site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   36342 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Twitter: BBC objects to 'government funded media' label

"The BBC is, and always has been, independent. We are funded by the British public through the licence fee," it said.

When BBC News highlighted to the Twitter boss that the corporation was licence fee-funded, Mr Musk responded in an email, asking: "Is the Twitter label accurate?"

The level of the £159 ($197) annual licence fee - which is required by law to watch live TV broadcasts or live streaming in the UK - is set by the government, but paid for by individual UK households.

Collection of the the licence fee and enforcement of non-payment is carried out by private companies contracted by the corporation, not the UK government.

TV licence evasion itself is not an imprisonable offence. However, non-payment of a fine, following a criminal conviction, could lead to a risk of imprisonment - "a last resort" after other methods of enforcement have failed.

I'm sorry, I don't really see the point of the complaints. Or rather: I see a point, but it's not interesting or flattering.

The BBC license it's mandated by the government.

The fact that artists and defenders of the BBC itself argue attempts to remove the 'fee' will harm programming or is a deliberate attempt to cow the BBC also militates towards the conclusion that the worries implied by "state-affiliated" or "state-funded" apply - though I grant that it is a more refined arrangement than direct payment.

Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell said: “The cat is out of the bag. The Prime Minister thinks those reporting on his rule breaking should pay consequences, whilst he gets off free.

"The Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary seem hell-bent on attacking this great British institution because they don’t like its journalism.”

So...the government not imposing a "fee" is an attack on an institution's functioning but we're supposed to act like it isn't a tax or the BBC isn't government funded?

So what reason does anyone (not benefiting from media branding) have to take any of this seriously? It seems to me that the real basis for complaint here is that BBC doesn't want to even theoretically be in the same bucket as Al Jazeera and RT. But it is precisely the media's fault that terms like "state media" are so badly received. Just as it is the media that marks certain dictators as "reformers" and others "strongmen" with "regimes" to aid its attempts to manufacture consent. They constructed this complex of Words That Hint At Things But Can't Be Called Out Cause They're Technically Correct.

So, because the media doesn't want to be marked by its own taboo-words and bad branding everyone is supposed to pretend that an entity funded by a government mandated license, whose supporters claim would fail without aforementioned government mandate everyone is supposed to ignore the correct labeling?

No one asked but one point on this: The CBC in Canada is state-owned and state-funded, I couldn't really object to such a label being put on it. It's technically correct, and twitter can't really differentiate on vibes. But if anyone holds the belief that it's somehow on par with Russia Today, that's ridiculous: it has the same left-wing bias as as every non-right-wing network does, and for the same reasons: it's run by people with that bias. It continues to have that bias no matter who's in political power.

And as queasy as state-funded media might make me on principle, it's got plenty of competition from private entities, and the bias of wanting to spread sensationalism for views is also a problem (including with the CBC, who sells ads and likes views just like everyone), so having some variety in the ecosystem seems good.

But if anyone holds the belief that it's somehow on par with Russia Today, that's ridiculous

Is it?

I've seen a lot of really interesting and insightful programming on Russia today, more so than I have on the CBC (and I don't live in Canada, America or Russia). I don't really see why RT is getting called out for being uniquely bad when they've consistently been more correct on factual issues than the regular press. Hallucinations about Iraqi WMDs and Trump/Russia collusion are just two of the most prominent examples that come to mind (I'm sure people here don't need a long recitation of media perfidy), and I don't see any reason for the BBC to be privileged over RT on that rubric.

If you're saying you find their worldview more appealing, go for it. I'm talking about degree of state-control and overall mission. (If you think RT is better in that regard, then I am brainwashed by the Cathedral and you can ignore whatever I say.) Russia Today is a straightforward tool of the state, when Putin invades Ukraine he knows RT will say what he needs them to, journalists who defy this at risk of falling out windows. CBC does not operate anything like this, they're just part of same Blue-tribe that all think alike. Same with CNN in the Iraq War days, they supported the war for the same reason most Americans did, they were mad about 9/11 and in a patriotic mood, the journalists both felt this themselves and knew it's what their audience wanted.

