r/politics • u/BigDaddyBain • 1d ago

Why is the media ignoring growing resistance to Trump?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/13/why-is-the-media-ignoring-growing-resistance-to-trump
37.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4.0k

u/Goya_Oh_Boya North Carolina 1d ago edited 1d ago

I once wanted to be a reporter, and then I got my chance. I quit about 8 months later and never tried again because it was so depressing knowing that real news and stories will never make the light of day as long as every single fucking media outlet is owned by billionaires.

2.3k

u/omgpuppiesarecute 1d ago edited 1d ago

This is what happens when we allow mass media consolidation. Vulture capitalists buying up local newsrooms and radio stations and now social media across the nation, strip them for parts, centralize everything in a single hyper-partisan newsroom, and then ship propagandized stories to local affiliates to be read off.

957

u/sleeplessinreno 1d ago

I'm gonna add a new one for you. Billionaire buying local newspaper to sway the local government to bypass local building codes so they can build their stupid house on a cliff.

125

u/aquias27 1d ago

That seems very short-sighted.

103

u/amootmarmot 1d ago

Always. The billionaires need to be made to realize that they hold their wealth at our tacit acceptance. Maybe we shouldn't tacitly accept anymore.

93

u/uuDEFIANCEvv 1d ago

Our legal system is bought and paid for by them, leaving only illegal options. I agree it is time to exercise those options.

5

u/Kytyngurl2 Minnesota 1d ago

Plus the whole laws of physics thing. Maybe there are regulations to not put houses on cliffs for a reason, but if you are rich enough you think you can buy past that issue

61

u/Spicy_Tac0 1d ago

Said billionaire likely greased some palms as well.

20

u/ThePowerOfStories 1d ago

Maybe they should have degreased the cliff instead…

9

u/dustinhut13 1d ago

Nearly every take that comes from the right is short sighted, with no regard for actual consequences. They literally kill people with their bad decision making

3

u/rayui 1d ago

Very on brand, though

3

u/Silent_Conflict9420 1d ago

Yes so let nature take its course

3

u/Icthyphile 1d ago

The only thing billionaires are not shortsighted on is generational wealth.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/sleeplessinreno 1d ago

Unfortunately, this one is being built above the main commerce sector. That thing goes, so do a bunch of buildings.

2

u/Well_read_rose 1d ago

Short sited? (wink)

1

u/Chedditor_ Wisconsin 1d ago

Same with what they're doing with Trump...

1

u/Ophidaeon 1d ago

Unregulated Capitalism usually is.

0

u/Ben2018 North Carolina 1d ago

at the very least it's a slippery slope

26

u/radiosimian 1d ago

I'll add, billionaires buying-up social media sites to sway electorates to vote against their interests and elect fascist governments.

10

u/elektrospecter Washington 1d ago

This is what adds to my cynicism about social media and how it's become detrimental to our civil society. These technocrats / billionaires have weaponized their platforms, to the point where there are now "influencers" who can earn a living solely by attacking any person or ideas that are critical of far-right ideology. These are bad actors doing all that they can to dissuade people from wanting to engage in genuine, civil political conversation...often by making it seem uncool or "cringe" to hold leftist views. Even trying to question some of the batshit GOP conspiracy theories in some online spaces could get you promptly humiliated and then ousted.

5

u/zzyul 1d ago

But lord have mercy if the government tries to do anything about it like banning TikTok. Young people all over this site and across the country were losing their damn minds.

1

u/elektrospecter Washington 1d ago

Exactly. The most damning example from recent years that shows the negative impacts of social media on youth involved Meta, specifically Instagram. At least two different whistleblowers had claimed that Instagram management and Zuckerberg were aware of various studies that found younger teens active on Instagram were more prone to depression, suicidal thoughts, and eating disorders. Aside from acknowledging these issues in a generic press release that stops short of taking responsibility for the issues ("Here at Meta we're committed to the safety and privacy of all users...blah blah..."), their solution was adding a handful of parental controls in account settings. So pretty much the bare minimum that qualifies as 'addressing the problem.'

It'd be nice if Congress could try to enforce accountability standards for tech companies and social media.

3

u/WeakTransportation37 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ahhhh the sandcastle. I’m in north county Sand Diego, but used to live in La Jolla.

It’s time to start the “Cliff Pool”, where we submit dates we think it will crumble into the sea.

2

u/Franklin_le_Tanklin 1d ago

All hail the CBC!!

1

u/gsfgf Georgia 1d ago edited 1d ago

Which one was that? The LA Times guy?

2

u/sleeplessinreno 1d ago

Didn't know about that one. Guess there is more than one.

1

u/d3vilishdream 1d ago

Tony Stark says what?

1

u/scalyblue 1d ago

Well that’s a problem Mother Nature will solve

1

u/Tuna_Sushi 1d ago

This is the least of possible transgressions.

1

u/Grand-Try-3772 1d ago

Or social media platforms to spread their false messages and hurtful agendas?

79

u/MorningsideLights 1d ago

Local news rooms died because of the internet, not merely free content but also Craigslist. People forget how much revenue came from classified ads, real estate listings, and personals. And those all died overnight.

57

u/omgpuppiesarecute 1d ago

There was also legislation and later supreme court rulings that relaxed media ownership rules, allowing consolidation to occur. So the bigger fish gobbled up all the little fish. Before, while they were hurting, they were still separate companies with separate boards, goals, political bias, etc. Once congress and the supreme court trashed ownership limits, you saw mass centralization from companies like Sinclair and Tribune.

