This can happen to anyone. Why is there no widespread concern or consternation about what the 1998 movie ‘enemy of the state’ predicted to happen?
replies(10):
No, it is annews story, and widepsread concerns are often reported on; its not widely reported on because the media is a mix of institutiins which tend to be either in support of the Administration doing it or in fear of being targeted in retaliation for reporting on topics like that.
Here is a list of major news media outlets from Wikipedia[1].
Which of the following do you think either supports the current administration or fears being targeted by it?
ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Politico, Bloomberg, Vice News, HBO, HuffPost, TMZ, CNET, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Time , U.S. News & World Report
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_State...
> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.
Unless you think threats of DOJ investigation, pulling broadcast licenses, or extremely expensive lawsuits don't produce fear? In that case you should let authoritarians know their playbook is out of date. Of course it's not, which is why authoritarians follow such a distinct pattern.
I suspect people will say they are critical of him, but "not enough" or cherry-pick 1 or 2 neutral headlines in a sea of critical ones.
Oh yeah and that they wouldn't publish a cartoon poking fun at the kleptocracy. The artist resigned in protest and went on to win a Pulitzer, which WaPo had no problem taking credit for.
Is it fair to say that Navalny didn't fear Putin because he was actually quite vocal against Putin?
I see. So “in fear of being targeted in retaliation” then?
I'd argue it's fairly directly responsible for the small number who don't support climate action too.
And I think the same applies to governments kidnapping people and ignoring courts who tell them it's illegal.
Literally things that you'd expect to find in an Alan Moore dystopian graphic novel, or as world building background TV headlines in a gritty Robocop described in peppy business as usual terms.
The top one is an alcoholic Fox News host being appointed as an Attorney General to replace a disastrous one that couldn't even get Republican support to be confirmed, a brief summary of his 120 days:
> He represented Jan. 6 defendants before getting the job, punished and demoted their prosecutors when he got it, and launched a series of ideological investigations (wokeness in medical journals, a five-year old Chuck Schumer gaffe) that went nowhere.
They all support it and none of them is afraid of being targeted because... they all support it, albeit in ways that are discernible only to those who can read between the lines.