CBC's mission is probably horribly corrupted by an activist worldview, but they still adhere to whatever mix of journalistic integrity/modern activism their average reporter can defend to themselves. Their gov't stipend has little to do with that and mischaracterizes the entire problem. RT is much simpler and easy to characterize.

I'm not saying I find their worldview more appealing - I know that they have a perspective/angle/bias, I just don't think this means I should pretend that CBC or western media in general does not. Sure, journalists who defy Putin can end up falling out of windows, but I fail to see how this is so much worse than journalists having their cars go out of control and spontaneously explode when they start investigating government wrongdoing or put out stories which badly embarrass military generals.

As for all the mea culpas about their handling of the Iraq war - sure, I believe that. But at the same time absolutely nothing has changed! There has been no reflection, no self-examination, no correction. There have been no retractions or corrections or award rescindments for the unadulterated fiction that was presented as coverage of the Trump/Russia scandal, and the same people are still using the same techniques to manufacture consent on other issues today. Ultimately, I just don't think "whatever mix of journalistic integrity/modern activism their average reporter can defend to themselves. " is worth anything at all, and it in no way justifies the removal of a factually accurate label like "government-funded" or "state media".

I think the BBC is being a bit silly. However, why does Twitter only single out the governments? Why not say "Murdoch-funded" or "Bezos-funded" or "Roberts-funded"?

Because Bezos isn’t trying to manufacture consent for any wars he is waging.

Unless it's the war against the unionization of Amazon?

Is Bezos killing the families of people trying to unionize? Blowing up their homes? Maybe razing the towns they live in?

No.

This is the First World, one needs only to socially murder one's opponents as opposed to taking the drastic option of offering helicopter rides.

This is to say that I don't think there's really that much difference other than the continued existence of the biological entities in question. I imagine even the Soviet Union had more sophisticated ways of applying bootheels to human faces than Stalin's mass murdering.

Well Twitter is itself Elon-funded. Somebody has to fund everything.

But it is precisely the media's fault that terms like "state media" are so badly received. Just as it is the media that marks certain dictators as "reformers" and others "strongmen" with "regimes" to aid its attempts to manufacture consent. They constructed this complex of Words That Hint At Things.

So, because the media doesn't want to be marked by its own taboo-words and bad branding everyone is supposed to pretend that an entity funded by a government mandated license, whose supporters claim would fail without aforementioned government mandate everyone is supposed to ignore the correct labeling?

Is it the media's fault that terms like "state media" are badly received? Or is it the fact that a lot of state run media historically and observably tends to be biased towards the state and people can recognize that? The media doesn't have to tell me that a Ukraine government run news media organization and a Russian government run news media organization are likely to both need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt when reporting on the Ukraine war/special operation. Or that the news organization run by the Saudi or Iranian governments is unlikely to be taking stances the government does not like.

The media does not create authoritarian states. It certainly will (at least in the West) tend to downplay the authoritarian nature of states that are our allies and upsell the opposite. But that doesn't mean differences don't actually exist. The fact that a state run media arm should be regarded with suspicion (on reporting to do with anything to do with the government at least) is because historically that has been a problem. Our media didn't create that idea even if they over/undersell it depending on circumstance.

Having said that the Beeb is an interesting construct. Its funding mostly comes from the public by way of a government law for the License fee. However its existence is part of a Royal Charter which mandates its independence from the government itself. So is it accurate to say it is government funded? Kind of yes, kind of no. It doesn't get its money from the government but whether people have to pay it and how much IS determined by the government. In theory its supposed to be an independent reporter on the government and not biased towards either the government of the opposition.

In practice (and in my direct experience in interacting with the Beeb) it is kind of pro-establishment generally (which makes sense), with a slight social leftward lean and a slight conservative economic lean. Though it is I think slightly more positive towards whichever party happens to be in power at any given moment overall (which again makes sense from an incentive point of view). This is from dealing with the Beeb when working for both the Conservative and Labour parties.

If the point of the tag is to point out the level of possible bias then I don't think the BBC should get the same tag as a directly operated state organization. Though it's probably fine to get some sort of tag. I'll note Musk himself says he thinks the BBC is one of the least biased outlets for whatever that is worth. The BBC is big enough and important enough in the English speaking world that you could probably give it its own unique tag.

If the point of the tag is to "own the media" then sure keep it, it's just partisan sniping with little meaning in any case.

The media does not create authoritarian states. It certainly will (at least in the West) tend to downplay the authoritarian nature of states that are our allies and upsell the opposite. But that doesn't mean differences don't actually exist. The fact that a state run media arm should be regarded with suspicion (on reporting to do with anything to do with the government at least) is because historically that has been a problem. Our media didn't create that idea even if they over/undersell it depending on circumstance.

That's part of why it works; it's not untrue. No one can is going to die on the hill that Saddam doesn't have a "'regime". The words aren't necessarily wrong when it's used, the question is what's the impression given and why it's not used sometimes.

In theory its supposed to be an independent reporter on the government and not biased towards either the government of the opposition.

Even people defending the BBC often undermine the argument for its independence. Hell, the argument linked above is directly calling funding decisions (which the government has always been able to take) as direct partisan attacks.

If the point of the tag is to point out the level of possible bias then I don't think the BBC should get the same tag as a directly operated state organization.

IIRC the original tag that NPR complained about was something like "state affiliated media". If it was "state media" then I kind of get the charge.

"Government funded" though...I'm even less sympathetic. You can't complain that the government removing a funding mandate will crush either your programming or your reporting and also want to duck the tag.

If we agree with your take and we hate these terms for observable, rational reasons anyone can come to independently, not it being reinforced by media reminders every time a story from a hostile site comes up, then people can/will reach the same independent conclusion that Elon Musk did: that in a world of governments putting its fingers in the media pie the BBC surely counts as government funded but it represents a far more refined and civilized compromise than RT.

If not, as you say, there's literally no better placed, better branded organization to enforce a sense of nuance on any such tag just by existing.

“State media” is often used by the media as a shorthand for “media that’s controlled by a hostile state”, much like “regime” is used to indicate that a given nation is not aligned with western interests. It is a boo-term quite often as it counts as state control the things that hostile governments do, but not things we do. NPR is funded directly by the government through a grant system. If a program wants the grants and access to the NPR radio stations, it must produce shows that our government likes. If they reported on the news from too “radical” (read: anti-establishment) perspective, it won’t get funding or airtime. It’s basically patronage — I pay you on the basis of liking what you’ve done so far and I expect you to keep making things I like; and keep in mind that your patronage is up for renewal every year.

In essence, the very definition of “state media” is as a propaganda term meant to engender suspicion of that media’s reportage. And as such, it’s useless in most contexts to say “state run media should be viewed with suspicion” often reduces to “media that narrative makers declare are to be viewed with suspicion are to be viewed with suspicion.” Not to say that in some places reporting the wrong news story can mean free striped pajamas for the entire staff, but that the term itself isn’t used neutrally, and that it’s often inserted in reporting on other countries as a way to cast doubt on the data from hostile government funded media. Other supposedly free media outlets are not necessarily more evenhanded or reliable. If the Congo Times gets no funding from the government, but is run by a political party, is that better than the “state run” Congo Tribune that is run by the government?

NPR is funded directly by the government through a grant system. If a program wants the grants and access to the NPR radio stations, it must produce shows that our government likes.

The proper conclusion from this is to be suspicious of NPR too. You're writing as if criticizing NPR for bias is outside the Overton window. Maybe it is for the left, but it certainly isn't among conservatives. (Maybe replacing "that our government likes" with "that the deep state likes".)

Not to say that in some places reporting the wrong news story can mean free striped pajamas for the entire staff, but that the term itself isn’t used neutrally,

Right, but that doesn't mean they are actually wrong. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd trust the BBC more in general than a Chinese state run media service in general because I know roughly how much power the British government has over the BBC and I know roughly what level of influence can be exerted when and under what circumstances.