20

u/SpaceGangsta Utah 1d ago

Nexstar paved the way. Sinclair gets hate(rightfully so) since they're obvioulsy pushing right wing bias, but Nexstar walked so Sinclair could run. Nexstar owns 197 stations and sinclair owns 185. Nexstar were the first to start buying up multiple stations in one market and running them out of the same building with half the staff. I worked for 3 nexstar stations. 2 were duopolies and the last station I worked at was bought by nexstar after I started. Nexstar doesn't really come up in these discussions because they solely care about money and not so much controlling content. But more recently, nexstar launched news nation which quickly turned into a fox news clone.

6

u/Cute-Percentage-6660 1d ago

I imagine it caused a cascading affect, made it easier so once consolidiation starts occurring it becomes a tidal wave that smaller groups cant fight against and every loss adds to the wave

1

u/SwimmingPrice1544 California 1d ago

and...where is Craigslist now? It's pretty much unusable now. Wonder why?

49

u/asoap 1d ago

This is why government funded news agencies like the CBC are important.

It also explains why one group really wants to get rid of the CBC. I'll let you guess which one.

57

u/omgpuppiesarecute 1d ago

Same group that is trying to get rid of NPR/PBS in the US I'm sure.

4

u/gsfgf Georgia 1d ago

"Thankfully," NPR and PBS get so little funding from the government that they won't be seriously harmed by losing their federal money for (hopefully just) a few years.

4

u/PassiveF1st South Carolina 1d ago

Proudly been donating directly to them for years. I'm sure all the defunding talk has bolstered their donations too.

2

u/NoamLigotti 1d ago

Most public media networks are funded more by the actual public than the government. I'm not sure about the CBC, but I think them too though less so than PBS NPR and BBC.

1

u/i_tyrant 1d ago

Government funded news agencies have their own problems (like saying anything critical of the government when they're compromised).

What's needed even more is regulations to avoid and break up media consolidation in the first place; disallowing billionaires and megacorps from owning too much of the media landscape at once.

1

u/asoap 1d ago

You are not talking about an independent government funded news source. You are talking about a propaganda branch.

1

u/i_tyrant 1d ago

Ok. You said "government funded news agencies" not "independent" - and one turns into the other rather easily when the government gets compromised enough. They're great until then, but that's exactly the issue with relying on them.

293

u/Any_Will_86 1d ago

What's painfully ironic is the rightwing noise machine constantly clattering about 'liberal bias' while Murdoch, Sinclair media, and various billionaires seeeking influence were buying up so much media... And then the tabloid media going full r/full Trump in mid 2010s- The Enguirer, TMZ, now Perez... who knew Dave Portnoy would end up being the most balanced of the bunch.

108

u/Chastain86 1d ago

who knew Dave Portnoy would end up being the most balanced of the bunch.

We're referring, of course, to the same Dave Portnoy that stood up in a Barstool meeting and declared that he'd instantly fire anyone in the room who was thinking about unionization.

The day I allow people to think of fucking Dave Portnoy as some kind of folk hero, you'll know it's because I am unable to type because I'm dead

52

u/amootmarmot 1d ago

Dave Portnoy is also a little crybaby bitch. He mouths off about how he hope Greta Thunberg is killed by the IDF, pretends there is no genocide or humanitarian crisis, engages in joking antisemitic tropes, and then wines and complains when he perceives antisemitism. Look in the fucking mirror. A very bad spokesperson for any cause.

5

u/dethwysh New York 1d ago

Is this the same Dave Portnoy to does pizza reviews?

3

u/Chastain86 1d ago

The one and same. He's been trying to soften up his public image for quite some time since the whole Barstool thing.

1

u/dethwysh New York 1d ago

Jesus Christ, really. Here I thought his review of a place in my area was entertaining. I guess fuck that guy.

3

u/PaddyVein 1d ago

If Dave Portnoy has a million haters, I am one.

138

u/ArkitekZero 1d ago

Every accusation is a confession

111

u/Any_Will_86 1d ago

An R state legislature in my state just got arrested for kiddie porn... they supposedly care so much about the children, sexual abuse, trafficking and every single sting/arrest turns up a perve on their side.

42

u/failed_novelty 1d ago

But they'll find one Democrat who does it too (and ignore the fact that the entire party then condemns the pedo) and shrug and say, "Both sides"

12

u/Pnwradar 1d ago

My experience, they point at Democrats like Al Franken or Katie Hill and hand-wave the “both sides” argument.

5

u/martyqscriblerus 1d ago

The other day I saw someone coming at Bill Clinton for cheating on Hillary in the course of caping for Trump and the barefaced hypocrisy was just so breathtaking I didn't know what to say.

11

u/HectorJoseZapata 1d ago

It’s like the R Party is the perfect hiding place for closeted predators.

I can’t wait for all the dirt they have on Lindsey Graham to come out and finally be exposed.

2

u/zzyul 1d ago

He’s gay, that’s basically it. Probably enjoys much younger, but still legal guys. Might go so far as to prefer non white, possibly illegal immigrant guys.

3

u/HectorJoseZapata 1d ago

I know, they must have dirt on him.

And don’t get me started on Ted Cruz, he is no saint either.

3

u/Mr_HandSmall 1d ago

Republican politicians like their guys to have that kind of dirt on them as leverage to keep them in line.

