The Media is Propaganda

[Berzerker]

To reiterate a few points. I am not a journalist or lawyer but my understanding is:

- The whistleblowing and leak framework is set out by legal frameworks, which are myriad.
- Journalistic standards set out a code of ethics in handling sources. The default is to disclose your sources, and if you provide anonymity you must have a good reason. These reasons are often tested by legal cases.
- Journalistic standards on sources that are not yours defer to the concept of harm to the individual against finding truth and acting with integrity. If a journalist is not getting information directly from a person they are not promising anonymity to anyone and not bound by promises not made by them (or their organisation)

Asking for a part of ethics that say rat out a whistleblower to the FBI is silly, as it will never be explicit in a framework. Just like it will not state whether you should or should not run a story. It is up to the journalist and editor to decide what is appropriate and in accordance with standards. This can obviously include politically motivated actions - which is fine if within the bounds of the code of ethics.

Each case is different and there is no requirement for consistent action on what you choose to do, or what others in the same position but different views/opinions/politics chooses to do. The consistency is with abiding by the code of ethics and the law.

if you are a whistleblower with genuine intent to identify injustice the code or ethics will afford the person more right to protection (under harm principle) than a person trying to win a debate with a bunch of other gamers.

So your link doesn't explicitly tell journalists to out leakers and its my fault. Why tell me to read it when I asked explicitly for that journalistic standard? I dont see anything in your link that comes close to telling journalists to out leakers. The law is irrelevant, how the government defines whistle blower is irrelevant, journalists are not supposed to out leakers/whistle blowers. Who will want to leak when even journalists turn you in?

The NYT and Wapo depend on government sources whether they be approved or unapproved and if they actually protect leakers the government may punish them and reward competitors with approved leaks.

[Geronimo]

The leak is the indicator and the journalistic standard is to protect the identities of leakers, not turn them over to the Feds. Are you saying those documents would not lead a reasonable person to think they were evidence against the government? Did this guy walk thru a room of documents and just choose a few at random regardless of what they show? The journalist reports on the documents, not call the FBI on the leaker. Thats what happens in authoritarian regimes and the NYT and Wapo just told leakers beware. That means only the leakers in our tribe will be protected. Thats no longer a standard, just partisan BS.

What incrimination? Lying to the public about war intelligence? I want to hear from you specifically what "evidence against the government" you saw in those leaks that would make this guy, even unwittingly, some kind of "whistleblower". For the record, I sure as hell do not want anybody, including journalists, refraining from turning in criminals just because they'd be useful as a potential future journalistic source if they unwittingly did so again.

The standard for not volunteering the information to the authorities needs to be high Berz.

[Geronimo]

where does your link tell journalists to out whistle blowers?

Asking for a part of ethics that say rat out a whistleblower to the FBI is silly, as it will never be explicit in a framework. Just like it will not state whether you should or should not run a story. It is up to the journalist and editor to decide what is appropriate and in accordance with standards. This can obviously include politically motivated actions - which is fine if within the bounds of the code of ethics.

Each case is different and there is no requirement for consistent action on what you choose to do, or what others in the same position but different views/opinions/politics chooses to do. The consistency is with abiding by the code of ethics and the law.

[Berzerker]

I asked for that explicit standard and he told me to read that link. I found nothing there explicitly or implicitly directing journalists to out people exposing government corruption.

[N35t0r]

This whole discussion is dumb. The guy was sharing classified Intel for clout ("look at what I know, I am therefore very cool") in a private discord server filled with kids he wanted to impress. Not to a journalist because he was worried about something illegal that was going on.

The press has an obligation to not rat out a whistleblower that went to them. Investigating the source of intelligence leaks is most definitely not ratting out a whistleblower.

Also, I find it funny that Berz thinks that the US intelligence apparatus was capable of "setting up a coup" in Ukraine and blaming the Russians for it, but they needed help from the press to catch this guy.

[Geronimo]

The press has an obligation to not rat out a whistleblower that went to them. Investigating the source of intelligence leaks is most definitely not ratting out a whistleblower.
guy.

Normally I advocate ratting out almost any potentially harmful illegal activity to the authorities but I'd agree that as a practical matter, it would be unwise for journalists to do so for sources that had gone to the journalists except in the most extreme public danger.

[BeBMan]

Oh Tucker:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65379340

[pchang]

He was definitely and example of a media member whose show was entirely propaganda.

[Proteus_MST]

Good riddance

[Geronimo]

He was definitely and example of a media member whose show was entirely propaganda.

I'm sure that like Glenn Beck, Tucker was an entertainer, not a true believer. In that sense I would characterize his show as pure entertainment rather than as pure propaganda. The only propaganda I might be able to acknowledge on his program would be the content he was paid by Russian agents to deliver as if it was his own, but that was hardly the entire show, and even then the propaganda was second hand.

[-Jrabbit]

He seems to be every bit as big of a privileged dickhead IRL as he was on TV.
I predict he will be working for Truth Social in short order.

[pchang]

Just because something is entertainment does not mean it is not also propaganda. Please see many Hollywood movies during the 1940s.

[Geronimo]

Just because something is entertainment does not mean it is not also propaganda. Please see many Hollywood movies during the 1940s.

I draw the line where the media don't believe in anything and work purely for profit. Sometimes Tucker sells propaganda but mostly he just sells news related click bait in TV talk format. He doesn't believe in anything sincerely, apart from profit.

those Hollywood propaganda movies likely had a bit of sincerity...most of the time.

