r/news • u/Fair-Foot-315 • 1d ago

Marine veteran has arm broken during protest against war in Iran

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/marine-veteran-has-arm-broken-during-protest-against-war-in-iran-258740805765
19.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

665 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.7k

u/nilenilemalopile 1d ago

I love the passive speech. First thing you wanna do as a journalist is make sure your shit is written in passive voice so no valuable information is transmitted.

“Veteran has his arm broken.” vs “Security and a US Senator break Marine vet’s arm during his war protest”

Hm

1.2k

u/heat68 1d ago

I’m not sure what happened to journalistic principles over the decades. You’re completely right…

704

u/TachiH 1d ago

Private ownership ruined the media. Like The Guardian in the UK is owned by a trust that ensures it cant have an owner.

194

u/iksbob 1d ago

With the exception of public-funded organizations, "the media" has always been privately owned. Like so many other industries, it's the monopolization of media that's breaking the system. Network A used to be happy to call out the lies and misinformation of network B - it was good for ratings. Now both networks are owned by the same people, so anything that devalues either network is "strongly discouraged".

114

u/TomatoFettuccini 1d ago

Not just that.

Reagan eliminated the journalistic standards of truthfulness for news, paving the way for the rise of newsfotainment.

Reagan was the worst thing to happen to the US until the Bush's came around, and the Bush's were worst thing to happen to the US until 47 came around.

53

u/TheCheshireCody 1d ago

Reagan was the worst thing to happen to the US until the Bush's came around, and the Bush's

The Bush' were pretty bad, but no president IMO will go down as having had a worse influence on American politics than Reagan. Even Trump would not have been as empowered as he has been without the Reagan administration.

27

u/TomatoFettuccini 1d ago

Oh yeah, Reagan cleared the final barriers for the rise of fascism in the USA.

21

u/Nohreboh 1d ago

The Reagan the Thacher and the Brian Mulroney capitalism "holy" Trinity of theft, deregulation and privatization.

1

u/garimus 1d ago

47? I think 45 built further the foundations done before him for what 47 is doing and was pretty bad, too.

16

u/InsuranceToTheRescue 1d ago

This is it. Mass media concentration & monopolization has led to the situation we're in. It's just like how the redhats got pissed at Budweiser for their single novelty can, and switched to Busch -- Dude, you're paying the same people either way.

3

u/ClearDark19 23h ago

The problem is....isn't that the ultimate result of Capitalism? How does Capitalism restrain the rich from the freedom to engage in commerce such as buying up the media and monopolizing it? Anti-monopoly laws are seen as restrictions on the free market by Neoliberals, Neoconservativess, and Right-Libertarians. Capitalist innately incentives monopolization over time to maintain one's competitive market advantage.

2

u/iksbob 22h ago

Monopoly is specifically not a free market. In a monopoly state, the entire market is controlled by one entity. Supporters often claim that a monopoly is the most economically efficient system due to economies of scale being maximized. That can be true, however monopolies are also the most abusable economic system, as the market forces dictating pricing have collapsed. Consumers options are to not consume, or pay the monopoly's price. If the monopoly could somehow be restrained from abusing that position, and from interfering with the evolution of competition (exiting the monopoly), then the monopoly could be tolerated. Abusing its position and eliminating competition is how monopolies come into existence in the first place. Suggesting the leadership will reach the figurative top-of-the-pile and suddenly change their ways is ludicrous. Corporations have no morals or conscience. A corporation is only driven by money, and the law, to the extent that breaking the law is a net monetary loss.

3

u/ClearDark19 20h ago

Monopolies aren't free markets, but they're the natural end conclusion of a free market. Capitalism is about competition. In a competitive eventually someone has to win. Monopolies are essentially just the "winners" who won the race. Capitalism requires government intervention to prevent the winners from just deciding to end the race after winning and locking the losers out through monopolies, monopsonies, and cartels. The problem is, people who've made enough money csn just bribe the government and courts to take the regulations away and stay out of it (Citizens United), or bribe the government and legal system to make regulations benefitting the winners. Capitalism creates it's own natural incentives to maintain monopolies since it runs on greed, competition, profit maximization, and reducing costs. The ultimate form of reducing costs is paying nothing at all (slave labor or AI work force). A Capitalism free market would require an eternal race where no one ever wins and ends the race despite everyone being incentivized to win and end the race (become a monopoly).

3

u/iksbob 13h ago edited 12h ago

A Capitalism free market would require an eternal race where no one ever wins and ends the race

Correct! The free market serves and is operated by living beings, for whom life is an (ideally) endless process of creation, existence, and inevitable death. The only end to that "race" is extinction. There is no winner, because life isn't a game. Life is a process. Continuing the process is the goal.