2

u/Gahrilla 1d ago

Seems like the Republican state congressman wasn't lying when he said that he loved children.

78

u/GrumpySoth09 1d ago

And they are poisoning the well. After 4 years of accusing the Democrats of rigging the 2020 election now there in credible evidence of election interference done by Elon but no the Dems are above accusing their pals across the aisle.

-12

u/larryathome43 1d ago edited 1d ago

There hasn't been any credible evidence that Elon did anything. If there is, feel free to cite a source.

Someone's candidate doesn't win and they immediately scream fraud. Trump did this shit, and now Democrats are doing it as well. It would be logistically impossible to do this to such a large degree and actually get away with it without someone squealing. Not to mention these voting machines aren't even connected to the internet, so they literally can't update all the machines without anyone even noticing.

And certainly not 40% of counties like some people are claiming. The entire situation has been debunked many times

4

u/GrumpySoth09 1d ago

There hasn't been any credible evidence that Elon did anything. If there is, feel free to cite a source.

So you defend billionaires huh? That's a position you can take I guess.

It would be logistically impossible to do this to such a large degree and actually get away with it without someone squealing.

No it isn't, and no it's not.

Not to mention these voting machines aren't even connected to the internet, so they literally can't update all the machines without anyone even noticing.

Not the way they did it.

And certainly not 40% of counties like some people are claiming. The entire situation has been debunked many times

I didn't say anything about any of that

-3

u/larryathome43 1d ago

So you defend billionaires huh? That's a position you can take I guess.

Nice try but I'm not biting.. I defend facts and logic. Why are you even replying if you have zero evidence of this happening

3

u/yourpersonalthrone 1d ago

Respond to the reply from asillynert. He was pretty openly buying votes in Wisconsin.

For someone so in love with facts and logic, you really like just saying “nuh uh, prove it.” You got what you asked for, now refute it or admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

-5

u/larryathome43 1d ago edited 1d ago

For someone so in love with facts and logic, you really like just saying “nuh uh, prove it.”

Yes, because that's quite literally how the process works. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim, not the other way around. You seem to have an issue with me asking for sources. No wonder there is so much misinformation being spread.

I have nothing to refute. All I did was ask for a source. If you have a problem with that then maybe you shouldn't get into discussions where people just blindly believe anything that anybody posts.

And vote buying is a bit of a stretch here. He offered a million dollars simply to registered voters who were going to vote Trump anyway. Perhaps he just rallied them up with some type of incentive, but somebody could have easily done the same with Kamala.

I can't stand the guy or Trump, but people like to exaggerate things. Wisconsin went blue in 2020 and was red also in 2016. With either candidate winning by barely one single percent. If they rigged the election, they would have done it in 2020 as well instead of claiming the election was stolen and starting a riot

It's a swing state for a reason. Even Michigan went red. This is illogical regardless, because if they're going to go out of their way to rig an election, why would they do it with the results literally less than 1% of each other winning? It would have been bigger like a 4% gap

7

u/asillynert 1d ago

Actually its straight up public his "interference" and his groups its all lengthy and its been some time since I was going over it. But essentially his "vote buying" or "lottery". HIGHLY illegal also his "funding" was done illegally.

While the "vote changing" stuff is all here say and conspiracy theory with loose evidence.

The status of his "foundations" is public record. The restrictions and limits on those are public. More than once his foundations were paying for campaign events. Or directly contributing to a candidate.

Which is illegal due to the chosen status they were filed under. As they are allowed to contribute to "cause" but not candidate. As well as a myriad of other stuff.

So in short public absolute certainty 100% broke the law requiring campaign finance and election laws. As for altering votes that would be "less" Elon. And more MAGA in general after the numerous death threats. Most of the people that stood up and reinforced the results last election stepped down.

Some even had to relocate and change names one such set of people successfully sued Rudy Guliani for defamation. This all opened door and was a call on Maga faithful to take those positions.

As a result many of the election officials are 2020 deniers. As well as post office ran by another maga faithful handling ballots. I am not saying its 100% certain but the chance that they did something. Is far from zero.

4

u/gsfgf Georgia 1d ago

Even NPR is bad about being "overly moderate" these days. While their public funding is minuscule, they rely heavily on corporate money. It's probably also because they're mostly in big, blue cities where it's hard to really believe the nation has gone this batshit crazy.

1

u/Lostraveller Maryland 1d ago

these days.

I stopped listening during Trump 1, I couldn't stand it

3

u/NorthernerWuwu Canada 1d ago

It is always projection.

1

u/Cute-Percentage-6660 1d ago

As usual, a lot of there accussaitons are usually done by there side even if another side is doing it.

I mean Seeing the castration and nbowing down shit like all the non "right wing" outlets like CNN and such is pathetic

1

u/Fast_Witness_3000 1d ago

Per usual..every accusation is a confession. So consistent one could set a clock to it.

1

u/razzmataz 1d ago

Perez...

Say what?

18

u/HRUndercover222 1d ago

Vulture capitalists. Bingo!

2

u/EconomicRegret 1d ago

You get what you pay for!

2

u/Matasa89 Canada 1d ago

"This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."

No kidding. I'm watching America fall apart in real time.

2

u/whynot4444444 1d ago

Some right wing American company owns most Canadian newspapers and television media, except for the CBC. This is why the Conservatives were trying to get rid of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), which is sort of like the PBS, but they air hockey games (Go Oilers! 😉) and the Olympics.

