You’re presupposing they would have 1) done it anyway and 2) at the same time it actually happened. They may have reconsidered their attack or delayed it. The delay could have given opportunity for the dynamics to change.
Arresting journalists from a huge news company would come with some blowback. The internal weighing of that potential blowback and how it affects the regime’s relations could have changed things. At the very least, it complicates things for them further - stalling them, making them waste time on listening and responding and managing the media to craft the narrative.
I think the previous poster was talking about “trust” in the sense of the politicians and fatcats trusting those newspapers, rather than in the sense of the public trusting them.
Certainly it’s the only way that post makes any logical sense since a newspaper that choses to selectivelly hide unlawful actions by the Politicians from the public cannot be trusted by the public, but they certainly look much more trustworthy to said politicians and the moneyed elites who own them.
I’d say that’s still compliance. They have every legal right to post that, and a history of free press. Caving to the fascist regime is compliance.
If you don’t have a press that dares to report, then what good is it?
They are in it for the long haul. If they break trust now, no one will ever trust them again.
The press has been doing this forever.
So, by not doing their job and caving to a fascist authoritarian regime, they’ve retained trust? They’re part of the fascist authoritarian regime.
You’re part of the regime, too.
You’re still paying taxes and obeying the law.
And even if you go out and start throwing bombs, you’ll be providing them with an excuse to be even worse.
Life isn’t a video game with easy answers.
The American fascist regime? I think not. I’m not American.
You do understand that they take taxes out of your paycheck before they give it to you right?
I was thinking about this scenario
Supposed the press had announced the attack. Trump would have gone ahead anyway, and arrested the ‘traitors.’
Nothing would have changed, except maybe a few more US troops would have died.
Anything wrong with my analysis?
You’re presupposing they would have 1) done it anyway and 2) at the same time it actually happened. They may have reconsidered their attack or delayed it. The delay could have given opportunity for the dynamics to change.
Arresting journalists from a huge news company would come with some blowback. The internal weighing of that potential blowback and how it affects the regime’s relations could have changed things. At the very least, it complicates things for them further - stalling them, making them waste time on listening and responding and managing the media to craft the narrative.
I think the previous poster was talking about “trust” in the sense of the politicians and fatcats trusting those newspapers, rather than in the sense of the public trusting them.
Certainly it’s the only way that post makes any logical sense since a newspaper that choses to selectivelly hide unlawful actions by the Politicians from the public cannot be trusted by the public, but they certainly look much more trustworthy to said politicians and the moneyed elites who own them.