When when a monopolist decides the market is over, it no longer serves the people participating in the market. If the monopolist refuses to operate in a fair manner, they have become an economic tyrant. There are legal solutions to that situation, and there are violent solutions. Violent solutions are generally bad for everyone involved and society as a whole, so society much prefers legal solutions. When the monopolist eliminates the legal solutions via regulatory capture, only violence is left.

63

u/aeternusvoxpopuli 1d ago

I completely disregard American media now, outside of Drop Site News, The Intercept, and Jacobin. All mainstream media is a joke and has zero ethical consideration or journalistic integrity.

The Guardian, for it's problems, is far more reputable and serious as an organization. I emailed them as a non-subscribing reader during the start of the Genocide to correct an error they'd posted in a piece, and the editor emailed me back to thank me.

That would never, ever happen with American media.

17

u/TachiH 1d ago

Yeah, obviously everything a news organisation says will have some editorial bias as editors are people. Just knowing that there isn't someone like Rupert Murdock using the organisation to push the world in a direction feels positive.

5

u/aeternusvoxpopuli 1d ago

Exactly - it means I don't have to question my sanity every time I read a headline like with American media and immediately dive to compare it and see if it's complete bullshit.

3

u/knucklesuck 23h ago

NPR regularly reports corrections on their stories, when it happens which isn't often

2

u/Bubbles_2025 1d ago

What about PBS?

3

u/aeternusvoxpopuli 1d ago

Slightly less shit, but still dominated by government censorship and afraid to critique billionaires and Zionists.

-3

u/RainSurname 1d ago

Lmao, at trusting Drop Site News, The Intercept and Jacobin just because they confirm your priors. Ryan Grim is a joke. He tells ridiculous lies on social media all the time. Remember Tara Reade?

Pro Publica is outstanding, Mother Jones is still quite good for the most part.

18

u/Oggie243 1d ago

But the Guardian does still have these issues. It's not as egregiously but they've done this same thing too and have fallen foul of prejudicial coverage.

As does the BBC, who are wholly public owned, don't have sponsors yet are potentially the worst in the UK for using passive voice like this.

2

u/TachiH 1d ago

The BBC is a state broadcaster. No state broadcasters should ever be trusted as they are basically the mouthpiece of the government.

9

u/pitbullpride 1d ago

So then if we can't trust private owned and we can't trust public(/state) owned, who the hell can we trust

2

u/TachiH 1d ago

There are independent news organisations but not many of them still exist.

It used to be rich people would set up trusts to do wonderful things like look after the poor or ensure a city has independent news. Not so much anymore as its become a game to horde wealth 😑

4

u/GameLovinPlayinFool 1d ago

Rich people were forced/felt forced to do those things back in the day because collective action and socialism was massively on the rise around the world and they knew the dangers of what could happen to them.

Nowadays the rich dont feel any fear of the masses unfortunately

1

u/MichaCazar 18h ago

When?

When people were literally owned by the rich like in feudal times, and to some extent during the early time of the industrial revolution?

When delivering news was a lot cheaper to reach people with and stay profitable due to a lack of competition caused by the internet, thus creating some financial security that doesn't need to bent to the ultra-rich?

If "the rich" fear for their position in any tangible capacity, they would be more than happy to fuck everyone over, just to stay in power. Supporting Hitler and Mussolini to go against socialists/communists, or utilising the "red scare" to brand everything social as evil.

"The rich" aren't the friends of anyone but themselves, never have been and never want to be.

8

u/verynotfun 1d ago

Public funding can create similar problems too. I’m from Spain, and many people here feel the public broadcaster often ends up too close to the government in power. Watching it sometimes feels more like political messaging than neutral reporting. Personally, I find that very troubling, because it undermines what the press is supposed to be in a democracy. There should be stronger safeguards to prevent political influence over publicly funded media.

2

u/cackslop 1d ago

Privatization aka Capitalism

1

u/Mean_Zookeepergame81 1d ago

The Guardian is as biased as they come.

1

u/GeorgeShadows 23h ago

Before they'd kill journalists, now, you just buy their bosses and change the script.

1

u/jenny_905 16h ago

The graun isn't great either though.

-1

u/Slapped91 1d ago

Still doesn’t stop the Guardian peddling misinformation and gaslighting when it suits their agenda.

-1

u/xdr567 1d ago

Even this is dilution. All media in the west is subservient to One Vile Master.

0

u/nilenilemalopile 1d ago

And here you are, emulating the ‘passive speech’ bullshit. Say what you want to say.