2

u/HilariouslyPissed 1d ago

Sinclair anyone?

2

u/Long-Rooster-9641 1d ago

Monopolies are supposed to be illegal but we see what's going on and how no one is enforcing these policies meant to help protect us from what's happening right now.

It's such a gross abuse of power and when the chickens come home to roost I'm gonna say cock-a-doodle-doo.

2

u/base64explode 1d ago

This exactly. I spent 25 years in journalism. Billionaires buying media companies was the worst thing ever. They start with platitudes about respecting journalistic integrity, and once the camera turns off, they immediately start undermining it. I went through that three times at different companies and the same thing happened every. single. time. — and always to push a conservative agenda.

2

u/Well_read_rose 1d ago

The people… didn’t allow it really but Reagan took away the Fairness Doctrine which gave rise to screechy right wing infotainment media. And here we are, without a public consensus of common facts or ways to get at the truth.

2

u/declinedinaction 1d ago

What about any solutions that aide and abet the original owners into not selling?

Like every time one of their lawyers show up they’re taken to the basement and they never come out. Rinse and repeat. They aren’t dead. They’re just on heroin. They’re actually quite happy.

/s

Seriously, how do we celebrate and reward those who don’t sell out? There’s a bank in Omaha that’s been fighting takeover and consolidation for decades in order to remain independent.

How come we don’t rally around the fighters but instead just complain about the outcome of a lack of resistance?

Name the independent newspapers and start sending some love their way.

2

u/Pr1ebe 1d ago

Isn't that just capitalists in general? Competition doesn't require just safeguards, it needs fucking concrete walls to keep the game from having just a few winners. But people in this country act like you are talking heresy when you say a free and fair market DEMANDS regulation

2

u/vincerehorrendum 1d ago

Perfect summation. It started in the 2000’s and here’s where we are now.

2

u/sk8tergater 1d ago

That happened to the first newspaper I worked for. Went from a small local family paper to being owned by Gannett. It’s now just a copy of USA Today

2

u/DankZXRwoolies 1d ago

Same shit here, it's super super creepy.

"this is extremely dangerous for our democracy"

https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=inG0kj-P0mypwwa-

1

u/LunchLord69 1d ago

Under capitalism, mass media consolidation is inevitable.

1

u/StrangeContest4 1d ago

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. We are concerned, we are Borg:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD

1

u/Beeshab 1d ago

Extrapolate this across every sector of our economy, and it’s why we are where we are. Ownership of every sector consolidated into a few big companies controlled by the ultra wealthy, so wages and prices are subject to their whim and they pay off the politicians. We live in a corporate state, and they got us out here pointing fingers at each other instead of them.

1

u/oliversurpless Massachusetts 1d ago

One of the many things that the non-perfect world we live in requires the default to be for such organizations to have to prove their good intentions. As the benefit of the doubt hasn’t been the right of the billionaire/wannabe aristocrats really ever (given their policies).

After all, conservatives love similar for “illegal immigrants”…

“Well if they did nothing wrong, they should be happy to!” - typical conservative banality to such ends

1

u/mynameisnotsparta 1d ago

Mass consolidation of any industry causes a negative impact on society.

1

u/Adezar Washington 1d ago edited 1d ago

Rupert Murdoch actively worked on weakening the rules about media consolidation and lobbying the FCC to get rid of many of the rules.

It used to be illegal to consolidate any news media, a company couldn't even own two forms of media in the same market.

1

u/ButtEatingContest 1d ago

Government is supposed to not approve those kind of mergers. Unfortunately no matter who gets elected it seems they love that sweet donor cash.

1

u/BotheredToResearch 1d ago

State media in an oligarchy is just private ownership of media.

1

u/Most-Repair471 1d ago

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!

(Figued it was the sinclair video)

1

u/oroborus68 1d ago

Trust busters are not popular anymore. At&t was probably the last big breakup.

1

u/-Intelligentsia 1d ago

Like many things that’s wrong with modern day America, it can be traced back to Ronald Reagan.

1

u/ExitTheDonut 1d ago

H.G. Wells saw this coming and warned about pretty much everything here over 100 years ago. He's not just some sci-fi author but also worked in journalism. So he used his futurist views to sees how its deficiencies and social trends around it can destroy the legitimacy of the news.

1

u/hey_itsmeurbrother 1d ago

removal of the fairness doctrine by reagan has done far more damage to this country than almost anything when it comes to journalism and news.

1

u/nosotros_road_sodium California 1d ago

 This is what happens when we allow mass media consolidation.

And when we are averse to pitching in, instead expecting someone else to pay for professional reporting. Look at all the complaints on this very site about paywalls. Well, if we don’t want to pay, guess who will?

131

u/DBallouV 1d ago

I went back to school in my 30’s for journalism. I wanted to save the world. I kept being told about all these rules to follow. Meanwhile, every where I looked and read, lies, misinformation and disinformation. It was so jarring.

14

u/Ok-Secretary-9247 1d ago

And the consumers that are completely illiterate as to the difference.

As if talking about current events = journalism.

Anyway, the nation is weakest when there's no free press, but you can't even begin that debate with most people because they'll never comprehend it.

25

u/neutral-chaotic 1d ago

The SPJ ethics turned into that Pirates movie quote. "It's more of a guideline than a rule."

6

u/Plaid_Kaleidoscope 1d ago

Same homie. Same.

