Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
It's an opinion magazine. It's equivalent to The Atlantic or Vox.
the difference is that those 'opinion' magazines aren't closely associated with a nexus of shady shit like so-called 'think-tanks' and 'institutes', set-up to sway public opinion and grease politicians. the right 'new media' on the internet always has a filthy money trail. it's so transparently an organ for certain interests.
it's funny that right-wing people get frightened about chinese 'confucius institutes' but then see absolute sham things like 'The Buckley Legacy Project' or the 'National Review Institute' as somehow being 'prestige' or credible.
isn't vox like a college hipster version of vice?
It goes both ways you know. Do you think "left wing" media is free from influence? Tom Steyer spends millions every year. Soros spends his money. Bezos bought the Washington Post. Bloomberg has spent a good chunk of his personal wealth on funding gun control think tanks and measures. You object to "right wing" media because of what? Koch Industries money? Please. Rather hypocritical isn't it?
jay, i don't know what planet you're on, but the right-wing's influence and control over the media, lobbying, public opinions, etc., is far more effective than the left's. that's one of the reasons why the american 'mainstream' of political thought is so far to the right in comparison to europe's own programmes.
i know it's a pastime of the right-wing to continually talk in conspiratorial and paranoiac terms about 'the left', as if there's a vast insurrectionist fifth column at work in your nation, but, really, what real influence does the left wield in the states? zero to none. even bernie, a dyed-in-the-wool social democrat, centre-left by any normal estimation, has been squashed like a bug twice now by the 'realists' in the democratic party. there is no way that left-wing media are dictating discourse in the states.
the right have all the money and most of the power. jeff bezos is definitely a player on the other side, without question. but he is an exception rather than a rule. the oligarchs and press-men of the states are not socialists. who is more influential? the washpo or murdoch's fox news? who funnels more money into dictating american domestic politics? the koch(s) or soros? i mean, really.
to say nothing of the very explicitly political nexus of power around breitbart/bannon and their followers in the run-up to trump's being elected. they were practically kingmakers, similar to how (again murdoch-owned, or at least press-baron and aristocrat-owned) tabloid media anoint chosen prime ministers in the UK. the right pioneered the entire post-truth, tired-of-experts, alternative media landscape that flourished after the tea party moment.
it's actually a much-discussed subject on the left: how the right have seemingly without any resistance dominated the political terrain since the 1980s at least. they set the realms of the possible; that much-touted 'overton window'. neoliberalism and the triumphalism of its doctrine plainly attest to this fact: the contest is over, folks! even the most ardent left-crusader will admit that the right have been much more successful at harnessing new technologies, new media, and now increasingly big data to wield influence and power.
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-11 07:52:18)