Don't trust any media is not the same thing as all media being equally untrustworthy.

Is it the media's fault that terms like "state media" are badly received? Or is it the fact that a lot of state run media historically and observably tends to be biased towards the state and people can recognize that?

Yes? I mean, these are the same thing. State run media is media, their faults are media's faults. I think @bnfrmt hits closer to the mark with deep state run media, but the primary purpose of the label is to remind people to take what you learn from them with a grain of salt because they are beholden to interests other than the truth, and that they are propped up by the state - so I don't think it's inappropriate. Least biased is not not biased, and not biased is the only version we should tolerate. Anyone who claims otherwise is either brainwashed or bought.

It's not about 'owning the media' either, it is about reminding people that they are being lied to every single day by a bunch of clout chasing moral busybodies who would gladly sacrifice every prole on the planet for better standing in their incestuous community of mediocrities. That's all the BBC is these days, because that's what all journalism is these days.

But there was a time when it was just most journalism that was like that, and the only way we can get back there is by not letting the big hitters get away with anything. That includes stupid 'oh we jumbled things up, so this is no tax, even though we send enforcers around to harass you if we think you have watched television in the last week, and even though we gladly push a political agenda which protects certain interests of the state' excuses. Nope sorry, you are happy to accept the benefits of state backing, so you don't get to avoid the consequences.

To sum up, do not trust any media organisation bigger than your local newspaper. Ever.

Why would you trust your local newspaper?

I’m being a little facetious—you potentially have access to its journalists in a way you wouldn’t for national concerns. But what does that really buy you? How much time and effort do you spend on keeping the locals in check? You’re not going to rally your town to ostracize the editor, not without a truly spectacular bias.

There are fewer people pulling on the local news, which is not the same as less total pull. It’s a lot cheaper to buy glowing reviews or softball coverage from a local outlet than from the New York Times. The result is that local journalists and editors may not be biased by Big Pharma or a wannabe President, but by a local employer, a motivated city councilman, or that bitch Annette, I can’t believe she took the kids, you can’t trust her.

Scrutiny by opposing interests is higher for large outlets, too. I remember thinking it was odd for commenters to grill Miami’s local news the other week. How many people do they really reach? Anything smaller will be even less visible.

I think it’s awfully hard to start from an adversarial basis, from game theory or realpolitik, and come up with reasons to trust. The difference in local and national news is that you might give locals the benefit of the doubt.

Agreed entirely. The only reason I excluded local newspapers from my sweeping declaration is because in most places I have lived you can actually hold them accountable for dishonesty, although it's often a bit like pulling teeth. But they are usually small enough to respect reader complaints, and a lot of them are where the autistically truth-seeking oldheads ended up after society decided we were too smart to bother with the truth, because local beats are like punishment to clout chasers.

I think the two tools in a low trust environment we can use to build trust are objectivity and accountability. We can't perfect either and to err is human, but anyone who puts a sincere effort into trying to be objective and holding themselves accountable for their mistakes deserves tentative trust I reckon.

Yes? I mean, these are the same thing. State run media is media

That is a different point than I think he was making though. His point was that "our" media labels state run media of other powers as bad. Not all media is equally "bad" even if that is only because some places use a lighter touch. And that is the case whether "our" media is using it as propaganda or not.

Don't trust any media, local newspaper or not is my view. But that doesn't mean I should trust an openly state run Chinese media over the BBC.

Reversed stupidity is not intelligence in other words.

To point out when I worked in politics it was much easier to have a story pulled or altered with smaller local outlets in exchange for exclusives or better stories. So local being more trustworthy is not something I would rely on.

Oh, I had the impression his point was that it's the media who came up with the label, so they don't get to throw a fit when it is appropriately applied to them. If they don't like being called state run media they can stop doing the things that make them state run media. Or alternatively, they are in the exact right position to rehabilitate the image of state run media. They refuse to do either, so the shoe fits.