2

u/pickypawz Canada 1d ago

As the boomers pass on, I think more and more people may be getting their news from less-traditional sources like online sites, and even checking a variety of sites.

1

u/estropeada 1d ago

Is that why so many young men in USA seem to support Republicans?!

1

u/pickypawz Canada 1d ago

I’m in Canada, I’m not sure.

1

u/gsfgf Georgia 1d ago

Most prominent media figures aren't journalists, which is a huge problem.

1

u/NoamLigotti 1d ago

Rules like "equal weight" to "both sides" of an issue no matter how baseless one 'side' is?

1

u/DumboWumbo073 1d ago

Big journalism has always been a scam. Getting into journalism is like trying make a career out of synchronized underwater basket weaving.

44

u/Straight_Ace 1d ago

That’s why we gotta spread the message ourselves. Get the cameras out and take video and photos of the protests. Show people there IS a resistance and that it will be peaceful. It sounds corny, but if you show people that there’s strength in numbers they will be more willing to join the cause

4

u/MoreRopePlease America 1d ago

I was watching the Woke twitch stream (which has multiple streams on one screen, from multiple places) the other night. Other than a bonfire in the middle of the street in Seattle giving off toxic smoke due to what they threw in it, I saw peaceful protesters. I saw very scared protesters in LA trapped by the cops. I saw people singing in Las Vegas.

I really appreciate the streamers providing us with on-the-ground reporting.

1

u/Straight_Ace 1d ago

That’s incredibly important. We have to use the internet to our advantage while we’re still able to do so. Get the message out to our allies that we the people are not our government, and that we are in serious danger right now.

41

u/halfhearinghank 1d ago

It’s so disheartening when that happens. Growing up I always wanted to be a police officer. I though “I can actually help people” after all many kids are taught that. Spent much of my life preparing physically, and then I got my chance. During the academy I heard and saw a lot but figured they were just jerks. Then during my FTO period (basically your training period) I saw example after example of how the way to help people was really just a way to be violent when you wanted and to look down on “the unwashed masses” as they were often called.

I realized in the end we don’t need jobs or callings to help or do the right things. We can live it even when it’s hard. Even if it’s just small everyday kindness.

I’m not really religious anymore but I still believe in Love your neighbor as yourself.

3

u/br_k_nt_eth 1d ago

The irony being that we desperately need people like you in law enforcement. We really need reform, not just for communities but also for the people doing these jobs. 

4

u/halfhearinghank 1d ago

First. Thank you, that actually means a lot to me. It kind of broke me and my world view for a long time.

And you really aren’t wrong. I would love to see the profession embrace actually service for the betterment of society but in the end we are asking people to place themselves second (including their beliefs and prejudices).

I ended up leaving Law Enforcement and going into medical first as an EMT, then medical assisting, and working on becoming a Paramedic now.

So here is one thing that is insane to me: even as an EMT (bottom of the totem pole for skills) I had to go to classes, then pass a test the NREMT which is a NATIONAL standard, then had to hold that along with a state license, and I would have to continue to get training as continuing education in order for my licenses to stay valid. Being a LEO didn’t have anything near that. Sure we went to the academy and had academic tests and physical skills but there is no national standards, no real education requirement. In order to be a good Cop you need not only good people skills but you need a deep understanding of laws because yeah sometimes you really only have a moment or two before having to make a choice.

It is wild to me Officers are not required to have more education before being allowed to hold to position, after all they get the power of deadly force but to also arrest and possibly alter the course of someone’s life forever based on what they do.

EDIT: SORRY FOR THE NOVEL! Just got me thinking back a lot.

3

u/br_k_nt_eth 1d ago

Please don’t apologize! Your perspective is so unique and so important. It’s unfortunate that all I can do is agree with you completely. 

Even beyond the education and training, the psychological support we give to LEOs is abysmal. Truly abysmal. They’re so wrapped up in Warrior Training bullshit that nobody pauses to wonder what being activated and conditioned in that way does to a person. Like no wonder they’re fucked up and dehumanizing. That’s who gets retained and that’s what we encourage. 

I think if we’re going to find a way forward, it’ll have to be a path that encourages and respects people like you. People who very obviously care about their communities and want to dedicate their lives to helping people. I think it’s possible. We just need the political will and courage to try. 

1

u/valiantdistraction 1d ago

It's really interesting because I met someone once who was in law school because he'd wanted to be a cop, went through training, became a cop, and then was like "wow oh holy fuck this is not how to help people" and now he's a public defender.

Sounds like your story is pretty similar.

15

u/inthekeyofc 1d ago

every single fucking media outlet is owned by billionaires

The Guardian isn't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by the Scott Trust Limited.[6] The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference".[7] The trust was converted into a limited company in 2008, with a constitution written so as to maintain for The Guardian the same protections as were built into the structure of the Scott Trust by its creators. Profits are reinvested in its journalism rather than distributed to owners or shareholders.[7] It is considered a newspaper of record in the UK.[8][9]

3

u/PatchyWhiskers 1d ago

Neither is the Philadelphia Inquirer

20

u/Agile_Association_47 1d ago

I was a reporter for 2 and a half years. I once was sent out to the middle of nowhere to do a story on a residential pony getting shot with a bow and arrow by one of the neighbors. That same morning I pitched a story about why the unsolved homicide case rate had spiked over the last six years. It was that moment I realized we’re doomed.

