Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wavesplash 2235 days ago
WSJ leans whatever way News Corp wants post 2007 acquisition.
2 comments

Also of note, NewsCorp sends lawyers and strategists to every ICANN meeting, and has since at least 2010, if not before.
Possibly because they used to own MySpace and got in the habit?
Really? that’s shocking. Do you have any sources you can share that confirm this?
I think there are maybe attendance lists for some of the sub meetings?

As to myself, I have first hand knowledge they were there; I talked to some of them face to face at some of the ICANN meetings. Anyone can attend most ICANN meetings, they are open and public.

WSJ editorial board carried water for the ridiculous Bush government before that. It's been the print equivalent to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity for quite some time.
It was easily always the worst part about the WSJ.
All sides of mainstream media are worthless in my book. Mainstream media is a net negative on society, and it's especially shown now with media trust at record lows.

This isn't just one company or one side of partisan MSM. NYT lied about WMDs in Iraq repeatedly, WaPo lied about a Russian hack of critical US power infrastructure and CNN struggles to tell the truth when telling you the time of day.

What is “mainstream media”? Media that doesn’t fit your biases? Because I constantly hear this “mainstream media” trope from conservatives, but it is only applied to liberal news sources, never RT, Fox, Breitbart, etc.
I’d assume newspapers, radio, and cable—the media with social currency in american society. There is certainly no shortage of criticism to be had from the left, either, so this attitude that “there is only conservative bias in mainstream media” is a little head scratching to me when ever I hear it.
Fox, Breitbart, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post. All of them.

Which of the names that I've just mentioned hasn't made huge, glaring journalistic errors repeatedly?

Even throw in the self-described 'neutral' outlets like NPR, Associated Press and others and you see the same thing. Repeated lies, walkbacks and egregious errors.

I don't know why any person would apologize for corporate media.

You make it sound like you expect people to be infallible.
Not at all, but the nature of mistakes is revealing of the journalistic bias of those working for those organizations.

When Washington Post falsely claims the Russians hacked into critical US energy infrastructure, this isn't a harmless typo or a flubbed detail.

When the New York Times repeatedly lies about WMDs in Iraq and tens of thousands of people die, this isn't a harmless typo or a flubbed detail.

Those are the obvious ones, the most egregious behavior is what they don't report on or cover up.

If the internet wasn't around to fact check the lies of mainstream media in real-time, imagine what they'd be getting away with.

Why do you think they're deserving of your defense? Their actions are neither harmless nor accidental. These aren't innocent mistakes.

These are recent examples. If you go back further, the same news outlets were repeating CIA propaganda via Operation Mockingbird and other efforts.

We are not talking about fallible human beings when news coverage follows the same patter of the companies massive political campaign contributions. When media companies give away millions in order to influence the political environment, they loose the plausible deniability of being a political neutral entity which just happened to create news that follows a specific political direction.

There exist study (I would guess multiple) on the media landscape and which news company leans where and how. Some media companies are explicitly leaning in one direction, others less so. Some claim neutrality, and the study do support the existence of a very small minority that seems to achieve it. It is a subject I would like to see a meta study on in order to get a good estimate on how small the narrow band are of news sources that supply political neutral news.