• pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It was so frustrating watching some people treat him like he was anything close to a real journalist. He’s just the designated propagandist.

  • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      10 months ago

      I believe that’s Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              10 months ago

              Everybody has some sort of bias towards something. It’s ultimately just an opinion.

              Journalistic integrity isn’t about being non-biased, it’s about being upfront about bias and ideally the journalist actively trying to counter their own bias within their work.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they’re beholden to the company owners’ agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.

          You’re thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.

            Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.

            Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.

            Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ah yes, it’s only the evil right wing news outlets that have issues with transparency and corruption, but don’t worry, all the left wing ones are totally honest.

              And all billionaires are evil exploiters… unless they own liberal newspapers, then they’re totally ethical and there is no grounds for concern.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin’ hate.

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      How else they are paying their demonstrators money for each demonstration?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Soros, Bill Gates and the Bilderbergs, I guess? Probably also that Davos guy who Alex Jones et al TOTALLY aren’t fixated on for antisemitic reasons either, nuh-uh!

        /s in case it isn’t abundantly clear

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s a movement, isn’t it? That’s still a form of organization.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        No it’s not. It has no members. It had no leaders. It’s just an idea. What do you think an organization is?

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          A movement can have members and leaders even without formal organizational hierarchy. It just won’t look the same as something like a corporation, nonprofit, or government. The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader. The people who show up on a cold rainy Saturday instead of staying indoors with a warm cup of tea? Members. Just because membership and leadership is more amorphous doesn’t mean it isn’t there in some form.

          • iso@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader

            Nahh you got that wrong. What usually happens is that a lot of people who are into politics (which left-extreme people often are) hear about this at the same time (through some press release, some proud boys twitter account who’s rallyin their followers, etc.).

            From that point the information spreads over friendsgroups, small discords, tweets, whatsapps, in person, slowly but steadily.

            Any left-extreme person who hears this immediately thinks “I’m mad, I wanna show those guys that they’re not welcome”. Granted, some of us think about much more extreme things, but back to the point. The first reaction from that thought is often “is there a counter protest?”. People are then doing the same thing but the other way around, as now everyone is trying to find some tweet, event, whatsapp message screenshot, whatever, of someone saying where the meeting point for an event would be. If none are found, someones gonna create something, which is usuqlly someone who’s got a lot of connections with other left-extremists. Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.

            Worst case you just have a bunch of friends groups going to the meeting spot of wherever the initial event is happening.

            That’s “the antifa”. A massive network of friends and friends of friends of friends who are all pretty aligned in their political views (which is “fuck Nazis”) but who often don’t know more then 5 other antifacists.

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.

              This is kind of my point, in a way. It was maybe simplistic to use one person. There is leadership, but there are many leaders, and they don’t have a badge with “Antifa CEO”. Though someone really needs to make stickers with “Antifa CEO”. One of my former managers came from activist circles like antifa. She will always be my favorite manager because she is so great at making sure even shy people feel heard.

      • NostraDavid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        People are just nitpicking the meaning of the word Organization. Antifa is an organization in a very loose definition of the word. If you want to be more accurate, you’d call it a Network. Organizations (in the stricter sense) has a single leader and has a very tree-like structure with more power on top (like Corporations!), which Antifa obviously is not.

        Though you’re correct in that Antifa is a “movement”.

      • InputZero@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        In my opinion it would be a movement if facism was the status quo. Given most people are discussing Western nations, which while adopting facism at an alarming pace; are not yet facist. Antifa is not a movement nor an organization. Since not being facist is the status quo and antifa means that you’re not going to support facism, in my opinion antifa is the current “establishment” and being facist is an effort to move the status quo. Aka a movement.

    • HardNut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.

      Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.

      One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren’t part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.

      Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren’t a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.

      Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that’s the thing people here are talking about. They’re a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It’s really funny to me that so many here are appealing to “they’re not even a real org” in the face of dissent, because that’s one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.

      • jayrhacker@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.

        • HardNut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m sure that’s part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.

          Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they’re not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn’t use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he’s trying to investigate and see what they’re about.