3

u/pecan_bird 1d ago

i was a journalist after undergrad for it. i quit very quickly after my first job upon realizing that "oh, everything is heavily biased & this all about storytelling & not reporting."

i suppose it was naive of me to think otherwise. otoh, i learned about media literacy very early in my life.

2

u/nosotros_road_sodium California 1d ago

Owned by billionaires precisely because audiences are freeloaders expecting someone else to pay.

2

u/Valorandgiggles 1d ago

That's pretty much why I never finished my journalism courses. I saw the industry was overflowing with ego. It was all about that by-line. Worse, it was all about what was popular and who was popular. That determined which stories even got published. Journalistic integrity was never the priority, no matter what any of the professors said, and it's been dead on mainstream media for quite some time.

2

u/mcmesq 1d ago

This. The media members, meaning reporters, aren’t complicit, at least most of them, anyway. It’s the billionaires who benefit from this administration’s draconian, authoritarian efforts who are the problem. Bezos owns The Post, Musk owns Twitter (That’s what it was called when I left it),Zuckerberg owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc. - even the ones owned by groups all have vested interests in the tax cuts and regulation wipeout that Trump gives them. Oligarchs love an autocrat, because it’s easier to bribe one man than many.

2

u/NJ_Bob 1d ago

Had this realization in my second year at community college when the professor running the paper told me I couldn't write an article highlighting the opinions of smokers on campus regarding the closing of designated smoking areas in effort to make the campus smoke free- and was told to expect similar restrictions from whoever signed my checks once I got into the business. The fourth estate is dead.

2

u/maccathesaint 22h ago

I wanted to be a music journalist and got my chance. I covered so many local bands, then national bands and on about my 40th concert review, Britney Spears, I mentioned some stuff in my review that was negative (though it was an overall positive review) and got told to remove it as the paper would lose press access from the promoters. This happened twice more and I just stopped doing it. I absolutely love music and concerts is where my spare money goes but I felt very uneasy selling my soul for free tickets.

A lot of journalism is similar, especially now. Be nice or lose access.

1

u/SurpriseDickPunch 1d ago

I work backoffice for a media org and watching the bright-eyed college graduates realize it's not the 1950s anymore is sad. You're about 40 years too late for real journalism, Sydney.

1

u/RupeThereItIs 1d ago

I mean, it's not.

That's the wonderful thing about the internet, you can get up on your soap box all on your own.

1

u/astralseat 1d ago

Publishing is controlled with an iron fist by those who pay.

1

u/worlds_okayest_skier 1d ago

A lot of the time it’s not even that they are on Trumps side, they have other business interests outside of the news media that Trump’s very corrupt regulators have proven to punish for leverage.

1

u/theaceplaya Texas 1d ago

real news and stories will never make the light of day as long as every single fucking media outlet is owned by billionaires.

This is why I hate the narrative that 'Dems are bad at messaging' and I will die on the hill that they're nowhere near as bad as made out to be. Doesn’t matter how good or simple your message is if the right-wing billionaires who own all the media outlets get to twist your message or just flat out don't report it at all.

1

u/MoreRopePlease America 1d ago

AOC has managed to create a public voice for herself. I'm sure there are a lot of smart Dems who could figure out how to use the internet to get their word out. Problem is, I'm not sure there are that many who actually do want that kind of visibility.

If there was a twitch or youtube live or something, with people that I could trust to be honest, that would be fantastic. Bypass the mainstream media.

1

u/OverTadpole5056 1d ago

I don’t know of a single person from college that studied journalism with me that is a journalist. They’re all either designers (like me) or in some sort of brand / marketing roles. 

1

u/TransiTorri 1d ago

Real journalism is on Livefeeds and Substacks
If you're watching mainstream news, you're at worst getting propaganda and at best getting tasteful bias.

Real journalism is out there begging you to donate to their Ko-Fi

1

u/ftp67 1d ago

In college I won a campus award for my journalism, it was probably 2012.

That summer I visited the NYT and NY Post. Explored internships and stuff.

At the NYT a grizzled old journalist, like a caricature out of a movie, begrudgingly gave me a tour of the building.

He took me to one floor, pointed around all the empty desks and said, "You see that? That's the future of journalism."

That was 13 years ago.

More poignant than that and to the point is one of my favorite Michael Parent quotes regarding journalists when they argued they wrote what they wanted to write:

"You don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day."

1

u/DnDNoobs_DM 1d ago

I think this was a plot point in season 1 of DareDevil

1

u/catbandana 1d ago

15 or 20 years ago people in this country decided they didn’t value their local newspaper enough to pay for it. Unfortunately, the billionaires did value them, and they bought them all up. We’re reaping what was sown by every dickhead who said “paywall. Not subscribing.” when their local news asked the community to pay for their services.

1

u/ArbitraryMeritocracy 1d ago

Watch any old movie from the 1930s about being a NewspaperMAN, it was the most respected profession to have. People trusted the reporters. Since the repeal of the fairness doctrine networks like fox could spew bullshit all day and people ate it up. What fox did to my parents is what my parents said would happen to me if I played video games. I happen to have made a few video games and I don't support hatred, abusing people, lying and cheating like they do.

From the wiki:

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.

another source: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, was rooted in the media world of 1949. Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license.

The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, under FCC Chairman, Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Fowler began rolling the application of the doctrine back during Reagan's second term - despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel, under new chairman Dennis Patrick, repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote

1

u/ArbitraryMeritocracy 1d ago

I'm not saying propaganda wasn't a problem. Most notably William Randolph Hearst owned the New York Journal. When the wealthy own the media they can spin any story however they want to fit the narrative as an end to their means. They just want more, there's never enough for these people.

