[the_optimist]

Our press doesn’t even protect the press at this point. We have all seen the tables pairing heads of each major news outlets with their respective political spouses, siblings, or parents. Gellhorn prize winner Julian Assange has been persecuted by the US intel complex for well over a decade.

The choice is in your hands to continue to attribute credibility to institutions that may no longer merit it.

[xadhominemx]

The fact that a raid on a tiny kanas newspaper is a major national story is a sign that the press is pretty interested in protecting the press.

[dotnet00]

I disagree. All it shows is that national media outlets don't see the tiny newspaper as a threat.

They consider independent reporting (eg YouTubers) to be the main threat, thus why we don't really see them making national headlines out of their suppression and why they even go out of their way to exclude them from their definition of press.

[xadhominemx]

Social media algorithmic recommendation engines has also been a major story. Or are you talking about a US law enforcement raid on some YouTuber that was successfully covered up by Google?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> some YouTuber

They're saying that a YouTuber is most often not seen as a valid journalist in the eyes of the government despite Freedom of The Press being a supposed "unalienable right". Once they've been disclaimed as a journalist ("go out of their way to exclude them from their definition of press"), suddenly they're performing espionage if they report information that someone in the government didn't want to be revealed.

[xadhominemx]

Who fits this description?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

The description of people who are excluded “from their definition of press”: Julian Assange.

[gotoeleven]

They are very interested in stories like this because this gives them the chance to work themselves into high dudgeon about a shitty little paper no one cares about. This way they have something to point to when they pull their "50 intelligence officials said this is russian disinfo" bullshit. "We're not unprincipled, self-serving, corrupt morons look how huffy we got about this tiny paper in kansas!"

[BenjiWiebe]

Hey, Marion county resident checking in. I care about that paper. It's interesting.

[xadhominemx]

So it seems you agree with me that the press is in fact inclined to protect the press?

[the_optimist]

This is a motte-and-bailey. The initial response has answered directly already.

[Melting_Harps]

> They are very interested in stories like this because this gives them the chance to work themselves into high dudgeon about a shitty little paper no one cares about. This way they have something to point to when they pull their "50 intelligence officials said this is russian disinfo" bullshit. "We're not unprincipled, self-serving, corrupt morons look how huffy we got about this tiny paper in kansas!"

Furthermore, the stifling of not just Assange or Snowden no withstanding, there has also been direct vilification of people who stand up for the first Amendment; people seem to have glossed over that James Larkin (of Backpage infamy) who commited suicide while under extreme duress for his trail is actually a newpaper owner.

He had been committed to standing up to power in a litany of documented stories, and even got settlements from them to keep operations going, it's sad, but I don't think the US mainstream news is worth anything but a coaxed form of derision, fear and a perverse 'infotainment.'

Being from SoCal in the 90s I saw how the paprazzi made everything about celebrity a cult-like mania, and car chases, I still remember the OJ case being played where cartoons once stood; in the 2000s I saw it go to chasing on reality TV and socialites and just tuned out. It's also why I saw social media for what it was: it was a eye-ball grabbing solution to fill the vacumm in order to cash in on people's need to doomscrool and engage in pointless online fighting--most of us who grew up on the internet at the time had been in enough flamewars to know what this was.

Honestly, I wish I could say I was entirely immune to it by only following a few sources and journalists, but I did follow the riots during COVID and saw the Blueleaks thing unfold and saw this captures people's attention.

Elon destroying what little credibility he has since taking over Twitter/X and desperately holding on to his cult of personality the Market may have bestowed him by taking credit for his worker's efforts with reality TV like antics (celebrity fighting?) has been amusing but his comeupance raises a valid point: there is no trusted news source since its been so monetized.

I feel that because British disinformation and Soviet/Russian propaganda tactics have been so pervasive and effective with these mediums that no one really knows what is going on at all. And that may be intended.

I'm reminded about this clip from Newswipe of Bitter Lake [0] at least every 6 months, and seeing how more relevant it becomes with every passing year.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

These days it is touted as 'public-private partnership' and it extends far beyond press.