Since this is a 'media bias' thread, may I suggest a different critique?Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 12:29 pmWe've seen exactly this thrown into stark relief in the UK recently, such that despite opinion polls suggesting c.85% of the UK are in favour of a ceasefire in Israel-Palestine, the government, the opposition and the right-leaning press have continued to push Isreal's state narratives. Huge marches through the capital urging the government to call for a ceasefire have been labelled as 'hate marches' or 'terrorist marches' by the govt and its paid-for commentariat, with the very same people who pop up on broadcast news and/or write opinion pieces apparently defending 'freedom of speech' not only remain stoically silent on protecting the right to protest but have actually been calling for the marches to be banned and the attendees to be criminalised. For these people 'freedom of speech' is not a deeply held democratic principle but a de facto demand for their views to be given special regard while requiring the views of others must be suppressed and silenced.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 8:15 pmIt's a bit, nothing more. The right in the US has been and continues to be committed to restricting speech and ideas that they disagree with. It's the right that are banning books, telling schools they cannot even acknowledge the existence of gay families, telling schools they can't teach history that might make some children 'uncomfortable.' This is not to ignore the restrictions on speech that have been imposed at colleges and universities in an attempt to limit 'hate speech.'Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 6:22 pm... I don't think you really understand what freedom of speech actually means.
Neither the left nor the right are unequivocally in favor of free speech. Yet when it's a convenient rhetorical cudgel, both will yalp about restrictions they disagree with; weaponization of the concept of free speech. What luck to have a particularly ridiculous example here.
Where is the money in media going? Is there a big ad campaign for one side? Both? Who is paid to promote which message?
Since both countries should have propaganda, it could be a bit easier to identify. That doesn't say much about right or wrong, but seeing who takes money to push a message, or even better who GIVES money to push a message, might be illuminating.
