War Meet ‘Dissenter’: A far-right ‘comment section’ for hating on journalists -

BigRuler

lmao bottom text
kiwifarms.net
That and/or the shitty culture and institutions have been going up against someone even worse
yeah that's a pretty important point. having a biased press isn't new. what is new is having a press that is openly biased against its own country and population.

if i check russian news, i can expect the narrative to be "russia great, murica bad", and for the most part that's what i'll be getting.
if i check chinese news, i can expect "china great, murica bad, japan evil" and that will be what most of them say.
this same pattern of "our country good, enemy country bad" can be found across the entire globe - except the west: if i check american news, i won't get the "USA best, russia bad, china evil" spin one might naively expect to find. instead we get "USA evil, white bad, negro good, islam great" all day everyday.

this is exceptional in the literal sense of the word. the press at large making itself the instrument of hostile propaganda against its own nation is unheard of.
this betrayal is why people are so damn mad at journalists.
 

TowinKarz

Thoroughly Unimpressed
kiwifarms.net
Conservatives are wrong about one thing:

Journalism throughout history has always been bad. There is no mythical era of good journalism. There has been good journalists but that has always been despite the culture and institutions.
I'll agree there was no Golden Age, but today is a fuckin' Dark Age post-Roman Empire collapse compared to how I remember journalism being in the late 90's. Not with nostalgia-tinted lenses, I still thought they were biased, but they still did a better overall job than the fact-less fee-fee-infused slop that passes for "news" these days.

I don't know what the greatest car ever built was, but I know a few that weren't it.

I don't know if journalism was ever great, but I can sure see it's current state is due to a 20-year-long skid with no end in sight.
 

Apoth42

Hehe xd
kiwifarms.net
I'll agree there was no Golden Age, but today is a fuckin' Dark Age post-Roman Empire collapse compared to how I remember journalism being in the late 90's. Not with nostalgia-tinted lenses, I still thought they were biased, but they still did a better overall job than the fact-less fee-fee-infused slop that passes for "news" these days.

I don't know what the greatest car ever built was, but I know a few that weren't it.

I don't know if journalism was ever great, but I can sure see it's current state is due to a 20-year-long skid with no end in sight.

Nah, it was comically bad 20-30 years ago.
 

frozenrunner

I could really use the salt
kiwifarms.net
Why are these """"""journalists"""""" so dedicated to giving free advertising to random shit they hate which no one knows/cares about? Who the hell even heard of "Dissenter" before now? Makes me wonder if the hit pieces written about this place gave it more traffic.
I had heard about it from a few different places, actually. This is being talking about by people who hate it because it has the potential to be a big deal (much more potential than GAB itself, the "freedom of speech Twitter that nobody uses," ever had). And they're holy warrior ideologues, so they're trying to get it in front of it. Because Dissenter would let people talk in places they've been told they can't talk by the regressives who shut down comments sections. You can imagine why they're so angered by its existence.
 
Last edited:

Sissy Galvez

kiwifarms.net
ITT tranny very upset people will comment negatively on his “masturbating as a tranny” article vs being able to silence bigots and critics.

It’s very humorous to me how these “people” get upset a corner of the internet could mock them without repercussion. Who cares, you have twitter and your articles without comments sections. Stick to your safe spaces and ignore it.
 

BigRuler

lmao bottom text
kiwifarms.net
I'll agree there was no Golden Age, but today is a fuckin' Dark Age post-Roman Empire collapse compared to how I remember journalism being in the late 90's.
the main difference is that back then there was no internet, so basically nobody had access to any information except what the press decided to broadcast.

take this for example:
681501


without the internet, all you would have ever heard would be CNN's version about how she "condemned the violence".
but thanks to the internet, you now have access to the actual quote, which is not nearly as non-violent and peaceful as CNN would have you believe.
in the 90s, this would have flown under the radar. they would have gotten away with it, everybody would have believed their lie. but today people have the means to find out what actually happened, and call them out on their manipulation.
 

Jane Lane

I met a high ranking mason at a gay bar
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'll agree there was no Golden Age, but today is a fuckin' Dark Age post-Roman Empire collapse compared to how I remember journalism being in the late 90's. Not with nostalgia-tinted lenses, I still thought they were biased, but they still did a better overall job than the fact-less fee-fee-infused slop that passes for "news" these days.

I don't know what the greatest car ever built was, but I know a few that weren't it.