Furthermore true propaganda never strays from the agenda of its patron. Tucker, like Beck, is sometimes mercenary but usually wants the artistic freedom to pull his own compelling political narrative from out of his arse to build a loyal following.

[pchang]

What prevents a propagandist for hire from having many patrons? Why would having multiple patrons make it not propaganda?

[Geronimo]

look, I'm not saying that Tucker Carlson doesn't sell out to a potentially wide variety of propaganda patrons. I am saying that he is loyal to no identifiable cause or patron and that the bottom line to Tucker Carson has never been to effectively dispense any coherent line of propaganda. There is no way I accept that his program has ever meaningfully been "pure propaganda". This guy is a businessman whose business model involves farming a huge reliable base of viewers by trying to concoct a message of "truth" that he convinces them nobody else is willing to share. He's fundamentally an entertainer, not loyal to any cause and quite willing to step on anybody's toes if it would help shore up his viewer base. There are shows that are pure propaganda and those that aren't. Nothing about Tucker Carlson's show suggests that his was in any meaningful way "pure propaganda". I think you are pushing this point partly because you have seen identifiable propaganda trace back to Tucker Carlson's show and partly because what you have seen attributed to his show is bullcrap and the bullcrap you usually encounter in media is propaganda. It ain't so. This guy will contradict any and every potential patron's agenda to shore up his audience. The man is purely an entertainer who only uses propaganda for as long as it shores up his profits. He is quite happy to dispense information that doesn't really serve any identifiable agenda.

[Berzerker]

What incrimination? Lying to the public about war intelligence? I want to hear from you specifically what "evidence against the government" you saw in those leaks that would make this guy, even unwittingly, some kind of "whistleblower". For the record, I sure as hell do not want anybody, including journalists, refraining from turning in criminals just because they'd be useful as a potential future journalistic source if they unwittingly did so again.

The standard for not volunteering the information to the authorities needs to be high Berz.

It was in the definition

Whistleblowing is defined under law as “disclosing information that you reasonably believe is evidence of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”

Start with the word 'gross', I'm sure laws, rules, or regulations were violated too, but who gets prosecuted for lying us into wars? Do you believe this guy randomly took documents without knowing what he was getting and posting online? That is your argument, right? You're arguing he's not a whistle blower because he didn't know he was blowing a whistle. And Joe Biden fired Shokin for refusing to investigate Hunter's company.

[Berzerker]

This whole discussion is dumb. The guy was sharing classified Intel for clout ("look at what I know, I am therefore very cool") in a private discord server filled with kids he wanted to impress. Not to a journalist because he was worried about something illegal that was going on.

The press has an obligation to not rat out a whistleblower that went to them. Investigating the source of intelligence leaks is most definitely not ratting out a whistleblower.

Also, I find it funny that Berz thinks that the US intelligence apparatus was capable of "setting up a coup" in Ukraine and blaming the Russians for it, but they needed help from the press to catch this guy.

Your mind reading aside are you saying journalists should out people exposing government corruption if they bypass journalists? They didn't just investigate him, they told the FBI. I dont know the extent of US involvement setting up the coup, it was carried out on the ground by the Ukrainian right wing. And I dont know enough about the leak to know the motives of people involved. But assuming the press scooped the security state why would that erase from history every coup the US has backed? Hey, the FBI was late to a leak therefore the US has never backed a coup.

[-Jrabbit]

Consider, please, that it is entirely possible for a journalist to be patriotic enough to report a clear and present national security threat to the authorities.
As far as your bizarre belief that this kid is a "whistleblower" and somehow deserves protection from journalists he has never contacted, that is 100% a fantasy world.

[BeBMan]

Your mind reading aside are you saying journalists should out people exposing government corruption if they bypass journalists? They didn't just investigate him, they told the FBI. I dont know the extent of US involvement setting up the coup, it was carried out on the ground by the Ukrainian right wing. And I dont know enough about the leak to know the motives of people involved. But assuming the press scooped the security state why would that erase from history every coup the US has backed? Hey, the FBI was late to a leak therefore the US has never backed a coup.

A good example of propaganda

[Berzerker]

but not of a rebuttal

[Bereta_Eder]

In Greece it is like this: greece is a very rich country and greeks are very well off. despite a 10 year debt crisis greece has of the highest hiome onwership in the world ect I won't get into detail,s public works are very lucrative. athens has the best metro in europe and probably the world too. built by german greek companioes and germans bribed greek officials to get the contracts this is judicially verified. and merkel gacve immuity to the one that got brided. now, the media are owned by the huge conglomerates that vow for public work contracts roads (the best in europe) metro (the best in europe) facilities of various kinds milllions/billions that are granted to those congomerates that also own the media and can direct public opinion in fasvor or against the gov ONLY depending on whether the gov awards public work contracts to them or not. got it? good now, there have been attemts to hygienate this corrupt scheme. FOrbiding to media companies to have also public work companies and it got vetoed by the EU.... for violating free market pirinicples  truth 

[Bereta_Eder]

So in Greece the media (TV) ARE propaganda that want one thbing: public money to their congomerates for public works

happy new s: everyone knows that. the young generation don't watch TV

tbhe bad news

Greece as with most of europe is an elders society

[Bereta_Eder]

any gov that will go to bed with the big media/public works will have like 90% iof the media carressing it like it is the second coming....


now there is a pesky thing called democracy freedom of speech and elections

and we are coming strong and this will end