Controled information will never say anything bad about the one controlling it. You don’t see that situation in the west. I could link a hundred articles with differing views on any situation. I agree that corpos are tightening the grip on info, and I oppose that at every turn. However, it makes no sense that you can condem the western world for controlling media while praising the DPRK for doing the exact same thing. “You just won’t convince me that it’s a bad thing to enforce a shared observable reality” and immediately after you flop when talking about the west. Press should be free period, and the audience should hold them to a higher standard than they do.
Press should be free period, and the audience should hold them to a higher standard than they do
These are mutually exclusive demands. You cannot have a “free press” that is also “held to a higher standard”. Either they’re free to report what they want and be influenced by outside interests, or they’re held to a standard of fact-based and unbiased reporting. The two are almost never going to coincide, especially in a system driven by capital. Whether you want to face that reality or not is your prerogative.
This isn’t actually true. The vast majority of the press, something like 90%, is controlled by mainstream, mass media. These corporations are owned by a tiny few, and recieve funding from the state for the purposes of propagandizing. The last 10% doesn’t control the narrative, because what’s true doesn’t necessarily overpower what’s commonly reported.
Prolewiki is a Marxist-Leninist wikipedia, you can check the sources directly if you want. My point is that, again, media isn’t popular by merit but by exposure, as private media cares only about its own profits.
What on the prolewiki link is wrong? It is biased, just like wikipedia is, but that doesn’t mean the information is wrong, either.
You know I read some more articles on there and it really is biased but so are more mainstream sources. I would like to see more sources cited (some srticles are better than others) like here there are a lot of claims with no source to back them up (even if some of the claims are true). The whole website appears more like an opinion piece than a source of reliable information
Some articles are more in-depth and well-sourced, others not so much. It’s a volunteer project. You can also look at, say, the article on The People’s Republic of China, which has 132 sources listed. It’s an attempt at creating a pro-communist, Marxist-Leninist wiki that is well-sourced and fact-based, and thus the more important topics get filled out first.
Controled information will never say anything bad about the one controlling it. You don’t see that situation in the west. I could link a hundred articles with differing views on any situation. I agree that corpos are tightening the grip on info, and I oppose that at every turn. However, it makes no sense that you can condem the western world for controlling media while praising the DPRK for doing the exact same thing. “You just won’t convince me that it’s a bad thing to enforce a shared observable reality” and immediately after you flop when talking about the west. Press should be free period, and the audience should hold them to a higher standard than they do.
Where did that happen??
These are mutually exclusive demands. You cannot have a “free press” that is also “held to a higher standard”. Either they’re free to report what they want and be influenced by outside interests, or they’re held to a standard of fact-based and unbiased reporting. The two are almost never going to coincide, especially in a system driven by capital. Whether you want to face that reality or not is your prerogative.
This isn’t actually true. The vast majority of the press, something like 90%, is controlled by mainstream, mass media. These corporations are owned by a tiny few, and recieve funding from the state for the purposes of propagandizing. The last 10% doesn’t control the narrative, because what’s true doesn’t necessarily overpower what’s commonly reported.
The fact that I can link you the prolewiki article on the DPRK as well as the wikipedia article on North Korea and both will agree in some areas and disagree in others doesn’t mean people compare by merit, but by exposure.
Never heard of prolewiki but this is all I needed to read to know that it’s total bullshit. Also where are you getting that 90% figure from?
Prolewiki is a Marxist-Leninist wikipedia, you can check the sources directly if you want. My point is that, again, media isn’t popular by merit but by exposure, as private media cares only about its own profits.
What on the prolewiki link is wrong? It is biased, just like wikipedia is, but that doesn’t mean the information is wrong, either.
You know I read some more articles on there and it really is biased but so are more mainstream sources. I would like to see more sources cited (some srticles are better than others) like here there are a lot of claims with no source to back them up (even if some of the claims are true). The whole website appears more like an opinion piece than a source of reliable information
Some articles are more in-depth and well-sourced, others not so much. It’s a volunteer project. You can also look at, say, the article on The People’s Republic of China, which has 132 sources listed. It’s an attempt at creating a pro-communist, Marxist-Leninist wiki that is well-sourced and fact-based, and thus the more important topics get filled out first.