this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024

156 points (89.4% liked)

News

36419 readers

2238 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

156

Americans' inflation-adjusted incomes rebounded to pre-pandemic levels last year (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by fukhueson@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

I was wondering when APnews would be suspect in this sub... turns out it's when it veers outside the accepted discourse on lemmy... or doesn't appease them enough.

Status quo, hiding the "real" picture... unreal. All of this while providing absolutely no evidence contrary to anything in the article. Quality discussion.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think you missed the point. The parent comment explains it well. It's not that AP specifically is suspect. It's a comment on the wider discourse where AP is but one participant. Perhaps one of the best ones. AP is generally a good source. The whole discourse on the topic is propagandist in the way that it works in favour of firms, not labor.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No I understand the point, it's that good news about the economy must be down played because of various unsourced opinion A, B, and C that don't dispute anything in the article but do still manage to accuse AP news of presenting information with an agenda.

This scrutiny is not applied when the reported information is in line with what the community believes. The article even discusses caveats to the good news:

The data showed that while the typical American household regained its 2019 purchasing power in 2023, it essentially experienced no rise in living standards over that time. That is a sharp difference from the preceding four years, when inflation-adjusted median incomes rose 14% from 2015 through 2019.

But that isn't enough. The whole article needs to be cast with doubt, not because contrary evidence was presented, but because users feel AP news is shilling.

Ridiculous.

Edit: It's evident that, once I posted this excerpt, it was clung to like a life raft considering how many times it was spammed, and is somehow self disproving the premise of the article. Kinda sounds like the article wasn't read completely before first (down playing) opinions were cast. But hey, who reads the article? :)

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/78912/manufacturing-consent-by-edward-s-herman-and-noam-chomsky/

About Manufacturing Consent

A “compelling indictment of the news media’s role in covering up errors and deceptions” (The New York Times Book Review) due to the underlying economics of publishing—from famed scholars Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. With a new introduction.

In this pathbreaking work, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that, contrary to the usual image of the news media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order.

Based on a series of case studies—including the media’s dichotomous treatment of “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims, “legitimizing” and “meaningless” Third World elections, and devastating critiques of media coverage of the U.S. wars against Indochina—Herman and Chomsky draw on decades of criticism and research to propose a Propaganda Model to explain the media’s behavior and performance.

Their new introduction updates the Propaganda Model and the earlier case studies, and it discusses several other applications. These include the manner in which the media covered the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and subsequent Mexican financial meltdown of 1994-1995, the media’s handling of the protests against the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund in 1999 and 2000, and the media’s treatment of the chemical industry and its regulation. What emerges from this work is a powerful assessment of how propagandistic the U.S. mass media are, how they systematically fail to live up to their self-image as providers of the kind of information that people need to make sense of the world, and how we can understand their function in a radically new way.

[–] walden@sub.wetshaving.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I recently got dumped on for suggesting that budgeting is smart. Lemmy is disappointing, sometimes.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

"just budget better bro" isn't a response to a systemic criticism.