Especially with Israel’s war against Gazan non-combatants young and old, heavily corporatized Western mainstream news-media have been, to put it mildly, editorially emasculated thus negligent. Though it may be due to orders from ownership headquarters and therefore beyond their control, our (Canada's) news-media are serious offenders.
The most notable example is The National Post. One would really have to read it to believe it, especially since the Oct.7 Hamas attack on Israel. It epitomizes an extreme example of an echo chamber promoting unconditional support for the Israeli state, including its very-long-practiced cruelty towards the Palestinian people.
For example, a single-column story about a five-year-old American-Palestinian boy who was stabbed to death by the landlord of the residence in which he and his mother lived simply for being Palestinian was placed on page 5, while placed up high on the front page was a large photo (which accompanied a much larger story) with three Israeli teenage girls crying after their friends or family were kidnapped by Hamas gunmen.
More progressive outlets like Canada's other national newspaper, The Globe and Mail — progressive in regard to essentially following “woke” ideology — can be more deceptive with its essentially pro-Israel coverage and op/ed writing since 10/7. There seems to have been an attempt at appearing objective on this topic when it actually is not. (Maybe that actually makes the newspaper more insidious and therefore worse than The National Post, which is completely upfront with its intense bias, however disturbingly so.) ...
I believe that it’s the ethical/moral duty of Western journalists and editors to publicly expose the compromised news-media product and therefor its facilitator(s). By doing so, such brave journalists can at least then also proclaim they will no longer participate in its creation and/or dissemination.
Over decades, I’ve heard of too many cases of employees not standing up and doing what is necessary for the public and/or human(e) good, instead excusing themselves with something like: ‘I wanted/needed to keep this job; I have a family to support’. I’m afraid that — unless, of course, they were actually forced into coupling, copulating and procreating however many years before — such familial obligation status does not actually ethically or morally justify their willing involvement.
Quite frankly, journalists/editors with genuine integrity should and would tender their resignations and even publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s media product, whether it involves self-censored/missing coverage of a brutally lopsided foreign war or that of domestic corporate corruption that will harm the populace.
Unsurprisingly, there is nothing in this podcast to argue with. We have long known about America, and our "specially subservient" relationship with it. But although I had little faith in the Labour party's politics, I did hope that having a human rights lawyer notionally in charge might be an improvement. However, it is becoming clearer by the day that the US and Mrs Starmer hold the PM's reins, and that he is much too weak and unimaginative (like most of the front bench) to do his own thinking or to take a strong and well argued view. All our media, pretty much, are also too weak to critique Starmer and Lammy, and of course even the Guardian won't tolerate Cooke or Oborne on their pages any more. I never wanted to be old - but I am glad of it now, as it will be less hypocritical nonsense to live with.
Too much of contemporary ‘journalism’ is motivated more by a paycheck and publication (‘a buck and a byline’) than a genuine strive to expose thus challenge the corrupt powerful who abuse/exploit those with the least in this increasingly unjust global existence.
Also, while journalism’s traditional fundamental function is/was to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” to a noticeable degree there seems to have been a redefining, or even a reversal, as to what/who constitutes an “afflicted” and “the comfortable”.
Journalists with genuine integrity should and would tender their resignations and even publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s corrupted/sleazy media product.
Especially with Israel’s war against Gazan non-combatants young and old, heavily corporatized Western mainstream news-media have been, to put it mildly, editorially emasculated thus negligent. Though it may be due to orders from ownership headquarters and therefore beyond their control, our (Canada's) news-media are serious offenders.
The most notable example is The National Post. One would really have to read it to believe it, especially since the Oct.7 Hamas attack on Israel. It epitomizes an extreme example of an echo chamber promoting unconditional support for the Israeli state, including its very-long-practiced cruelty towards the Palestinian people.
For example, a single-column story about a five-year-old American-Palestinian boy who was stabbed to death by the landlord of the residence in which he and his mother lived simply for being Palestinian was placed on page 5, while placed up high on the front page was a large photo (which accompanied a much larger story) with three Israeli teenage girls crying after their friends or family were kidnapped by Hamas gunmen.
More progressive outlets like Canada's other national newspaper, The Globe and Mail — progressive in regard to essentially following “woke” ideology — can be more deceptive with its essentially pro-Israel coverage and op/ed writing since 10/7. There seems to have been an attempt at appearing objective on this topic when it actually is not. (Maybe that actually makes the newspaper more insidious and therefore worse than The National Post, which is completely upfront with its intense bias, however disturbingly so.) ...
I believe that it’s the ethical/moral duty of Western journalists and editors to publicly expose the compromised news-media product and therefor its facilitator(s). By doing so, such brave journalists can at least then also proclaim they will no longer participate in its creation and/or dissemination.
Over decades, I’ve heard of too many cases of employees not standing up and doing what is necessary for the public and/or human(e) good, instead excusing themselves with something like: ‘I wanted/needed to keep this job; I have a family to support’. I’m afraid that — unless, of course, they were actually forced into coupling, copulating and procreating however many years before — such familial obligation status does not actually ethically or morally justify their willing involvement.
Quite frankly, journalists/editors with genuine integrity should and would tender their resignations and even publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s media product, whether it involves self-censored/missing coverage of a brutally lopsided foreign war or that of domestic corporate corruption that will harm the populace.
Unsurprisingly, there is nothing in this podcast to argue with. We have long known about America, and our "specially subservient" relationship with it. But although I had little faith in the Labour party's politics, I did hope that having a human rights lawyer notionally in charge might be an improvement. However, it is becoming clearer by the day that the US and Mrs Starmer hold the PM's reins, and that he is much too weak and unimaginative (like most of the front bench) to do his own thinking or to take a strong and well argued view. All our media, pretty much, are also too weak to critique Starmer and Lammy, and of course even the Guardian won't tolerate Cooke or Oborne on their pages any more. I never wanted to be old - but I am glad of it now, as it will be less hypocritical nonsense to live with.
Too much of contemporary ‘journalism’ is motivated more by a paycheck and publication (‘a buck and a byline’) than a genuine strive to expose thus challenge the corrupt powerful who abuse/exploit those with the least in this increasingly unjust global existence.
Also, while journalism’s traditional fundamental function is/was to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” to a noticeable degree there seems to have been a redefining, or even a reversal, as to what/who constitutes an “afflicted” and “the comfortable”.
Journalists with genuine integrity should and would tender their resignations and even publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s corrupted/sleazy media product.