Otherwise yeah, nobody gets blind trust. But I know there are some local paper editors out there who are dedicated to the truth, some out of penance for sins in the big leagues, some vindictively, some just to try to hold onto the light any way they can. Similar to how you say we can trust the BBC over CCP funded media, I think you can trust local papers more than the big hitters.

Having said that the Beeb is an interesting construct. Its funding mostly comes from the public by way of a government law for the License fee.

Just because you call it ship money a licence fee, doesn't mean it isn't a tax. The government impose it.

However its existence is part of a Royal Charter which mandates its independence from the government itself.

More importantly the BBC is perfectly willing to attack the government. But by "government" here, I mean the democratically elected institutions of the state. The BBC does however loyally represent (and is part of) the permanent state institutional structure.

So is it accurate to say it is government funded? Kind of yes, kind of no

Yes, and every kind of yes.

There should be a term for the opposite of 'Gellman Amnesia' : "You don't realize how blind you're to brainwashing in a hivemind, until you're outside the hivemind."

The BBC seems 'independent' because it is occasionally critical of the British govt and will often give a platform to those who wish death to the western civilizational consensus. But, there is a '50 Stalins' aspect to that criticism and there are certain 'sacred cows' which can never so much as be mentioned, let alone criticized or analyzed. Al Jazeera appears similarly liberal, critical and rational as long as they are talking about things that do not relate to Qatar.

The BBC appears independent, because we who live within the hivemind of the west do not notice the absence of a type of criticism that we do not know exists.

But, there is a '50 Stalins' aspect to that criticism and there are certain 'sacred cows' which can never so much as be mentioned, let alone criticized or analyzed.

Care to give an actual example?

Rotherham is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that covered for the government, but Jimmy Saville and Martin Bashir's Lady Di interview were verboten topics for a long time at the BBC.

Having said that the Beeb is an interesting construct. Its funding mostly comes from the public by way of a government law for the License fee.

That's a synonym for "tax". The BBC isn't just government-funded, but has a special tax created just to keep it in existence.

And the independence of the BBC has been a great comedic punchline for decades now:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog

Sure but its set up not to go to the government for disbursement so as to try to avoid the control issue.

Even when i worked for the governing party I could not just go to the BBC to squash stories.

Its fair to say there is some influence but in my sirect experience it isn't directly government controlled.

Would have made my life easier if it were.

Even when i worked for the governing party I could not just go to the BBC to squash stories.

Unless you were the Minister of Culture I don't know why you'd think you could. Of course the tea boy in 10 Downing Street doesn't get to boss people around as much as a cabinet minister would. YOUR failure to influence the Beeb doesn't mean everyone in the British government is similarly toothless.

No, but I would have known who could influence them, or my boss would.

There were ways to influence stories but the same way of influencing other outlets, build personal connections, offer a juicier story or exclusive etc.

But within government there is no standard path to control the Beeb's output.

Which isn't to say it doesn't have bias as mentioned above.

But within government there is no standard path to control the Beeb's output.

How certain are you that the status quo does not involve something analagous to The Twitter Files, with multiple govt agencies providing advisory concerns for subjects like pandemics, terrorism, mis/dis/malinformation, etc?

I think you have to agree these relationships must exist, indeed to control the Beeb’s output. But this happens for private media, too! I can’t prove, but strongly suspect, these relationships are stronger with the Beeb than Telegraph or Guardian.

I suspect the cynical explanation is that the British government doesn't have the same motive for putting its thumb on the scale like the American government would. They don't need to sell their people on any narrative in particular, because they don't really get themselves into wars (and pretty much most of the ones the UK has been in after WWII have been divisive at best) and they aren't tied up in global affairs like the US is.

So, I would say, yes, the BBC will probably be tilted in favor of the establishment, but there's no real pressure to be against said establishment.

a slight social leftward lean and a slight conservative economic lean

This is... not how I would describe them. When did the Beeb last express a preference for lower taxes?

