[davidw]

I think he's suggesting that terms like the "US propaganda machine" are, to use a technical term, "bullshit", in the sense that there are a great deal of competing interests and players in the news market in the US, as well as various competing interests in politics. Talking about a machine makes it sound like you're talking about one centrally controlled system that in reality does not exist.

That's not to say there aren't problems with the news industry in the US and elsewhere, but it's not some giant conspiracy either.

[fffggg]

There's no need for a conspiracy or for central organization when incentives align. In this case, the incentives to manipulate are often financial or political. You have misunderstood my meaning of "machine" -- not all social systems involve a central authority.

I hope you can agree that American media can be influenced, for profit, by monied interests. If you agree, then you acknowledge the system I have described above.

[davidw]

But there are many different monied interests! Sometimes they conflict with one another. Sometimes they conflict with popular interests. For instance, Fox News certainly isn't on the same page as Obama, or the Clintons, and yet they are pretty powerful in their own ways. It hardly sounds like a machine, but a competitive environment. Certainly not a perfect one, but not nearly so sinister as a label like "the US propaganda machine".

[fffggg]

Nowhere did I suggest the message was cohesive. It is very much an arena of competing propaganda. The mention of a unified conspiratorial message was a strawman introduced by tptacek, not I.

As for your complaint about the sinister tone, I think offering deference to those with money rather than those with truth is quite sinister. I think it's sad you disagree.

[tptacek]

You're implying a false equivalence.