Imagine how much longer they could’ve kept the whole thing going if not for social media. If people were only exposed to the mainstream news narrative, we wouldn’t even know there was a genocide going on right now.
I’ve thought about this a lot. There are plenty of things to blame social media for but I still think there’s a net positive when you consider being able to quickly share information and all the exposure to people from different cultures, religions, and ethnicities.
That’s the single best thing about the internet in my opinion as well.
I would not call 2 incidental interviews proof of change.
They are drowning in a sea of much larger MSM outlets pushing the genocider propaganda, unfortunately.
Sparsely allowing a critical view might as well be intentional to uphold an image of neutral and objective news.And yes social media did its part.
But just as the MSM the US regime and zionists make shure they can control the narrative there too.
As happened with Facebook, Reddit, X, and others if they can reach a large audience.The best example and directly related to Palestine is the takeover of Tiktok.
The news on Palestine was prominent and uncensored.
Since it was Chinese owned it was a nightmare for the US/zio regime.It was the zioscum like ADL Greenblatt “we really have a Tiktok problem” and others who got the US regime to take action against it.
And this ghoul is also a marvelous example.And this is the result
I think the fact that these kinds of interviews are happening at all is significant. While they’re doing everything they can to suppress this, the public opinion is not really going along with the narrative. And that creates a dilemma for them. Either they continue to deny the genocide and continue losing credibility or they have to start discussing it however tepidly.
IMO it is only significant if a significant portion of the MSM does this.
I hope they will but I’m sceptical about it.
When you say they worry about losing credibility it is more or less the same as my comment saying they are doing it to maintain the illusion of neutrality.
My guess is they will only moderately allow it, just enough to placate the public opinion and have them not lose faith in their ‘news’
As long as the US regime supports the genocider regime the vast majority of news will continue to reflect that.It’s not going to happen overnight, but if they continue to ignore this then people become more and more disillusioned. A lot of people already have lost faith in mainstream outlets, so there could just be a collapse in public trust. And there’s a greater context for this too because the standard of living is collapsing at the same time. So, people see their lives get worse, they see the media talk about how great DOW is doing, and then they start connecting things and realizing they live in a house of mirrors.
You get it:
MSM has to maintain the illusion for the majority of their subjects,
so they have to balance between pushing-as-hard-as-they-can to manage their population’s “knowing”…
but they have simultaneously to keep owning their subjects, & that obliges them to hold-back enough to retain credibility…
Not an enjoyable tightrope to walk.
I prefer the more-cutthroat culture of journalism/science, where disagreement is normal.
That isn’t going to be preferred by humankind in-general in my lifetime…
So, instead of survival-of-the-fittest ( the disagreement-is-normal cultures ), we’ve got survival-of-the-momentarily-dominant-consensus, with no roots-to-objectivity … & then … viability is only … political-moment, or social-moment: it isn’t robust, or strongly-rooted.
< shrug >
_ /\ _
Right, there’s nothing wrong with disagreement because it just means people have different perspectives. Discussing these perspectives in a civilized fashion creates a more complete understanding for everybody. That’s what debates are meant for, people present their positions and defend them, so that the counterparty can point out problems or inconsistencies. And through this process you build shared understanding of things.
But when debate happens in our media is just a spectacle of idiots yelling at one another and talking over each other incoherently. And that’s presented as providing different views. There’s no depth, no substance, and no actual debate happening. It’s just a bunch of people yelling I’m right.
And that’s a broader problem in the media too now where there’s no more investigative journalism. The media outlets simply parrot whatever the official narrative is, there’s no analysis, no historical context, and no push back. In a sense, the only real debate happening is the one between mainstream and social media. And, in a way, it’s kind of hilarious how regular people do a better job explaining things now than professional news outlets. Hence why social media is winning the debate.
This is why visual-spacial Issue-Diagrams need to become THE standard for debate:
Emotional-political-force’s winning, though video/bullying/etc can’t produce better-quality results.
It’s a systems-question, not “lack of political-will”.
_ /\ _
I still remember the exact article that radicalised me against Israel, breaking over 30 years of indoctrination:
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592
They outright (indirectly) confirm that more than 1-in-4 people killed in Gaza by the IDF were women, children, or elderly.
Most moral military, my ass! In a just world, they would all be tried at The Hague for war crimes.
Oh, l don’t doubt those figures whatsoever - I was more just sharing what exactly caused the veil fell from my eyes and I began to see Israel as the monster it (always?) was.
Especially when you realise that in that 72% figure that the IDF claimed included children as young as 13 as “combat age”.
maybe they want to go into the next phase looking credible? i mean they do want to turn gaza into some sort of real estate bullshit eventually don’t they.
