> The real risk for American broadcasters is not that dissent will be visible. It is that audiences will start assuming anything they do not show is being hidden
Kinda daft not to assume this has been the case for a long time already
The opening ceremony for the London 2012 Olympics included a celebration of the National Health Service, which got mysteriously cut from the broadcast in the US, at a time when there was a bunch of fuss over Obamacare that had come into effect a year or two before.
Was hard not to imagine that was a deliberate choice.
Well the "no censorship!"-crowd in rhe US has been strangly focused on the censorship of racists, bigots and nazis. I don't think they consider censorship that benefits the Neo-feudalist lords as censorship.
Even if a large conspiracy isn't involved, I believe that biases in worldview can contribute to these effects. However, I still think it's important to inform people of things they might be missing and hold media accountable for their choices, regardless of whether those choices are random or unknowingly biasedWe need to be careful not to fall into the allure of "fake media" in our outrage, as this could ultimately benefit populists in the long run.
What a weird worldview, celebrating censorship that aligns with corporate interests in healthcare, a basic necessity, while using the tired diatribe "but muh tax money!" to pathetically drum support for it, lol.
Aren't you tired of being so angry at the wrong stuff? Such an exhausting way to live.
Man, you really came commenting into an opinion piece by some "journalist" in a major news media outlet, denouncing that he didn't hear the "boos" loud enough, to tell the others that you think it's "an exhausting way to live" with the opposite opinion. Didn't you?
The NHS is a bit like the NRA in the US. Politicians and rich folk would ideally do away with it, but they cannot, so they have to play lip service to gain favour with the public.
So its not propaganda in the way you are thinking of.
You make it sound like NBC is some sort of obscure specialist service, but it turns out that they're actually a mainstream national broadcaster, available not just over the air but also on just about every satellite, cable, and streaming provider in the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC
Not only that, but they're the official Olympic broadcaster in the USA! Around 22m watched it on their broadcast services, and a further 3m on streaming.
In reality, an overwhelming majority of Americans watching the opening ceremony were doing so via NBC.
I honestly think the way they mix their audio is so the stadium noise gets turned down whenever the announcer talks and the American announcers just never shut the fuck up no matter how inane they might be.
my question is more technical: how did the blot out the booing? and: how live was it in the US? from the Academy Awards we know that they have a 5s delay (following the Michael Moore incident), but what is it with olympics broadcast?
The audio engineers are monitoring multiple mics (for an event of this magnitude probably dozens) and increasing or decreasing volume on them in real time for the mix that goes on the air. Standard for any sports broadcast.
While they do show it live, it's in the middle of the workday, so almost everyone in the USA will have watched it delayed by many hours at "prime time", aka around 8pm local time in each zone.
That being said, I'm in the US and I heard boos on the delayed broadcast.
I have showdead set to yes, and while so some articles get a gray color and an occasional [flagged] tag, everything is still searchable[0]. The only form of censorship is the ordering in the news list, but I could pick any other list[1] if I wanted to.
Yes. When it is complaint about some leftist student protesting and thus interfering with far right speaker free speech rigth to never be opposed, regualarly discussed. Rarely flagged.
But, when there is something making current admin or far right lool bad, flagged quickly
...so what? "Most stories about politics" are considered Off-Topic, as per the guidelines[0], and some members favor the flag- over the hide-button more than I'd like. It's still on place 19 on the active list[1], and a far cry from any practiced censorship like on Reddit, where stuff just gets [deleted] out of existence.
So North Korea, China, America, Russia and basically all other countries have propaganda, and Europe doesn’t? I live in Europe and think we do. Not everything that is in the news is true.
Europe doesn’t bill itself as “the land of the free” and doesn’t proudly tout itself as having free speech above all else no matter the cost. So famously fascist symbols - like the swastika/hakenkreuz among other things - are banned a few places, it may be controversial but it’s not a dirty little secret or anything like that
Your argument is no clearer. Someone's claiming US is beginning to resemble China in that they hide criticism of the ruling parties - they have not mentioned Europe once and you're saying ... something about censorship in Europe?
This reminds me of my Dutch friend who is prone to exaggeration to make things sound dramatic and scary to outsiders, and frequently claims the Netherlands is a "narco state" - big "Nederlandse hiphop: Ik kom van de straat" energy going on here.
"So other heads are also flamable. Do you think your head isn't?"
Something potentially happening elsewhere doesn't invalidate it being pointed out. In fact if Von der Leyen got booed in China and a Geeman broadcaster muted it, I would also like to know what was ommited.
Weird, I remember Western media ran full transcripts of his speech after the Ukraine invasion and every other time he crawled out of his bunker in the Urals. Would you like to enlighten us which important viewpoints of Putin get censored in the West?
Citation needed.. really sorry to say it because there are plenty of things to say about the current US administration.
It feels like people inventing this story, farming for followers on socials by manufacturing outrage. And a close read of the article will uncover that it was denied by the networks.
This needs a deeper dig before opinions be formed - especially given the vehement denials of manipulation by the broadcasters.
People in the US heard the boos, as evidenced by the comments and others posting about it. All politicians get booed. But how many? And who controls the mics? The editing? The news press?
More anti-American propaganda on HN. Why does this keep happening? This is not news, nor is it relevant for HN.
Hackers care about the truth. I don't think many here would consider the censorship of a US head of state being inherently pro-US (or the criticism of said censorship to be anti-US).
But feel free to elaborate why you feel wanting the US population to be able to see how their political leadership is perceived elsewhere is "anti-US" — cause I would describe it as the exact opposite.
Americans - and citizens of all big countries - know their leadership isn't popular everywhere, especially when other governments disagree with them on increasingly more issues (UK and French censorship of speech being one of them, ironically).
Seeing the 100th "U.S. government bad - please believe us this time" story from yet another activist-masquerading-as-journalist post from The Guardian (UK) ending up on the same website where technologists discuss innovations in tech and science is the real travesty here.
Kinda daft not to assume this has been the case for a long time already
reply