[CerealFounder]

No its not, the larger media is the original "for pay algorithm" that shows you what ever makes you engage with their platform more (subscription & ad supported). There is no conspiracy or man behind the curtain.

Simply put, complex stories resonate deeply with a small group and not at all with the majority. What you get from that is the current media landscape. Surveillance is a very complicated technical and moral story that only the smallest group cares about.

[akira2501]

> the larger media is the original

Concentration of media ownership has not been a constant factor over the past several decades and several laws have been changed to alter this reality in that time frame. As the purveyors of news get bought up and consolidated, it has almost certainly made this "information control" problem worse.

> Surveillance is a very complicated technical

"The government is spying on you" is not exceptionally complicated or technical. The fourth amendment is widely known and understood.

[calibas]

The media's willful ignorance the Epstein case implies otherwise. This was a vast criminal conspiracy involving sex, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates and Harvard University, the kind of juicy gossip that the average person goes crazy over, and the mainstream media knew about it for years, but chose not to report it.

The media was complicit in the coverup until it could be ignored no longer. They did the opposite of what an honest news media is supposed to do, and helped suppress one of the decades biggest news stories. That certainly implies something, and directly contradicts the "media just gives people what they want" meme/excuse.

[mjreacher]

There's plenty of sex related scandals that go on all the time that are 'open secrets' so to speak, another famous one being Harvey Weinstein. On one hand you can go in the conspiracy direction and say everyone was colluding to keep it secret, but on the other hand you can think about how little strong evidence there was and how these kinds of people would be very eager to sue for defamation if you accused them of anything.

[8bitsrule]

Not to mention disappearances, suicides, heart attacks and plane crashes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro]

[calibas]

Which creates a world where powerful people can get away with crimes and the victims are ignored even after they come forward. That means actual criminal conspiracies with powerful men pulling the strings.

Also, if you think there was "little strong evidence" of what Epstein was up to, I have some good reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Legal_proceedi...

[mjreacher]

Well yes, in capitalist countries generally rich people can get away with a lot of things others can't, in fact you can broaden that to any country or organization really. I'm well aware of what went on with Epstein, and if anything that goes against the idea that he's all powerful and can get away with anything, otherwise why would there have been any case against him in the first place?

[calibas]

It's not Epstein that got away with it, it's all his clients, many of whom were far more wealthy and powerful than he was.