• zephyreks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Doesn’t the US have a track record of literally assassinating journalists who dig into things they aren’t supposed to?

    Doesn’t the US also have a track record of hunting down whistleblowers around the world? Of extrajudicial surveillance and illegal international surveillance and mass surveillance?

    Not sure the Western world has a great role model there.

    • sugar_in_your_tea
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, the US is far from perfect, which it why is a good idea to get news from a variety of sources. I try to read about the Ukraine war from other perspectives, for example.

      But those instances are:

      • illegal and therefore quite rare
      • generally limited to instances of revealing state secrets (as in the case of Assange, Snowdon, etc)
      • very unpopular

      So in general, journalists have much more freedom to criticize their government here in the US vs Russia or China, and to me that has value. It’s not perfect and you can certainly get a lot of misinformation through strong biases here (i.e. many people assume their country is in the right), but it’s way better in pretty much any western country than a country with a much more authoritarian government.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can argue pretty much the exact same three points about government intervention in journalism everywhere.

        Not really selling your point.

        • sugar_in_your_tea
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your argument just seems like classic bothsidesism. Yes, western media isn’t perfect, but western news media is far more free than Russian or Chinese media. So I’m gonna have a lot more skepticism about Russian and Chinese media than I do with US or European media.

          In this case, I’d prefer something outside both regions. So maybe Indian news? Or my go-to, Al Jazeera.

          • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So our standard is… “we’re killing journalists and stifling perspectives, but not as much as the other guys?”

            Great. I guess Western news media is driven by profits instead of government objectives, which makes things so much better.

            • sugar_in_your_tea
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, our standard is, “we’re killing journalists (very rarely) and stifling perspectives (rarely), and that’s not okay, but at least that’s just not expected like it is with the other guys.”

              • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s under the assumption that perspectives are only rarely stifled…

                Which I’d love to think is true, but really is a question of whether you consider “publishable but no one will read it” to be a stifled perspective or not.

                • sugar_in_your_tea
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What it really comes down to is how often journalistic suppression actually happens. I like to look at the extreme examples, such as the Edward Snowdon case. There was certainly some interference there, but that’s surely nothing compared to what would happen if something similar happened in China or Russia.

                  The bigger issue that we have, imo, is that major media companies self-censor because they want to drive a narrative. But there’s still high quantity journalism going on, you just need to look outside of the major news networks.

                  • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But if your high quality journalism only reaches 1% of the population while the other 99% of the population considers it fake news, what’s the point? It’ll have no political impact anyway, which defeats the purpose of journalistic integrity because good journalism isn’t getting attention or shifting public perception.