I'd say the BBC is pro-establishment as opposed to pro-government; much like the New York Times, it sees itself as the voice of civil society. Witness for example the recent furore over Gary Lineker's tweets: despite comparing the current government to Nazis, BBC management weren't able to keep Lineker off-air, or even get a promise to stop tweeting about it.

So calling them state-funded media does seem a little unfair; they're obviously not beholden to the executive. Deep-state-funded media, perhaps? If only there was a Twitter flag for that.

I thought the NPR label was a bit tenuous (assuming the 10% government funding stat I’ve seen is accurate), but the BBC is absolutely state-run media.

The whole “editorial independence” thing is a joke. Here’s a test: could the BBC run a piece calling the Queen a cunt without government consequences? If they couldn’t, then they aren’t editorially independent.

NPR receives half a billion per year from the federal government.

If that sum is irrelevant, they should stop taking it and become genuinely independent from government funding to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest over an irrelevant sum of money. If it is relevant, then they are a government-funded media outlet.

NPR's entire total revenue is under $300 million: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/

Did you really assume that every dollar the CPB spends goes to NPR?

That's not a good test. A good test would be - if BBC did something the government really hated, could the government pull their financing? It doesn't have to be something obscene or revolting, just something that is very inconvenient for the government. If they could, then they exist at the sufferance of the government, and their "independence" is just a leash that is long enough for them not to feel it, but it's still there. If they could not, or it would be very hard (e.g. on the level of passing Constitutional amendment in the US) - then there's a real independence, even if technically financed by the governmental decree.

In theory, any government could retaliate against a sufficiently annoying journalist - even in countries with well established norms around the freedom of the press, there are many informal ways that a journalist might feel the displeasure of the government. But of course, there's a big difference between being arrested or censored for telling the wrong story, and simply facing a social or career penalty or losing access.

Personally, it's my observation that it's quite the opposite. In many circles one now faces a penalty for siding with the government, and journalists are taught to see themselves as agents of disruption, as adversaries to established power.

any government could retaliate against a sufficiently annoying journalist

Well, yes, the question is how easy it is to do that and what would be the consequences. When we see something like this:

The email, sent to correspondents at just after 6pm on the day lockdown was announced, was labelled: IMPORTANT ADVISORY – language re broadcast. “Hi all – D st are asking if we can avoid the word ‘lockdown’. I’m told the message will be that they want to keep pushing people to stay at home but they are not talking about enforcement at the moment,” it said.

can we still claim they are "independent"? If the government can tell (successfully) the journalists what words to use, is it not government-controlled speech?

In many circles one now faces a penalty for siding with the government, and journalists are taught to see themselves as agents of disruption

What circles are those? What I am seeing more and more nowdays is that the journalists are taught to be always the agents of The Swamp, and if The Swamp is by some freak accident of nature is temporarily not controlling the government, then disruption it is, until things return to the normal. Once they do, the journalists go back to serving as a branch of the government.

I wouldn't write that either, but that's not because the government pays me to do so.

That's a bad test of independence. If most major news organizations ran such a piece the people responsible would be removed or disciplined just for being unprofessional.

Elon Musk can say whatever he wants on Twitter. There is nobody at the BBC who can say whatever they want, except the government.

Elon Musk can say whatever he wants on Twitter.

Can he?

"Settlement Requires Musk to Step Down as Tesla’s Chairman; Tesla to Appoint Additional Independent Directors; Tesla and Musk Agree to Pay $40 Million in Penalties"

“At the same time, however, even Musk concedes that his free speech rights do not permit him to engage in speech that is or could ‘be considered fraudulent or otherwise violative of the securities laws.'”

He won the private securities fraud action but he still had to agree to a bunch of SEC requirements in his settlement right?

Literally, intentionally false statements can have consequences. Opinions should never be banned in a free society.

He doesn’t seem too scared of financial regulators at the moment. “Dogecoin jumps more than 30% after Musk changes Twitter logo to image of shiba inu”

So he can't say whatever he wants without suffering consequences?

