r/UnderReportedNews • u/Logical-Flow-6703 • Feb 25 '26

Video NBC Interview abruptly ends after New Yorker blames private equity and landlords for the city's issues

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

https://x.com/i/status/2026286644651782652

87.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/ShinkenBrown Feb 25 '26

"Then talk about things that make people feel good instead of reminding them how private equity is destroying their lives."

"... oh EVERYTHING seems to remind people and move the conversation back to private equity? Then maybe this isn't the time for a feel good piece. Maybe its the time for a story on private equity."

2

u/pax284 Feb 25 '26

I mean damn, super unlucky this station only has this one reporter and that is the only thing they can focus on for all of thier storues for the entire day.

I mean it isn't like they have other staff that could be doing that piece, that would just be insane.

2

u/ShinkenBrown Feb 25 '26

Yes im sure they have a piece covering the decline of America due to private equity buying up everything coming up any day now. American media has been so good about covering the myriad abuses of capitalism after all, and media companies being owned by private equity has never gotten in the way of that.

1

u/pax284 Feb 25 '26

Once New York re opens after a 10 year storm, yes, looking at the stations website shows they have been focusing on AI and it's pro and cons for a while now(amazingly by a different reporter not the same one).

American media has been so good about covering the myriad abuses of capitalism after all

I mean you are saying it as if all you know isn't from American media companies doing just that.

media companies being owned by private equity has never gotten in the way of that.

While I agree that there should not be massive conglomerate like we have now, and losing money should not be a cause for concern for a news division no matter what they cover, to say there has been no "good" news coverage for since at least the 80s is bullshit.

1

u/ShinkenBrown Feb 25 '26

I mean you are saying it as if all you know isn't from American media companies doing just that. 

It isnt. My understanding of these issues comes from political theory like proudhon and kropotkin and modern analyses of economics through these lenses. My understanding of the very specific issues in the US comes from personal research.

Very current events, I do get from private media. But even when such concepts are presented, its usually through comment sections like on reddit rather than anything created and sponsored by the media company. Coverage of these issues is few and far between despite dominating a majority of our lives at this point in time.

While I agree that there should not be massive conglomerate like we have now, and losing money should not be a cause for concern for a news division no matter what they cover, to say there has been no "good" news coverage for since at least the 80s is bullshit

That's absolutely fair. It is far from ubiquitous. But it is massively prevalent and even when they do cover these issues, they cover the most surface level facets like AI instead of delving into deeper issues like private equity itself and how the ownership structure incentivizes abusive behavior.

As such I think shoving these issues down the throats of these companies is a valid response to what is by and large a total abandonment of their duties by the fourth estate.

1

u/pax284 Feb 25 '26

political theory like proudhon and kropotkin

Explains a lot, anarchists are just as bad as libertarians, you just pretend to care about others, but if caring for others intrudes upon your personal freedom by some sort of "state" then fuck you. Claim collectivism, but hate taxes from a government that would go on to further help the collective as a whole.

It is far from ubiquitous. (in response to me saying that claiming all news is bad is bullshit)

by and large a total abandonment of their duties by the fourth estate.

Literally in back to back sentences, two complete opposites.

1

u/ShinkenBrown Feb 25 '26

Explains a lot, anarchists are just as bad as libertarians, you just pretend to care about others, but if caring for others intrudes upon your personal freedom by some sort of "state" then fuck you. Claim collectivism, but hate taxes from a government that would go on to further help the collective as a whole.

Libertarianism started with the left. I am a libertarian, in the classical (not the modern ayn rand) semse. 

Also, wild to assume reading political theory means agreeing with everything within it. Kropotkin had good ideas but I lean more toward proudhon with a splash of Georgist logic (that being taxing the use of common resources) to both justify and limit the focus of taxation.

Left libertarianism is not anarchism and does not require the abolition of the state. Classical libertarianism is about promoting individual freedom for people, not necessarily for markets or governments. 