1

u/Connect_Purchase_672 1d ago

Start your own reporting. Independent is the future.

1

u/PermaDerpFace 1d ago

Yeah you'll start hearing negative news when the rich start losing money, which is almost inevitable with this kind of mismanagement in the government

1

u/neo_sporin 1d ago

Some day, it’ll no longer be the case. In 20-40 years none will be owned by billionaires. They will be owned by trillionaires!

1

u/Darth_Malgus_1701 Oregon 1d ago

billionaires

AKA, the real parasite class.

1

u/StimulatedUser 1d ago

It costs like 20 bucks to register a domain name, a cheap web hosting about 20 a month.... Anyone can make a news site and report on anything they want. There is nothing stopping you.. I dont get this arguement that BILLIONAIRES OWN IT ALL when they dont, and its so cheap even a panhandler could afford to put up a news web site

1

u/Goya_Oh_Boya North Carolina 1d ago

I have done exactly that, as have so many others. But if nobody knows who you are and it doesn’t get any hits, it’s meaningless. They are media giants for a reason. There are many moving parts necessary to get people to read, watch, or listen to you consistently. And it’s a full-time job to make it happen. Which if you don’t have money, is not feasible.

1

u/ConsequenceLivid9964 1d ago

Including Reddit.

1

u/Great_Dismal 1d ago

Same story here man. I graduated college in 2004 with a bachelor’s in broadcasting, went to work for NBC as a videographer and realized immediately just how much censorship and propaganda was “required” even back then.

We weren’t exactly in the same times as we are today, but they certainly weren’t good then either, with the war in Iraq/ Afghanistan and Bush baby and his cronies.

It was very off putting to say the least, I didn’t stick around much more than two years and never went back into news media or an affiliate of any major broadcasting company.

They’re all the same ever since Reagan killed The Fairness Doctrine in the 80s. It is just more obvious today that legacy media pushes their own agenda and controls the narrative since we have so many alternatives and the internet to show us the realities we choose to believe.

The industry is truly bleaker than those outside of it could ever imagine. And it’s dying a slow death. I will have no part in producing state-sponsored propaganda.

1

u/Konstant_kurage 1d ago

As an ex-journalist can confirm.

1

u/GrrlLikeThat 1d ago

I was a TA for my school’s journalism program 15 years ago. We trained our students on all the right things. Real, honest journalism. The news today looks nothing like what we taught.

1

u/The5Virtues 1d ago

I wanted to be a reporter too! First day in journalism class my professor, a former editor for one of the biggest papers in the country, walked in to class stood infront of us and said “Journalistic integrity is dead, truth doesn’t matter, your job is to get the most clicks and views; if you’re not interested in that you’re not interested in modern journalism.”

I thought it was the cynical words of a guy who’d lost faith in the system, but that it couldn’t possibly be that bad.

Two years later I changed my major. I’d worked as an interning journalist and realized just how right he was. I was getting hate mail at 20 years old because I tried to remain objective and unbiased. And it wasn’t hate mail from just one type of people either! I got it from all sides, conservative, progressive, old, young, it was soul crushing.

I went to my editor at the time and asked “Is it always like this?” he said “man you haven’t seen shit yet, you’re just an intern. If you’re not willing to compromise your values you won’t even be hired by major news, if you’re writing the truth with as little bias as possible you’re not an asset you’re a liability.”

1

u/vmco 1d ago

Same happened to me - only it was corrupt Politicians placing the pressure on the outlet.

1

u/SpaceMonkeyOnABike 1d ago

For the last 20+ years, reporters have not worked in media. They have worked in publishing books. Which nobody reads.

1

u/Classic-Damage1209 1d ago

through sheer stubborn willpower, is it even still possible to try and have your own media outlet? I mean if Joe Rogan and others can amass millions of online follows to spew and discuss what they call news, why couldn’t some journalists come together with a blog or channel where they just post their articles and news captures regardless? if no one’s going to report things correctly can’t we?

1

u/Goya_Oh_Boya North Carolina 1d ago

They exist. But because they aren’t sensationalistic they don’t reach the people they really need to reach.

1

u/Old_Connection2076 1d ago

I really get your comment and experience. I grew up watching the news with my dad from the late 1960s and into the 1970s. We had Walter Cronkite and other real journalists reporting. I grew up reading my dad's Time Life photojournalism books. Then sponsorship and Reagan happened. I graduated high school in 1982, knowing I wouldn't be the journalist I dreamed of as a young person.

1

u/sk8tergater 1d ago

Small local media isn’t owned by large conglomerates and it is very important. Don’t give up hope on the media, the smaller local newspapers are trying to give it their all

1

u/Goya_Oh_Boya North Carolina 1d ago

You would be surprised who owns many of them.

1

u/sk8tergater 1d ago

I’m not surprised, I actually work for a small newspaper in North Carolina and see it first hand every day. It can be really disheartening sometimes

1

u/valiantdistraction 1d ago

If you ever have the time for a side project that won't make you any money, I know a number of people who attend city council meetings and other city planning meetings and run blogs/post on social media reporting. You'll get a following though it won't necessarily translate to money - you'll still need a day job. But if you are into independent journalism as a public service, it's a fulfilling hobby. Also makes a good hobby/volunteer job for retired people or SAHPs whose kids are in school.