I would not contest that Musk has a wider swathe of things he can say without consequence, than a BBC editor but it isn't "whatever he wants".

Let me rephrase. He can say whatever he thinks. If he has an opinion, he can tweet it. If he has an idea, he can tweet it.

No employee at any news organization can say 'whatever they want', they're subject to standards of relevance and professionalism. It isn't a good illustration of how the British Government influences the BBC to say that writers/pundits can't call the queen a cunt, because neither could writers at almost all small time American newspapers. Not because the British Government secretly controls them, but because they have voluntarily adopted professional standards that preclude it.

It’s not that each individual employee couldn’t do it. It’s that nobody at all could do it, not even in principle. Jeff Bezos could call Obama the N-word on the front page of the Washington Post tomorrow. Who could do that at the BBC? What group of people could do that? I suspect the only group that could is parliament.

If your point is that all media, even privately funded outlets, are like this in the UK, then I concede. In fact all UK outlets should have “government censored media” labels which link to an outline of the relevant laws and regulations.

I'm not trying to make a statement about the current state of British media, just calling out a poor argument. That the BBC doesn't do something (call the queen a cunt) that almost every media organization, even those not in the UK, voluntarily refrains from doing, does not provide much evidence of the level of editorial control that parliament exercises.

Any publicly traded media company would also have no individual who could call the queen a cunt without being punished by the board. If the entire board decided to call the queen a cunt on the front page they could probably be sued by share holders for damaging the company. Theoretically you could coordinate all the shareholders to approve, but that's implausible and I'm not sure why that should be a meaningful distinction between company's.

The point is 'ability to say whatever you want' doesn't practically exist at most major news companies and if you want to say the BBC as 'state owned media' is categorically different from a publicly traded American news company in a significant way you need a better example.

A month ago the BBC suspended their most famous personality for tweeting something critical of the government's asylum policies.

...and then unsuspended him, with an understanding that he was allowed to do it again if he wanted to. Also, the criticism involved calling the government Nazis, which some might see as unprofessional, especially for a sports commentator.

That is because one of the "deals" for the BBC not to be seen as partisan is that its big personalities and newscasters should try to not be partisan on areas which are Labour vs Conservative. Whether they would have suspended him for being equally of critical of the oppositions positions is the question.

They would get OFCOM consequences as would any media organization trying to do that in the UK. They could run a story that the Queen was corrupt (though they would need to have sourced that impeccably). They probably can run a story saying the prime minister is incompetent for example.

The whole “editorial independence” thing is a joke. Here’s a test: could the BBC run a piece calling the Queen a cunt without government consequences? If they couldn’t, then they aren’t editorially independent.

The point is that because of ofcom no one in UK can run a piece calling the Queen a cunt so BBC is not in anyway more or less restricted than the other media. They are not court appointed jester. And the charming lady didn't deserve it, unlike some of her sons and one of her grandsons.

And the charming lady didn't deserve it

Queen Elizabeth was an direct inheritor of stolen wealth who personally claimed fame, importance, and power for the sole reason that her ancestors were some of the worst war criminals who ever lived. For the reason she didn't renounce it all as soon as she could, she definitely deserves every insult.

The point is that because of ofcom no one in UK can run a piece calling the Queen a cunt

This makes matters even worse. I think we have an obligation to insult world leaders this morally compromised who protect themselves from criticism through censorious laws and policies. In that spirit, Queen Elizabeth is a dead, inbred, nepo-baby under the delusion that her family's legacy of warcrimes was something to be proud of and (example below) Xi Jinping is an incompetent Winnie-the-Pooh look-alike running the world's second-largest economy into the ground. Don't be afraid to say so!

  • -17

For the reason she didn't renounce it all as soon as she could, she definitely deserves every insult. . . . I think we have an obligation to insult world leaders this morally compromised who protect themselves from criticism through censorious laws and policies.

It is permissible to argue this here.

In that spirit, Queen Elizabeth is...