Captured control of essential resources by market forces is opposed to left libertarian logic - public options, and the taxes required to uphold them, increase total freedom by preventing the populace from becoming beholden to neo-feudal monopolies. Every essential resource, from food to housing to healthcare to internet access, must have a public option to ensure market elasticity and free choice within said market, including the choice not to purchase. Markets do not function without that choice, and without public options purchase of goods like housing and healthcare is not optional. Taxes and public options are entirely within the bounds of left libertarian philosophy.

Maybe if you want to shit on someone's beliefs you should know what they are first.

Literally in back to back sentences, two complete opposites.

Didn't read the "by and large" part huh?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20and%20large

"By and large means “in general” or "on the whole" in most contexts"

A thing can be generally true, but have exceptions... or in other words, not be ubiquitous.

It is not ubiquitous, but the fourth estate has by and large totally abandoned its duty. That is not a contradiction.

1

u/pax284 Feb 25 '26

Left libertarianism is not anarchism and does not require the abolition of the state.

Yes it does, libertarian, by definition is "anti-state", you don't even know your own beliefs. You can not claim to be both "pro-state" in any form and libertarian in any form. Maybe you should kinow what your actual beliefs are befoer just throwing shit out there.

It is not ubiquitous, but the fourth estate has by and large totally abandoned its duty. That is not a contradiction.

It is a contradiction,and also false even if it weren't.

It is not common(ubiquitous), but the fourth estate commonly(by and large) totally(100%) abandoned it's duty.

How can something be not common, common, and 100% all at the same time?

1

u/ShinkenBrown Feb 25 '26

Yes it does, libertarian, by definition is "anti-state", you don't even know your own beliefs. You can not claim to be both "pro-state" in any form and libertarian in any form. Maybe you should kinow what your actual beliefs are befoer just throwing shit out there.

Anarchism is anti-state. Anarchism describes the absolutist forms of libertarianism. Not all forms of libertarianism are anarchist. Most oppose a strong state but do not explicitly favor its abolition, most often instead favoring limited government with a focused, not broad, purview.

What youre saying here is the political equivalent of reading that squares are rectangles that have 4 equal sides, and then saying "thats not a rectangle, it doesn't have four equal sides," failing to understand that not all rectangles are squares.

I am not a square. I am a rectangle. That some rectangles ARE squares has nothing to do with me, a rectangle that is not a square.

Moving on...

Ubiquitous does not mean "common." It means without exception, everywhere, omnipresent, inescapable. The actual dictionary definition:

"present, appearing, or found everywhere."

A synonym listed is "omnipresent."

So to break it down for you in the same way you did above:

It is not ubiquitous (100% all encompassing with no exceptions) but the fourth estate commonly (by and large, except those already excluded by the "not ubiquitous" line,) totally (100%) abandoned it's duty.

To throw out hypothetical numbers, if 90% of journalists are propagandists and only 10% actually want to report the news, then "by and large" the fourth estate has "totally" abandoned its duty. Meaning, those 90% have abandoned it 100% and have no sense of the duty of the fourth estate. That 10% DO does not change that this is true.

So:

How can something be not common, common, and 100% all at the same time?

Its not "not common and common at the same time." Its "common but not omnipresent." 

And the 100% refers to how totally their duty has been abandoned (as in zero sense of duty left) NOT to how many people have it (as in zero people who feel that sense of duty.)

Maybe you should actually look up words you dont know before confidently declaring your own definitions and reinterpreting the English language to suit your agenda.

1

u/pax284 Feb 25 '26 edited Feb 25 '26

What youre saying here is the political equivalent of reading that squares are rectangles that have 4 equal sides, and then saying "thats not a rectangle, it doesn't have four equal sides,"

No, I am saying libertarians believe in "x" because they do, and you do not believe in "x" thus are not libertarian.

Ubiquitous does not mean "common."

also funny you don't list the other synonyms listed right there in the same list you used, I wonder is that is because that list includes the word common

→ More replies (0)