I do not think the US does good things in countries it invades and fucks up. I'm not unaware, seriously. That was not my point and you kind of shifted the conversation away from what I axtually said.
I don't really get how that's off topic when your were claiming that the US doesn't jail journalists or censor media and I presented you with journalists that have been killed or jailed and media that is censored.
There's a difference between concentrated and diffuse spectacle and the US is the poster child of allowing managed dissent. The Financial Times isn't exercising free press because they had one article about the end of capitalism, because the private editorial board still signed off on that. The investors allowed it, and the advertisers probably used it to sell generators or guns.
Mass media is an amazing tool for censorship that appears to be freedom. Other countries have adopted similar strategies too. Though most still have big state media outlets that they directly control like BBC, ABC, RT, SCMP, CGTN, etc. But the state control of those outlets has less bearing on their legitimacy than their dedication to upholding the interests of their respective countries ruling class.
There really just isn't any world in which the US could be considered to have free press in any way and using the US as an example of a place that has "more free press" is total nonsense unless you mean "incredibly expensive press that the ruling cost is allowed to buy and own".
I do not think the US does good things in countries it invades and fucks up. I'm not unaware, seriously. That was not my point and you kind of shifted the conversation away from what I axtually said.
I don't really get how that's off topic when your were claiming that the US doesn't jail journalists or censor media and I presented you with journalists that have been killed or jailed and media that is censored.
There's a difference between concentrated and diffuse spectacle and the US is the poster child of allowing managed dissent. The Financial Times isn't exercising free press because they had one article about the end of capitalism, because the private editorial board still signed off on that. The investors allowed it, and the advertisers probably used it to sell generators or guns.
Mass media is an amazing tool for censorship that appears to be freedom. Other countries have adopted similar strategies too. Though most still have big state media outlets that they directly control like BBC, ABC, RT, SCMP, CGTN, etc. But the state control of those outlets has less bearing on their legitimacy than their dedication to upholding the interests of their respective countries ruling class.
There really just isn't any world in which the US could be considered to have free press in any way and using the US as an example of a place that has "more free press" is total nonsense unless you mean "incredibly expensive press that the ruling cost is allowed to buy and own".