today, and making sure you will be able to give them that tomorrow.
Look at the US news landscape. Look at the access CNN gets as opposed to Fox. If you want the big interviews with the biggest players you have to remain on good terms with their leadership.
This is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect out of a journalist. What good is all that "access" if you're just publishing approved content? Wasn't the relevant quote was something like "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations."
"Publish and be damned" will quickly lead to you having no-one willing to speak to you.
(Imagine someone who immediately told everyone any secrets they learnt. How long would people tolerate that?)
Reporters act like reporters but often work for massive publicly-traded media companies (CBS). If you want perfect reporting you have to take profit out of the mix, which in turn brings other problems. Don't trust corporations to be the champions of democracy. That isn't their job. Their job is to make money for their owners and we shouldn't criticize them for doing so.
EDIT: The downvotes are saying news divisions were not so? If that, I think some people need to take a few minutes to learn the history.
I've seen this argument before used to defend oil companies and the like. Or a company for not paying taxes. Or lobbying to change the laws. "They're just performing their fiduciary responsibility their shareholders!"
I disagree entirely. The existence of capitalism doesn't give people or companies a free morality pass.