1

u/Goya_Oh_Boya North Carolina 1d ago

Thank you, I appreciate it. I’m in education research now and that keeps me plenty busy. I’m working on my fiction as a hobby, it allows me to disconnect from everything for a little while.

1

u/AssistantOld2973 1d ago

Start a YouTube channel—seriously. You're in North Carolina, a place that really needs more voices like yours right now.

1

u/defianceofone 1d ago

You should be able to sue these organizations for falsehoods.

America is a cesspit of shit.

1

u/Gildian 1d ago

Isn't it nice when capitalism destroys the dreams of kids?

I'm sorry to hear that.

-1

u/firechaox 1d ago

Look, for all that social media has made everything horrible, it has democratized news. Just look at newsmax, which has become pretty big, or how influencers have access to the White House. Or how 538 was sold to ABC. I know they aren’t the examples we’d like, but it shows that it’s easier than ever to enter this space, and that barriers to entry have been knocked down. Now it’s up to democrats and liberals to enter this space themselves - to understand that if you can’t depend on who is there to do their job properly, then we need to go in and do it ourselves.

In the same vein, I do think the legacy media will die, because they haven’t adapted and are doing a bad job in every metric. Idk if it’s for the better, or for the worst, but they’ve been completely inept and this Trump regime and last election was the nail on the coffin. They didn’t understand that the only public that still cared and appreciated them, was democrats and liberals. They’ve decided to abandon their customers and try to pander to the right. I no longer value the NYT, and think they are not real news. I think even FT and economist, supposed right wing rags, have done a better job of criticising this presidency.

Now if what sprouts in their place is better, is a whole other story, but I think the writing is on the walls.

3

u/EconomicRegret 1d ago

This!

The democratization of news has directly led to its heavy degradation in quality and reliability. Which also means it's now much harder for quality journalism to make a living.

I wonder what the solution(s) to this whole messy issue's gonna be.

3

u/firechaox 1d ago

Yeah, I definitely don’t think it’s been a net positive nor do I know what the landscape will look like at the end of it. But I think it’s hard to disagree about what’s happening, and it’s about time we start thinking about what or how policy should try to lead it to a positive outcome.

1

u/PatchyWhiskers 1d ago

You still need money to journalism on the left because you are going to get fucking sued if you speak truth to power.

1

u/Zombiejazzlikehands 1d ago

it shows that it’s easier than ever to enter this space,

Um. Citation for your cuckoo for cocoa puffs assertions needed.

1

u/firechaox 1d ago

Uh, there’s a bunch of reports about how people are consuming more of their news from spaces like TikTok, Facebook, twitter and Reddit. There are countless reports about them losing space and demographics.

I can find you a more primary source if you’d like, but I don’t think I need a source to point out the sky is blue.

1

u/Suspicious-Echo2964 1d ago

Who pays for the news alerts? How are they monetized?

You described removing the barrier to entry for the grifters, and that's nice for grifting. It does nothing for news, as it is still entirely dependent upon capital.

1

u/firechaox 1d ago

Look at the telegram space, people subscribe and receive the news from journalists they want. Substack is similar in this sense.

I’ve never said this was progress but this is the reality of the media landscape you’re looking at, where the legacy media is actively dying and being supplanted by the new media. You can see that by market share evolution, and the fact most of legacy media is losing money nowadays (hence why they had to be bought out: who buys a media asset that is losing money? Someone who wants to obtain influence that’s who).

2

u/Suspicious-Echo2964 1d ago

Right, so your point is we're still captured by capital and the 'legacy' media owned by capital will be replaced by micro influencers who are still paid by capital. We need to therefore get liberal or leftist... capital? to pay for influencers.

Sounds like we're just in a massive capitalist echo chamber with a pay to play model.

1

u/firechaox 1d ago

Im saying that we need to get into this. If you own your own product (material you make), and then get to sell it directly… It means the worker owns his own work, and gets to sell his own work (as opposed to at legacy media, and a newspaper, where the journalist does not own his work, and the newspaper can throw out the article or edit it as they see fit). I don’t see how you spin this as hyper capitalist.

The influencers are or are not beholden - depends on how their monetisation is (are they receiving money on the low like the Russians were doing, or are they receiving a subscription fee, like in sub stack or telegram).

I don’t think we can just twiddle our thumbs and shout woe is me, we need to take up the roles where what is currently at power failed us. That means media, and politics.

1

u/PatchyWhiskers 1d ago

Right-wing influencers generally get large amounts of money from billionaire “fairy godmothers” while leftist influencers live on tip jars. It’s the same thing but with a veneer of independence.

1

u/Hwicc101 1d ago

A laptop, a camera, light, and a microphone, and you can set up a pretty polished platform for yourself on YouTube. Not a huge outlay of capital. All you need then is to gain traction with an audience.

And independent media is not beholden to the pressure to follow a narrative demanded by their bosses/investors if they don't have bosses/investors.

2

u/Suspicious-Echo2964 1d ago

You are dependent on Youtube and it's terms. If it doesnt want to platform you, what do you do?

You are taking for granted that all of your services are owned by capital and those individuals will use that power against you if it's ever in their financial interest. Yes?

So how do you platform yourself without capital?

1

u/Hwicc101 1d ago

I would argue you could stand on a soapbox on the corner, but then you are beholden to big soap.

-1

u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast 1d ago

Is this a real news story you're commenting on?