"...Just repeatedly inserting the word “unprovoked” into Ukraine war commentary across the board causes people to assume it must have been launched without provocation, because the illusory truth effect can circumvent reason and logic to insert a narrative into the collective consciousness of our civilization.
The fact that all mass media outlets began doing this in unison, against all journalistic training and ethics, shows you just how united the mass media are in service of the US empire. When the need to push a narrative is particularly urgent, the facade of journalistic impartiality and independence drops away, and we see the true face of the most sophisticated propaganda machine that has ever existed."
"Journalistic ethics". Kek. Good one. But I may have some bad news for you.
"Journalistic ethics" is like Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. Everybody knows what they're supposed to look like, but nobody has ever brought any conclusive proof that any of them actually exist.
So-called, quote, unquote, "journalists" haven't had any ethics since long before the Hearst papers dragged the US into the Spanish-American War.
And I'm old enough to remember Walter Cronkite, "The Most Trusted Man in America" getting up on on a little 13" black and white screen and telling the American people during the Tet offensive in 1968, that the war in Vietnam (another one that they had also helped LBJ lie his way into) "...may well be unwinnable", even as the Viet Cong had effectively been hammered into the ground like a tent peg and ceased to exist as an effective military formation. They'd gone all in on Tet and lost, and here he was telling the American people that the US had lost. And this was picked up and repeated by all the networks until people took it as unquestionable gospel.
Not unlike a certain other "non-event" in history.
"Journalistic ethics". Pfft. Why, I myself took a big brown "journalistic ethics" just this morning.
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 3 points 1.7 yearsAug 9, 2023 15:56:08 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 1.7 yearsAug 9, 2023 16:08:52 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 2 points 1.7 yearsAug 9, 2023 11:28:29 ago (+2/-0)*
"Journalistic ethics". Kek. Good one. But I may have some bad news for you.
"Journalistic ethics" is like Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. Everybody knows what they're supposed to look like, but nobody has ever brought any conclusive proof that any of them actually exist.
So-called, quote, unquote, "journalists" haven't had any ethics since long before the Hearst papers dragged the US into the Spanish-American War.
And I'm old enough to remember Walter Cronkite, "The Most Trusted Man in America" getting up on on a little 13" black and white screen and telling the American people during the Tet offensive in 1968, that the war in Vietnam (another one that they had also helped LBJ lie his way into) "...may well be unwinnable", even as the Viet Cong had effectively been hammered into the ground like a tent peg and ceased to exist as an effective military formation. They'd gone all in on Tet and lost, and here he was telling the American people that the US had lost. And this was picked up and repeated by all the networks until people took it as unquestionable gospel.
Not unlike a certain other "non-event" in history.
"Journalistic ethics". Pfft. Why, I myself took a big brown "journalistic ethics" just this morning.
https://files.catbox.moe/85s2xf.jpg
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 2 points 1.7 yearsAug 9, 2023 09:50:44 ago (+2/-0)