TheSanSabaSongbird

True, but not for the reasons that most people think.

Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.

Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a "firewall" between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.

Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they've always been very hands-off. It's a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn't care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.

Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You're completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.

Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin' hate.

It's more of a cause or a movement than an organization. I guess I don't know why that should be difficult to understand.

Oh so now you are arguing that deadheads were an organization too? Really? In what universe?

Infamous is the word you're looking for.

Yeah that's bullshit. There isn't some secret cabal that's in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there's a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.

You have a similar problem in the UK but it's not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it's far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.

While I understand what you are getting at, for the record that's not what linguistics is about at all.

You obviously know nothing about linguistics.

I'm not disputing your argument, I'm simply pointing out that Hexbear is basically a shit-storm of yammering cretins and unlettered buffoonish morons. What one makes of that fact is their own business. I just don't see how they are relevant to anything, regardless of how much hate they broadcast towards The West writ large.

If they account for more than half the "hate" towards Americans on Lemmy, fine, but no one is obliged to take their nonsense seriously.

They are not intellectually serious people and do not deserve to be viewed as such.

Agreed. Leaving should be a last resort. This is my fucking country and I'll be damned if I won't stay here and put up a fight for what I know it could be if we were more true to what we say we believe in. There are many hundreds of thousands of others like me, and maybe we lose in the end, but by God the fascists are going to know they were in a fight. Figuratively I mean. I don't see actual violence as playing any real role in guiding the future of the US.

Also, I live in the Pacific Northwest which is unlike anyplace else on the planet. I don't want to live anywhere else. I guess I could move to BC , but they probably don't want me and besides, I have an ex up there who I'd rather avoid.

TBF, Hexbear is packed full of degenerate bozos and the clinically insane. It's the intellectual equivalent of Wal Mart.