- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I just finished reading a book called Takeover, about the last six months before Hitler became chancellor. I wonder if someone will write a similar book about now someday.
Only if we win…
Who’s we? The fascists?
Lol, no. If the fash win, you only get Riefenstahlic circlejerk histories.
Why would current fascists write a book paralleling Hitler’s rise to power about their own successful rise to power?
I am legit confused. In order to have a book written about a rise to power, one has to have risen to power. So to suggest that the only way to have a book written about a rise to power of american fascists is if “we win”, is to suggest “we” are the fascists. Like, it seemed like a wild comment, but maybe they meant only if non-fascists win because otherwise they would not allow the book to be written
I’m not speaking for them, but I’m thinking they meant that Hitler won the battle for power, but the Allies won the war. The book would look a lot different if Hitler won the war. In this context, “we” are the allies.
When asked why the Times doesn’t see its job as trying to “stop Trump,” Kahn completely missed the point and said journalism’s role is to provide “impartial information” rather than becoming a “propaganda arm.”
That’s pretty rich when you read any of the New York Times’ coverage of countries that are America’s geopolitical enemies. Their articles practically read like State Department press releases.
because the ny times makes a lot of money under trump
and lets be honest the only reason anyone cares about the nyt these days is to play wordle once a day
https://github.com/smdgames/reactle
Easy enough to change that
well goodbye to my freetime
Connections nowadays…
Shareholders and journalism do not mix. All this prevarication on the part of the Times stems directly from wanting to goose numbers sted committing journalism. And goosing is a time-honoured first step.
And the hilarious thing is that if Trump does win, I can pretty much guarantee that the New York Times and its editors will be one of the first ones to suffer. I cannot possibly imagine a universe where once project 2025 knocks out all the guardrails that would prevent him from committing all-out assault legal and otherwise on anyone who’s ever displeased him over the years, he’ll arrive at the NYT and pause. “You know what? They actually had some pretty positive coverage during the election. I think I’ll reserve an honored place for them in the new permissible-media landscape I’m architecting.”
It’s abundantly clear that we are not going to learn from history.
The really fucking ironic point is bin Laden’s stated goal was to destabilize the U.S., and boy, howdy. No need to enumerate the problems stemming from that.
Do shareholders mix with anything? Fucking up the environment? Makes shareholders happy. Mass layoffs? Makes shareholders happy. War, cancer sticks, genocide, addictive drugs? As long as the line goes up shareholders are happy…
One might even call it “goose-stepping”.
I made some kind of noise yesterday about wanting to cancel my subscription because of this bullshit; I just followed through.
Interesting info for anyone curious: If you attempt to cancel your subscription online, it’ll offer you $1/week for a full year if you stay. It’s honestly a pretty good deal for their non-propaganda stories. But on the other hand, fuck 'em.
#nytimes
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
In a recent interview with Semafor’s Ben Smith, New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn offered a laughable defense of the paper’s coverage of the looming threat that Donald Trump poses to American democracy.
When asked why the Times doesn’t see its job as trying to “stop Trump,” Kahn completely missed the point and said journalism’s role is to provide “impartial information” rather than becoming a “propaganda arm.”
Kahn seems to have confused fair reporting with sticking your head in the sand while fascism takes root.
He was simply asking why the Times is so reluctant to offer coverage that properly conveys the severity of the threat Trump represents through smarter framing and proportional emphasis.
And Kahn’s dismissal of worries over the Times giving wildly disproportionate attention to Biden’s age as just demanding they “downplay” legitimate issues is “absurdly evasive.”
If they don’t, then perhaps democracy was never more than a quaint little fad in the Times’ view – easily discarded in favor of juicier stories about Biden’s age and how polite neo-Nazi are.
Saved 58% of original text.
