By that, I mean myself and most the planet don’t have enough money to buy politicians who make the rules that make them more money. Instead we get models that talk about people like they are commodities and say the social impact won’t be be so bad
Note his usual focus on billionaire-run oligarchy which distracts from the corporate power that pays his salary:
‘But partly because billionaires own most of the media, most people never heard it.’
Also the mission of saving civilisation presented uncritically as something we should obviously be trying to do - despite the fact that civilisation is the cause of all these problems.
Anyway, triggered as usual. It’s an important story.
That is A) weird, and B) ambiguous. Which part civilization do you want to eliminate? Civilized discourse? Treating each other like we have the right to live?
Corporations are run by billionaires. Where’s the line between these two?
I’m not a fan of Monbiot, but the ideas in this article stand on their own
Monbiot will speak of the shady billionaire but will not do so for the media corporation such as the one he works for not least because it is as dependent on advertising as its rivals. That makes it not only deeply embedded in a neoliberal capitalist system, but dependent on it for survival.
Yeah, billionaires, corporations, media, marketing, and the people who work them, that’s the system.
Arundhati Roy had a thing called “national Thanksgiving turkey”, after the ones that are pardoned each year by the President. The system lets some truth through, some reporters that get to say a little more than the others without getting harassed or cancelled. That creates the illusion of a free press and open society.
corporate power has a long history of rising up to crush dissent in society. That is why the media is one big problem that cannot be divided into an “underlying” problem – the right-wing press – and a “derivative” problem – the liberal media.