Will watch today with interest. A bit of a counterpoint - James Corbett posted today about how journalism was never that objective https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/no-the-dinosaur-journos-have-not - but it I think it has become much more obvious in its agenda/bias for sure.
He is correct. However, there is a difference between having a bias and weaponizing journalism for political purposes. This is the line that Anna is addressing.
When relevancy becomes an issue for a business, it also becomes a poor place to create a career. As a result, they are in transition. And regaining relevancy is not a likely prospect in the near future.
It certainly seems like MSM are on a downward path these days. This, now almost ubiquitous, approach of trying weaponise Western minds, by removing journalist balance, does feel kinda like a desperate last-ditch attempt to maintain unipolarity.
It is a display of incredible weakness and vulnerability. I attribute it to the perception that the future will consolidate into one large global mechanism. Therefore, it is better to be in that circle than out. However, I see what I call the Two Global Forces. There is the global force of centralized institutions of governance and finance and the global force of decentralized networks of relationships. It can also be described as hierarchies vs. networks. The fact that many of us have been able to fashion a network of Substack readers and writers is an indication that networks are in the ascendency.
I think there is still an ultra-hawkish aspect to the West that regards dominating all other cultures as the necessary way forwards. Thus the recent and systematic removal of balance in journalism has given our media this weaponised quality that serves to forward such an agenda.
Will watch today with interest. A bit of a counterpoint - James Corbett posted today about how journalism was never that objective https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/no-the-dinosaur-journos-have-not - but it I think it has become much more obvious in its agenda/bias for sure.
He is correct. However, there is a difference between having a bias and weaponizing journalism for political purposes. This is the line that Anna is addressing.
Yeah, I've kinda given up on media being likely to relate anything approximating to truth these days!
When relevancy becomes an issue for a business, it also becomes a poor place to create a career. As a result, they are in transition. And regaining relevancy is not a likely prospect in the near future.
It certainly seems like MSM are on a downward path these days. This, now almost ubiquitous, approach of trying weaponise Western minds, by removing journalist balance, does feel kinda like a desperate last-ditch attempt to maintain unipolarity.
It is a display of incredible weakness and vulnerability. I attribute it to the perception that the future will consolidate into one large global mechanism. Therefore, it is better to be in that circle than out. However, I see what I call the Two Global Forces. There is the global force of centralized institutions of governance and finance and the global force of decentralized networks of relationships. It can also be described as hierarchies vs. networks. The fact that many of us have been able to fashion a network of Substack readers and writers is an indication that networks are in the ascendency.
Yes.
I think there is still an ultra-hawkish aspect to the West that regards dominating all other cultures as the necessary way forwards. Thus the recent and systematic removal of balance in journalism has given our media this weaponised quality that serves to forward such an agenda.