I was wondering how else could you treat a country's state media. The answer is, thankfully, right in the first paragraph (emphasis mine): And after that: I was also wondering about the Russian...
I was wondering how else could you treat a country's state media. The answer is, thankfully, right in the first paragraph (emphasis mine):
The United States will begin treating five major Chinese media companies as extensions of Beijing's government, requiring them to comply with rules governing foreign embassies and consulates.
And after that:
[A senior State Department official] justified the step by saying the outlets are owned and effectively controlled by the government in Beijing and that each meets the definition of a foreign mission.
"They are part and parcel of the People's Republic of China propaganda machine," the official said. "The fact of the matter is each and every single one of these entities does in fact work 100% for the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party," the official added. "These guys are on the organizational chart."
I was also wondering about the Russian media, which are oh so very much propaganda machines:
Neither official could explain why Russian state-owned media outlets operating in the US were not being designated as well.
I mean, isn't this largely true of US media as well? Does it matter if the media is run by a politician or a CEO when the shareholder is lining both of their pockets?
I mean, isn't this largely true of US media as well?
Does it matter if the media is run by a politician or a CEO when the shareholder is lining both of their pockets?
It's very different in my opinion. First of all, we have a range of media stations and channels to choose from, each with their own slant and agenda (some more pronounced than others). But the...
I mean, isn't this largely true of US media as well?
It's very different in my opinion. First of all, we have a range of media stations and channels to choose from, each with their own slant and agenda (some more pronounced than others). But the fact is that in a given administration, you can expect one or two of the five largest to be criticizing said administration on a usual basis. That level of criticism already is something you would not expect with a true state-run system.
Another key difference is that the government cannot unilaterally dictate what stories media can cover. This has surely happened in the past, but we also have plenty of instances of stories being covered that the government obviously would have preferred not to be - the Pentagon Papers, CIA torture, Snowden leaks, etc. These media companies simply do not work "100%" for the US government.
Obviously the owners of these companies have their own agendas, and they often align or veer from the agendas of the government. But I also tend to believe people overestimate the amount of editorial control media moguls exert on their companies. It certainly happens, and at some places more than at others. But we frequently see stories run that are critical of the owner - Washington Post's coverage of Bezos/Amazon comes to mind. Pretending that this is the same as literal state owned media doesn't really do anyone favors in my opinion.
Do we really though? And consolidation isn't getting any better. Rupert Murdoch (the owner of Fox News) is reportedly interested in buying CNN. Much how we have lots of consumer brands in grocery...
we have a range of media stations and channels to choose from
And consolidation isn't getting any better. Rupert Murdoch (the owner of Fox News) is reportedly interested in buying CNN.
Much how we have lots of consumer brands in grocery stores that give the appearance of choice, the reality is that what appears as a choice is mostly an illusion and the money all funnels upwards to a handful of companies.
Sure we do. What you linked to indicates there are ~12 large conglomerates, and numerous child companies in each. Again, I am skeptical of the amount of editorial control each of these umbrella...
Sure we do. What you linked to indicates there are ~12 large conglomerates, and numerous child companies in each. Again, I am skeptical of the amount of editorial control each of these umbrella corps actually exerts in given news coverage. This is not to say it doesn't happen - there was the egregious case a year or two ago of numerous local news stations essentially reading a script given to them by Sinclair, and surely it happens in less obvious and harder to detect ways. But it certainly isn't every story, and it certainly is not every station.
None of this is to mention the numerous sources not listed in that chart: many newspapers (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, USA Today, ...) and their online multimedia content (such as youtube channels), NPR and local affiliates, AP news, Reuters, etc.
I'm not arguing the media situation in the US is perfect, or even that great. But it is a far cry from literal state-controlled media and I think equating the two isn't really useful.
Russia doesn't even cover voter fraud and anti-Putin protests happening every so often. The only channels you can even get those news from are the Internet, which is under government pressure but...
That level of criticism already is something you would not expect with a true state-run system.
Russia doesn't even cover voter fraud and anti-Putin protests happening every so often.
The only channels you can even get those news from are the Internet, which is under government pressure but not state-owned.
I was wondering how else could you treat a country's state media. The answer is, thankfully, right in the first paragraph (emphasis mine):
And after that:
I was also wondering about the Russian media, which are oh so very much propaganda machines:
I can! Pick me, pick me, I can explain it in so much detail!
I mean, isn't this largely true of US media as well?
Does it matter if the media is run by a politician or a CEO when the shareholder is lining both of their pockets?
It's very different in my opinion. First of all, we have a range of media stations and channels to choose from, each with their own slant and agenda (some more pronounced than others). But the fact is that in a given administration, you can expect one or two of the five largest to be criticizing said administration on a usual basis. That level of criticism already is something you would not expect with a true state-run system.
Another key difference is that the government cannot unilaterally dictate what stories media can cover. This has surely happened in the past, but we also have plenty of instances of stories being covered that the government obviously would have preferred not to be - the Pentagon Papers, CIA torture, Snowden leaks, etc. These media companies simply do not work "100%" for the US government.
Obviously the owners of these companies have their own agendas, and they often align or veer from the agendas of the government. But I also tend to believe people overestimate the amount of editorial control media moguls exert on their companies. It certainly happens, and at some places more than at others. But we frequently see stories run that are critical of the owner - Washington Post's coverage of Bezos/Amazon comes to mind. Pretending that this is the same as literal state owned media doesn't really do anyone favors in my opinion.
Do we really though?
And consolidation isn't getting any better. Rupert Murdoch (the owner of Fox News) is reportedly interested in buying CNN.
Much how we have lots of consumer brands in grocery stores that give the appearance of choice, the reality is that what appears as a choice is mostly an illusion and the money all funnels upwards to a handful of companies.
Sure we do. What you linked to indicates there are ~12 large conglomerates, and numerous child companies in each. Again, I am skeptical of the amount of editorial control each of these umbrella corps actually exerts in given news coverage. This is not to say it doesn't happen - there was the egregious case a year or two ago of numerous local news stations essentially reading a script given to them by Sinclair, and surely it happens in less obvious and harder to detect ways. But it certainly isn't every story, and it certainly is not every station.
None of this is to mention the numerous sources not listed in that chart: many newspapers (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, USA Today, ...) and their online multimedia content (such as youtube channels), NPR and local affiliates, AP news, Reuters, etc.
I'm not arguing the media situation in the US is perfect, or even that great. But it is a far cry from literal state-controlled media and I think equating the two isn't really useful.
Russia doesn't even cover voter fraud and anti-Putin protests happening every so often.
The only channels you can even get those news from are the Internet, which is under government pressure but not state-owned.