I don't know if journalism was ever great, but I can sure see it's current state is due to a 20-year-long skid with no end in sight.
Journalism has always been a steaming pile of dog feces, but a reason why it attracts more flies and maggots now rather than in the 90s is due to the decline of newspapers. We have access to free articles online now, so we don't need to pay for the newspaper, which in turn devalues the work that journalists do. They are paid less because now we don't have to pay for our news. The journalists who were literate and could string a pretty phrase together are in greener fields which pay better. Now we read the words of the dregs who can't command a better price and are willing to subsidize their pittance with Patreon donations.
 
the main difference is that back then there was no internet, so basically nobody had access to any information except what the press decided to broadcast.

take this for example:


without the internet, all you would have ever heard would be CNN's version about how she "condemned the violence".
but thanks to the internet, you now have access to the actual quote, which is not nearly as non-violent and peaceful as CNN would have you believe.
in the 90s, this would have flown under the radar. they would have gotten away with it, everybody would have believed their lie. but today people have the means to find out what actually happened, and call them out on their manipulation.
Yes, journalism was manipulative then and is still manipulative now. But that doesn't mean the quality of journalism is the same. It has become so easy to publish articles thanks to the internet, that the only way a lot of these publications stay afloat is by fabricating controversy and churning out these terrible biased articles like the one in the OP. Which causes people to dislike journalists and journalism as a whole.
 

idosometimes

kiwifarms.net
Conservatives are wrong about one thing:

Journalism throughout history has always been bad. There is no mythical era of good journalism. There has been good journalists but that has always been despite the culture and institutions.
This is untrue. Journalism was partly objective when it had to be. The "glory days" of the 1950s or whatever where actually glory days. Media organizations were mostly non-partisan. This was a huge change from before when parties would run their own newspapers.

Journalism has moved away from facts and objectivity now because you can get facts anywhere. They are selling opinions. To get more viewers/readers, you need to be as crazy as possible.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
Yes, journalism was manipulative then and is still manipulative now. But that doesn't mean the quality of journalism is the same. It has become so easy to publish articles thanks to the internet, that the only way a lot of these publications stay afloat is by fabricating controversy and churning out these terrible biased articles like the one in the OP. Which causes people to dislike journalists and journalism as a whole.
W/r/t journalism, it's simply a matter of degree, not of kind. Shitty buzzfeed clickbait is no less fanciful than Walter Duranty's lies about the Holodomor, but they have a lot less impact due to the ability of people to contradict it. This ability to tied to the disintermidation properties of the internet: it lowers the barriers to entry, and it allows people like Buzzfeed to operate. OTOH, it lets people like us operate as well, as well as the "bloggers in pajamas" who took down Dan Rather in 2004. On balance, I'd say the latter more than makes up for the former.
 

NiggerFaggot1488

kiwifarms.net
Journalism is in fact better than it ever has been, in the past, the requirements of mass distribution ensured that only bought off editors would reach the minds of most people. Radio, and then TV broadcasts made this even worse, both because of the reduced need for literacy and the increased cost of production and distribution compared to print news. The internet turned that all on its head however.
"Journalism" as practiced by people with Journalism and Creative Writing degrees who get paid by corporations is as bad as it ever has been.

One big difference, and this was an anomaly from the 50s to the 00s, is that people believed in "objective" journalism. This mythical "objectivity" always seemed to coincide with whatever takes the CIA agreed with when it came to foreign policy matters. Take that however you like.

In the past everyone knew and accepted that all journalism was partisan, with newspapers proudly stating their political party affiliation. It was all much more honest than todays papers.
 

Next Task

kiwifarms.net
Journalism is in fact better than it ever has been, in the past, the requirements of mass distribution ensured that only bought off editors would reach the minds of most people. Radio, and then TV broadcasts made this even worse, both because of the reduced need for literacy and the increased cost of production and distribution compared to print news. The internet turned that all on its head however.
"Journalism" as practiced by people with Journalism and Creative Writing degrees who get paid by corporations is as bad as it ever has been.
I think it's a mixed bag. Recent stories like the Covington kids would have, in previous times, only been presented the way it initially was, because either we wouldn't have the video or we wouldn't see it if they did. So in that way there's an extra layer to journalism based on the amount of information available, and how it can force the media to be more honest.

But we realistically have to have people who curate and direct the news for us, because it is literally impossible to sift through everything ourselves, and as more and more information goes online it only gets worse. And I think nowadays, we see the rise of niche journalism. Because it's no longer cost-effective to be a national newspaper in the same way as pre-internet, and the fragmented market and overwhelming amount of information means specialising has been the only way to succeed, rather than fail less quickly.

But a big part of the problem for me is that I don't generally support an attack on journalists and journalism, but there's thousands of people who write absolute bullshit for bullshit websites - the author of this article being a prime example - who call themselves journalists, and have enough access to media to yell about attacks on them being attacks on the profession as a whole.

There are still journalists doing good work who deserve to be treated better. Journalists who usually work for local papers or specialty sites, journalists who are actually willing and able to uncover truth and have a standard of ethics and at least aren't actively trying to insert biases into their reporting. But as the popular conception of journalism goes from 'people who report news' to 'glorified blogger who lectures you based on opinions', then yeah, the whole profession feels like it should be dismantled and sold for parts.

tl;dr: There was no Golden Age. But there should be a difference between actual journalists and someone like Ana Valens, who should not be considered a journalist and yet gets away with calling himself one.
 

Karl_der_Grosse

Forget your lust, for the rich man's gold
kiwifarms.net
One of the most egregious problems with journalists nowadays is that the profession refuses to police itself in regards to bad actors, and also absolutely refuses to let anyone else police them. I think Clarence Thomas is on the right track in regards to making libel and slander cases easier to being and win. That alone would go a long way towards forcing journalists to adhere to a more professional code of conduct.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino