I'm not sure I understand what he's complaining about, don't we constantly talk about how these people are fascists? Like isn't that the lens through which we view this?
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
277 points (96.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
11134 readers
1195 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That is downstream of corporate takeover of media, is what he's trying to say. Something that is indeed rarely discussed, but I wouldn't say never
I don't think everyone connects the dots
They don't want to talk about how it's capitalism that's the problem, about how capitalist control of media will inevitably subvert democracy, making capitalism and democracy incompatible.
Ding, ding!
but it's literally fascism. like the inability to refer to the fascism as fascism is what Rowling the transphobe was writing about?
If only we had some kind of Doctrine which mandated that broadcast media must give equal time to opposite sides of an issue for the sake of Fairness. We could call it "The Equality Mandate", or something like that.
Srew equality doctrine. It never really had much effect anyway and can be abused to force even more right-wing content.
No, what we need is actual media consolidation and antitrust rules.
Maybe some journalism grants to keep smaller news organizations afloat.
government can control broadcasts because airwaves are public property, youtube is private, cable is private, facebook is private, etc, fairness doctrine was destined to become irrelevant (short of nationalizing facebook or big investment into public internet access, which, you know, good, but require at least mild progressives to win elections)
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but Fox is still the primary news source for a huge chunk of the population.
What media is going to report on a media takeover?
He's put the cart before the horse.
It's not "the right", it's the super wealthy billionaires who have taken over the political media & infosphere. Earnest liberals and conservatives should open their eyes and see, they are both being used against the other right out in the open.
The political media and infosphere is FOR SALE, why does he ignore that? Anybody can buy them and control the narrative. Oh, correction, anybody who's filthy rich can buy them. Not you.
Earnest liberals and conservatives
Both those groups support the existence of capitalism. Wealth inequality and capitalists owning media are natural results of this.
If they stopped supporting the system that caused this, they wouldn't be liberals/conservatives, they'd be leftists.
So, that's every country since the reformation? Uh-oh we're in big trouble
I think part of the issue is that a lot of people who are aware of this know that it's been happening for a lot longer than since Trump's first election, and it's not specifically a right wing takeover. It's an overall consolidation of power into the hands of an ultra-wealthy few, and right wing is currently the most advantageous position for them to take.
This particular video is from 2018, a year into Trump's first term, and it shows a large amount of local news stations that were believed to be spread across the political spectrum (at least for US run stations) all reciting the same exact script.
But the movements of Rupert Murdoch, or the Sinclair Media group, or iHeartRadio, or any of the many number of conglomerates didn't just crop up overnight purely under right wing situations to support right wing movement.
Unless you really think Trump's first election was some 5D chess thing, he was catching flak from all sides. Before that, the news media gave incredibly kind coverage to Obama's involvement in the Middle East, his use of drones, his moves to further the rights granted to the US government and intelligence agencies through the Patriot act (started under Dubya, but expanded under Obama), the construction of illegal immigration centers during his tenure... the list goes on for him like it does for most Presidents.
The screws have been tighening for decades, this isn't something shockingly new to present day, we're just approaching critical mass.
There was an episode of West Wing where CJ was really worried about (it was obviously Sinclair media) the consolidation of news media especially. I think that episode was in 2003 or 2004. It's not a huge problem until it is. But, I contend it has been a right wing plan. Yes, the oligarchs have been the ones doing the buying but the plan to consolidate all media has been a major plan by the Christian right since at least the 80's. They've been the ones pushing hard for it. And while it can benefit the oligarchs it primarily benefits fascism and the right.
Consolidation from what? A time when television news studios were owned by your average mom and pop who mortgaged their house for a chance at their dream lifestyle?
Media has always been owned by the oligarchs. For literally centuries it's been owned by the oligarchs. The Opium Wars, the Indian Wars, every war ever has been supported by the news outlets owned by the war-profiting oligarchs.
The consolidation was just an optimization, both of operationalizing ideology and of extracting profit.
But there was never a time before which media was actually competitive and balanced and could guide someone towards an accurate understanding of the world. The white supremacist oligarchs have literally always controlled the media, the narrative, and the propaganda.
Unless you really think Trump’s first election was some 5D chess thing, he was catching flak from all sides.
That's at least 3D chess. Bad news are good news. The media made him popular.
Yep, there are some interesting connections to how advertising got started and got perfected into that repetition based system that reinforces beliefs by familiarization. The consolidation is just centralization of that process.
I also don't think the consolidation is the root cause, it's a tool.
Problem is, people ARE talking about it...
...but where exactly would you expect to HEAR about people talking about it?
Actions speak louder than words.
I think the American ruling class has always controlled the media.
What changed is the American ruling class is now dominated by nationalist fascists rather than internationalist neo liberals.
I'd agree more if his second example wasn't something that was blatantly true, regardless of whether the right-wing infosphere happens to push it.
Everyone involved is corrupt. The leadership of both parties forsook red and blue years ago, the only color they recognize is green.
The problem is, what are you supposed to do about it without violating the First Amendment?
One thing that would at least help is applying antitrust laws and breaking up said companies. Their size and consolidation alone is a decent chunk of the issue, though that still leaves more to be desired
Stop using sources that push propaganda? Support independent journalists like 404 media & use fediverse social media?
no I think I'll just stay on tiktok and twitter. thats where my friends are after all. (this is not an attack on you specifically but your argument is used like this all the time, there are reputable alternatives to mainstream media.)
