there is no difference.
uziq wrote:can you really not see the difference between a political elite controlling the media towards their own political ends, and capitalists who want to enrich themselves?
putin is a talking head. he's nothing without capitalist elite he is a part of. just like donald trump. or boris johnson. or any other tool that gets "democratically elected" with the help of your so called "free press".do you think putin only seeks permanent power for himself because he wants to enrich his bank account? do you think that's the only danger that poses to national and international order?
in a capitalist world power and capital - capital, not wealth - are the same thing.power and wealth might be related but they are NOT the same thing.
believe whatever allows you to sleep at night - freedom of the press under capitalism, rupert murdoch who only uses his information manipulation tools for fair commercialism or santa bringing you presents. good evening.sorry but this 'no truth so long as capitalism exists' shit is teenaged bullshit.
how do you know that? because they told you?
uziq wrote:except most of the journalists and investigative reporting behind, say, russia's influence on western elections, have been working for volunteer or not-for-profit organisations, not giant corporate conglomerates.
why does trumt impose tariffs on china? it's definitely bad for business.by the way, why does putin want to destabilise the west if he's just a talking head for capitalism? isn't becoming a pariah state, uh, bad for business?
Makes life simple I guess.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-30 12:18:31)
Lmao no. Leaders of countries are 1000x more influential and powerful than CEO's of xx billion dollar companies. Only exceptions being dirt poor states like Liberia. Putin doesn't bow to gazprom, gazprom bows to putin, and ideally interests align.
Shahter wrote:putin is a talking head..
notice the word "elite" there, and not "ceo".
Shahter wrote:putin is a talking head. he's nothing without capitalist elite he is a part of.
You think it's the banks? From personal experience when goldman sachs came to my country's permanent representative to the EU during the start of Brexit negotiations that was only a blip on the radar in policy development. It still is, and always was, sovereign states making things happen. Why do you think narcissistic billionnaire blowhards like bloomberg and trump aspire to the presidency? Because it holds power these guys didn't have.
nobody has ever, ever said this?
Shahter wrote:but please don't tell me there's a rupert murdoch out there who actually respects freedom of the press principals, okay?
you reason like a teenager. 'capitalism is an ideology of greed! everything is bad!'
i suppose the soviet union was better, where writers wrote socialist realist literature and the truth itself was samizdat.
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-30 13:10:29)
there’s a book about the life of limonov which gives a very amusing picture of the arts and avant-garde under the USSR.
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-30 13:36:38)
soviet union had very good writes. mikhail sholokhov - a socialist realist - even got a nobel prize for literature.
as for samizdat, i'm pretty sure you've never seen a piece, let alone read it - you don't speak russian, do you? - so you must be pulling shit out of your "free press" again. which, as you might have guessed, i don't really care for, so whatever.
why would you name sholokhov as the notable nobel prize winner and not, erm, gorky? by the way?
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-30 13:45:39)
Proper, respected news sources put some effort in corroborating their sources. Investigative journalism has an established reputation for a reason. When the guardian, economist, WaPo, der spiegel, le monde come out with large front page articles on a subject they usually have done their due diligence. The panama papers, the snowden leaks, the MH17 trail, only being some examples, were meticulously pieced together by these news organisations.
The above doesn't mean they're perfect - they too make mistakes, have obvious political leanings - but at the very least there's a track record of trustworthy reporting, for some going back over a century.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-30 13:46:13)
Last edited by Shahter (2020-07-30 13:46:39)
i’m not giving you a lecture. i don’t care much for russian literature at all. as i said, it seems to me that all the interesting writers left as emigres, having the good sense to go to paris, berlin, new york, london, etc. but i do know about russian literary history and the artistic culture there. so do shut up about how capitalism befouls all art. the soviet union literally destroyed half of its artists.
Shahter wrote:more than an actual russian who have been immersed in that literary culture for all his life? so much more that you are giving one a lecture here?
Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-30 13:52:29)
er yes, but papers do have editorial processes. they publish things in line with their institutional outlook and values. they have commissioning editors and sub-editors who only commission work from freelancers that accords with their own standards. it’s subtle but it works as a form of self-censorship. so there is a distinction to be made between papers that are editorially ‘curated’ (yes, to please their owners and their advertisers/readership), and purely not-for-profit orgs who don’t have to worry about, say, a deep exposé upsetting one of their main advertisers or clients.
Larssen wrote:I believe most of these publications often publish stuff from freelance journalists and others, of course after lots of fact checking.
I digress though because personally I don't care as long as these groups have a modicum of respect for basic facts and can construct actual reasoned arguments.
Wikileaks might be the worst example as especially with assange's involvement they seriously manipulated the topics they tackled.
fixed it for you.
uziq wrote:i don’t care know much for about russian literature at all.
there we go - an opinion. about those, who left and did their "russian literary history and the artistic culture" in paris, berlin, new york, london, etc. a can respect that. just don't talk to me about those, who stayed and worked in their homeland with and for the people, were hugely popular around the world, and of whom you clearly don't know much.as i said, it seems to me that all the interesting writers left as emigres, having the good sense to go to paris, berlin, new york, london, etc. but i do know about russian literary history and the artistic culture there.
why do you keep putting words in my mouth? you are clearly an intelligent person - why so petty and dishonest? when have i ever said capitalism befouls all art? or has journalism become art all of a sudden?so do shut up about how capitalism befouls all art.