          It’s a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don’t mind me asking, if you don’t think the word organization is appropriate, what’s better? I mean I just say group, can’t really be wrong going that general but it also doesn’t say much. Like, when you said “people who participate in Antifa…”, what type of thing are those people participating in?

        • Narauko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are “organizing” even if no one is in charge. You don’t need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don’t not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don’t understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It’s like saying that the Deadheads aren’t a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.

            • Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I haven’t argued anything before that post, but this conversation about the semantics of the word organization means is interesting to me. To answer your question, I’d say Yes? Deadheads were a group of people associating with each other under common interest and intent. They didn’t particularly have leaders or any hierarchical structure, but they gathered in locations of common interest (concert venues and the surrounding local) based solely on individual discussion and desire, participated in the event alongside and with the group, and almost everyone participating identified as a deadhead. I really don’t understand the problem with them falling under the edge of the umbrella of the term organization.

              They were an organization when viewed as an association or society: in this case a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. Deadheads were a distinct subculture in and of themselves, and I don’t understand in what universe that wouldn’t qualify. Keeping with the musician fandom, I’d say the same for the Juggalo’s. Being on the outer edge of the Venn diagram is still part of the whole picture.

  • olbaidiablo @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Fascist journalist fears for life.” I fail to see where the problem is. People would have been cheering this in 1945.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      One problem is that what they’re calling him is completely inaccurate. “Journalist” implies impartiality, of at least content with a non-zero amount of truth.

  • Pavidus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Someone mentioned antifa at work the other day, and I said, “Antifa? I’m in. Shitting on fascists has been an American pass time for a century or better.”

    The looks of shock and horror on my coworkers faces was quite the sight to behold.

    • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well, I can tell you, in Europe Extremist Voters switch without thinking twice between far left and far right.

      Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.

      Both hate the West, especially the US and Israel, both hate the way we live but without offering a better way. Both want to burn down the house just to see who survives. Only the Arguments differ, the left hate the people running their own society, the right hate the people running other society.

      And always remember, Hitler was a National-SOCIALIST.

      • ElmarsonTheThird@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The “Socialist” in the NSDAP is only a honeypot so they could claim ground and voters who leaned socialist without much thought (“I’m a mill worker like my father before me, we have always voted socialist. Buuut that National-Thing sounds nice”). Same with the “A” which stands for “Arbeiter” (Workers).

        There’s the same with the conservative party (CDU = Christdemokratische Union, Christ-Democratic Union) today. Lots of old people say “I’m a christian and that party has a C for ‘Christianity’ in its name.” In fact, their regional party in Bavaria, the CSU is more conservative. And you have three guesses what their “S” is for.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s more than just “fascist journalist”. Journalists report facts (at least that is what they’re supposed to do), any “blah blah journalist” is just “blah blah”

    Also, fuck this guy, he doesn’t fear for his life, it’s just a made up story so they can again shit on those they hate.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      He doesn’t fear for his life? There could have been deadly cement in that milkshake!

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 months ago

    Isn’t this the asian guy who doesn’t understand that white supremacists only like white people and claimed to be suing the CEO of Antifa for damages that never actually happened?

    • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m guessing that means this is also the dude who claimed people threw cement at him, when it was a milk shake.

      Then they claimed the milkshake had cement in it, so people pointed out things like sugar would keep cement from hardening.

      Then the cops said they had no reason to assume it was concrete, and no one suggested it was, despite them and the guy being the ones who said it was concrete.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Eyup, that’s the guy. It was also around the time others on the right claimed that people were pouring gasoline into bags in order to make “Makeshift Molotv Cocktails”

        When

        1. the whole point of a Molotov Cocktail is that it’s a makeshift weapon that the proletariat will always have access to as it’s just alcohol and fire

        B) A plastic bag wouldn’t make for a good molotov cocktail as it would just fucking disintegrate and couldn’t be thrown that far of a distance, if any at all

        • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Also, the cloth hanging over on to the side of the bag could melt the plastic, and then catch fire

          Or it might just not break and spread

          I get the point of misinformation isn’t that it needs to make sense, but some times I hear this stuff and wonder fucking why? At least try.

  • lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Finally I understand what antifa means.

    I am not American and have been out of the loop for years now.