I'm not sure that journalists are to blame for things like the TSA becoming facts of life when they really don't have to be. They almost feel like scapegoats here when, if you try to call for change in the security/police state, the sources of opposition come from elsewhere.

For example, if someone were to say we should demilitarize police, or shut down ICE, or get rid of the TSA, or roll back gun laws- odds are you're a bit uncomfortable yourself by at least one of those suggestions. What about the pedophiles and [Muslim/right-wing] terrorists? What about the people out to get us? Isn't our country under attack? Certainly you can see where the political opposition would arise; it'd be really easy for proponents of the security state to keep selling it to a society that believes it's fighting some doomsday battle against some great evil Other (Soros, Murdoch, Mexicans, the Chinese, a global fascist resurgence, etc.).

Maybe this is an opportunity for us to breathe a long sigh of relief and realize that we're really not under fire. We do a hell of a lot better when we focus on our values instead of lashing out in fear.

lol there are no values

Most journalists and media organizations have contributed to the government's justification for the militarization of the police and incredibly bloated military budget, as well as providing justifications for the US's many Imperialist ventures abroad, like in Iraq and Grenada. The long-time justification was some evil Communist menace, taking over the world and hiding under your bed. Once the USSR fell it became some vague "threat" of terrorism, which is kinda ironic considering the US is the greatest terrorist organization in the world, funding genocides for centuries, enacting it's own, and murdering millions of innocent civilians, either in the crusade against Communism or the crusade against terrorism. The point is the US government and corporate media have worked hand-in-hand in justifying Imperialism and atrocities across the globe, glorifying the oppressors and demonizing the oppressed.

Everyone accuses journalists of systematically contributing to whatever it is that their own political views oppose.

Conservatives say journalists promote ivory tower big-city values and smear the right, liberals say journalists empower extremists and fascists and populists, leftists complain about the media promoting war, etc. etc. And we all peddle our grand narratives that stretch back generations, even though our own lives have experienced so little of the history we claim to know so well. It's even funnier if you look at historical events with our modern hindsight- and then the coverage of those events by everyday people, and what they thought was going on in terms of historical processes (e.g., the 1920s USSR or 1930s Germany or 1960s Libya). They thought they were so right, they got it so wrong, and today we're kind of hitting the exact same beats. Maybe we're just ignorant and there really isn't that much of a grand story, just flawed people and processes.

I'm not saying we're being stupid here, but human minds are prone to getting carried away with storytelling at the expense of staying focused on reality. I'm just saying, how about we chill instead?

No one's out to get us. Some stuff is seriously wrong, sure, but it becomes a lot easier to fix when we get rid of the bogeymen and focus on just the problem.

Edited 6/7/2019 03:00:25

We need to understand what caused the problem if we're to solve it. If the problem is Imperialism, journalists have absolutely collaborated with the government. There are independent journalists, like I.F. Stone, who were/are vocally anti-war. But the large majority of journalism consumed in America is corporate journalism. It isn't "storytelling" to recognize the part corporate journalism has played in getting the American public to support, justify, and fight for US Imperialism.

What I am certain of is it's the faults of the common man/woman that make this world such a bad place to live. The reason a perfect world (besides nature) is so impossible is because in a perfect world people work to satisfy eachother's wants and needs, and yet in this world most often people work for themselves. Think about it. Think about what this world would be like if we all worked for eachother.

Such a world is possible, but because of Capitalism and it's highest stage, Imperialism, it is becoming increasingly more likely the world will end before Capitalism is no longer the hegemonic force driving the world. Over history, the various leaders and revolutionaries in the world that actually seek a world where, rather than serving multi-billion dollar firms, people serve themselves and their community, have been hunted down and slaughtered. And those who actually do succeed in establishing such a society are demonized and the societies become victims of economic terrorism. Embargoes, sanctions, even outright military invasion is resorted to in order to keep the world subservient to global Capitalism.

It's not because of capitalism, it's because of the choices of the common man that the world is so bad. That, and people in the same community helping eachother isn't enough, the separate communities and "outsiders" should still work for eachother all the same.

Do you think journalists are acting in bad faith, then?

And Capitalism motivates a lot of these choices, considering it's, ya know, the global economic system we've had for centuries.

Mainstream media journalists love doxxing children and bullying independent competitors off the internet.

I did it! I created successful bait!

Citrollino

Some people deserve to be doxxed lol. I know what you're referring to, and honestly, I couldn't care less if some 16 y/o Fascist loser is doxxed.

^ lol ok and humans should all die, btw the so called liberal government of obama has also destroyed russia, also capitalism and imperialism is just one of the many sides of human desire, even with a so called different political system (but are all just jargons tbh) the outcome would be the same, so USSR and china did nothing that could be called a capitalist or imperialist? hardly. The problem is that building a system that is against human desires are impossible, and that is what you seem to be strive for.

Edited 6/8/2019 23:49:38

That's the problem, human desires. This world would be a million times better if it weren't for these desires.

What does Obama have to do with anything? And Imperialism often works directly against human desire, unless you believe humans don't desire shelter, food, or any sort of economic security. The USSR definitely couldn't be called Imperialist or Capitalist lmao, same for China under Mao. A better world *is* possible, and there are states that have/do exist that serve the common people rather than the insanely wealthy.

This has nothing to do with any system. A world with crappy economics and good people is better then a world with perfect economic equality but bad people, because with good people economy would balance out with rich giving to poor, and good economics would disappear with people going for the biggest piece of pie. It's all about what most people choose to do.

And I know human nature makes perfection impossible.

Edited 6/9/2019 04:16:29

So economics doesn't matter at all???? What kind of thinking is this lmao

ye, but they desire their own shelter, food and economic security before thinking it about others, and I do believe a lot of states do concern the common people, especially if votes from common people are required to rose into power, but certainly not before the expense of the insanely powerful (and wealthy is very often a criteria I'll admit but without capitalism then other measures of power would took place), and usually you become power and wealthy once you rule a state right ?