Also the fediverse is in no way immune. Most of the instances seem to be administered by honest people without a fascist political agenda, but Lemmy and Piefed in particular are incredibly easy to manipulate with user accounts.
At least the admin team isn't on the side of the fascists, unlike other platforms. Probably wouldn't take much money to fix that though.
I could get more specific, but let's just start with that.
Actually, I don't think you understood my argument.
I'm not asking about what individual members of the public are supposed to do, I'm asking what lawmakers are supposed to do. I'm talking about beyond a mere boycott, which (as you yourself just pointed out) is a losing strategy.
If i ran the administration with a majority, the first stop would be the FCC to create legislation towards free and fair reporting that actually gets enforced, with punishment based on percentage of profit instead of flat rate fines. Monopoly of information laws should also be created via the FCC.
I do not though so. here we are :P
free and fair reporting
Thats not possible as long as the media is owned by oligarchs. Everything is propaganda; the effect of choosing which aspects if a story to emphasize and what context to include is a zero-sum game as far as shaping public perception.
percentage of profit
Most media are loss makers. By funding it, oligarchs are able reinforce a system that keeps the money flowing into their bank accounts.
"A perfect world is not possible so we should do nothing"
Your comment is propaganda thats trying to show the negative aspect of regulating a medium when the only thing to be gained from giving this viewpoint without a solution is defeatism.
and if you think Fox News is losing money I have a bridge to sell you.
Who said we should do nothing? We should recognize all reporting is biased, and democratize media so its biased towards us, the working class.
Bringing back the fairness doctrine just means for every hour of "we need to invade Iraq/n because they're evil brown muslims" we get an hour of "We need to invade Iraq/n because the people yearn for freedom"
So youre saying the same thing I said, except you think its different because instead of saying the FCC you said the working class.
Do you have an actual working implementation of how media can be democratized by the working class? Are we voting on if news is true? How would this work in practice? I am not going to completely dismiss your argument but I am failing to see the vision.
democratized by the working class
Yes, nationalize billionaire-owned media, set up oversight boards appointed by the media workers and state. Restrict salaries of pundits, writers, editors etc such that they can't exceed the median income.
We've seen what the FCC trying to implement fairness looks like. Requiring two perspectives, both aligned against the interests of the workers, wasn't productive.
But what I said is practically the same thing. The difference is I chose to say we should re-utilize the FCC (which is what theyre there for) instead of creating a whole new thing for this. I did not say to bring back the bullshit that was fairness doctrine. I did not mention nationalizing media, because while I think there should be a nationalized news source, you can't trust a Trump-like figure not to go in and take complete control of a single nationalized news source. In a perfect world I would agree with you entirely. We do not live in one.
you can’t trust a Trump-like figure not to go in and take complete control of a single nationalized news source
The status quo, where "trump-like figures" own any media of consequence, is not meaningfully different from your worst-case scenerio of a "trump-like figure" taking over the media.
The bourgeois fund the media and make sure people who are ideologically aligned with them are promoted because it promotes their interests, we would see the same backlash whether they are stripped of control by the FCC or nationalization. I figure cutting them out entirely leaves fewer avenues for them to influence their media.
who do you expect is the person deciding what reporting is free and fair? is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual? shouldn't the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual?
yes
shouldn't the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
You're looking to slippery slope this into saying this would lead to a system in which only state approved viewpoints should be shown. which is what we currently have. so, what is your idea?
you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state's viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.
this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.
my point is regulation is not a solution and I don't see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.
So what is the solution short of a complete US revolution which will have hundreds of thousands if not millions killed and hoping that everyone will come out socialists, anarchists and communists on the other side?
I do not disagree that the country SHOULD be socialist, anarchist and/or communist. I do not see that happening anytime soon unless an actual civil war breaks out.
implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:
- Designate any newspaper, TV/YouTube/telegram channel, blog, Instagram account, etc with more than a 100k monthly views/impressions/followers/whatever as a public faced media.
- Make the only allowed ownership form of these media outlets something like worker cooperatives.
- Somewhat limit the ownership stakes so that no single member of this cooperative can make all the decisions.
- The cooperative should have public financial records so the anyone can see where the revenue comes from.
This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement. What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.
also there is still a problem with foreign based media outlets, I don't have a way to deal with them at this point
governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual
Yes, thats the FCC, they did that historically, and required equal time/space for both democratic candidates and republican candidates. Naturally that meant channels would count up every 3 second clip and replay, and surrogates/pundits didn't count at all.
what you are proposing is basically censorship, and state censorship is much easier to consolidate than the current billionaire-based one
Any arrangement is state-controlled by virtue of the state being the only entity capable of enforcing any arrangement, the only difference is if the state delegates control to the bourgeois or another entity. The latter at least has the potential to be beholden to the workers.
I am not proposing we waste any energy bringing back the fairness doctrine, its purpose was easily circumvented while it existed.
No need to make the trials about the speech when you have plenty of financial crime to go after
Or prosecute for treason, material support to traitors, etc
Isn't there a 2nd one about dealing with issues like this
Thats funny, because every one I talk to or have seen talking about the subject has no problem pointing out the right wings obsessions, and their use of media, both social and televised, both owned and subjugated, in furthering these propagandist, hysteria fueling claims.
view more: next ›