There was also just a generalized shift in "investigative media", where nowadays investigative journalism, what shell of it is left, is only valid if it's targeting Bad People or Bad Countries.
If it directly targets the Good Countries, like Seymour Hersh or Julian Assange, it's now propaganda for the Bad Countries.
There was also just a generalized shift in “investigative media”
I don't know if I'd call it a shift. We've always had spooks and propagandists working the "Foreign Man Bad" racket. Periodically, we'll have methods of discourse that aren't heavily policed. Whether we're talking about the pamphleteer era of the 17th-20th centuries, the early regional radio/TV era, or the early-modern internet era, there are channels of communication that have gone largely under-surveilled and controlled for centuries.
Its in these moments when investigative journalism can build up an audience based on reports of scandal. Whether you're Martin Luther issuing scathing critiques of the Catholic Church or Eugene Debbs and Vladimir Lenin stirring up popular opposition to capital or Edward Snowden tipping folks off to the dark underbelly of the US security system, cracks in the wall of entrenched opposition appear and messages slip through them.
But as soon as they appear, the entrenched dominant social forces seek to patch them back up again. Maybe they do that by burning books or maybe they do it by assassinating popular leadership.
If it directly targets the Good Countries, like Seymour Hersh or Julian Assange, it’s now propaganda for the Bad Countries.
Sure. And if you protest WW1, we throw you in prison even if you're running for President, for the same reasons.
Hard to say when the next cracks will emerge in the social ecosystem, but I have no doubt that they'll appear again and we'll have another spat of investigative journalism leak through. But getting news out there and building an audience are two different goals. And then monetizing the audience is another problem further removed. So how do you expand your messaging in a capitalist model, knowing that capitalists do at least have a very effective model for rapid growth and improved distribution models? Idk.
There was also just a generalized shift in "investigative media", where nowadays investigative journalism, what shell of it is left, is only valid if it's targeting Bad People or Bad Countries.
If it directly targets the Good Countries, like Seymour Hersh or Julian Assange, it's now propaganda for the Bad Countries.
I don't know if I'd call it a shift. We've always had spooks and propagandists working the "Foreign Man Bad" racket. Periodically, we'll have methods of discourse that aren't heavily policed. Whether we're talking about the pamphleteer era of the 17th-20th centuries, the early regional radio/TV era, or the early-modern internet era, there are channels of communication that have gone largely under-surveilled and controlled for centuries.
Its in these moments when investigative journalism can build up an audience based on reports of scandal. Whether you're Martin Luther issuing scathing critiques of the Catholic Church or Eugene Debbs and Vladimir Lenin stirring up popular opposition to capital or Edward Snowden tipping folks off to the dark underbelly of the US security system, cracks in the wall of entrenched opposition appear and messages slip through them.
But as soon as they appear, the entrenched dominant social forces seek to patch them back up again. Maybe they do that by burning books or maybe they do it by assassinating popular leadership.
Sure. And if you protest WW1, we throw you in prison even if you're running for President, for the same reasons.
Hard to say when the next cracks will emerge in the social ecosystem, but I have no doubt that they'll appear again and we'll have another spat of investigative journalism leak through. But getting news out there and building an audience are two different goals. And then monetizing the audience is another problem further removed. So how do you expand your messaging in a capitalist model, knowing that capitalists do at least have a very effective model for rapid growth and improved distribution models? Idk.