What is not permissible here is actually delivering the invective. It's the epitome of pure heat, no light. You can argue that it should be permitted; it is not permitted here.

her ancestors were some of the worst war criminals who ever lived.

There's no need to insult Shaka Zulu, Julius Caesar, Temujin (aka Chinngis Khan), Attila, or Timur like that.

Yes, I know, and maybe about 50 others? Once you reach a certain level I'm not sure distinguishing who was absolutely worst is relevant and probably pretty impossible---how do you weight how many were affected, how brutal they were to each individual, how they were relative to others at the time, what they personally did vs. what others did on their orders, etc. This is why I said "some of the".

The British Empire was pretty exceptional in its scale and recency however.

I don't think the entirety of the British Empire can be laid at the feet of titular monarchs. Certainly George VI had no control over Churchill's actions with regard to the Bengal famine. And the conquest of India wasn't done by royal command, but instead by a corporation originally chartered just to trade. The British monarchs certainly didn't exercise the personal control that the people I named did.

Given that all empires everywhere and forever have done evil, I'd sooner distinguish them by what good they've done. From my American perspective, the British Empire might be the all-time winner for its role in creating the amazingly prosperous anglophone nations and for their role in preserving historical treasures. When the Ottomans were busy destroying the Parthenon with carelessly stored gunpowder, the British were spending their treasure to preserve what was left of it. Sure, I can find plenty of bad things that the British Empire did, but the world is better for its existence.

Once you reach a certain level I'm not sure distinguishing who was absolutely worst is relevant and probably pretty impossible

The British, however, did not reach that level.

Queen Elizabeth was an direct inheritor of stolen wealth who personally claimed fame, importance, and power for the sole reason that her ancestors were some of the worst war criminals who ever lived.

Worst war criminals with better technology, manpower, institutions and education. Also it was conquered fair and square, not stolen. Vae Victis.

If the word "fair" appies to conquering in your books then you might as well own stealing as well. After all, conquering is merely stealing while having enough manpower to do so openly.

Not quite. A state is monopoly of violence over certain territory. That's it. If a state conquers another state - than the first state had no business existing in the first place, so all property rights guaranteed by the conquered state are void

That's an unusual view. Might makes right is really not generally accepted as a good basis for morality. I guess it's best to link that instead of me badly summarizing a bunch of well-known arguments.

Edit: I think I understand better---you're saying that morality for countries/civilizations interacting is very different than that for people. I agree that this is probably true, but it would still be nice to justify why this particular difference exists. I think all the logic for might makes right being wrong for people transfers over? Most simply, it's better if societies could focus their energies on productive endeavors instead of zero-sum building of war-making potential so they can conquer and avoid being conquered.

Might does not make right between people only because there are legal systems in place that codify rights on bases other than might. Such systems do not exist between states, or are ineffective.

Might makes right is really not generally accepted as a good basis for morality.

Sure it is; that's why human beings seek might in the first place.

Standard operating procedure for the mighty is to claim that business and honor march hand in hand; specifically, a realist practice that ceases to be profitable for the mightiest is a useful cassus belli (militarily or financially) against the dishonorable opponent who might still otherwise be in a position to extract some benefit from it.

For example, a country whose economy means men and women aren't equally productive only granting rights to the more capable gender in aggregate will find itself labelled as "immoral" by a mightier country seeking to hinder their development until they obey.

This just means that there is no media outlet with “editorial independence” in the UK. Government funding + no editorial independence = state-run media.

And the charming lady didn’t deserve it

Of course not, just like Paramount Leader doesn’t deserve to be compared to Winnie The Pooh after doubling China’s GDP. Certainly we can agree that such common-sense regulations are necessary for the proper functioning of society.

Government funding + no editorial independence = state-run media.

Defining state-run media this way implies that the government funding is connected to the lack of editorial independence, which is false here.

The government funding implies a “don’t piss off the government too much” rule, at least more so than privately funded media orgs.

But the rule applies equally to the BBC and to privately funded media orgs. There is no "more so than" here.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats