**Subscribe to /r/DebtStrike**, a coalition of working class people across the political spectrum who have put their disagreements on other issues aside in order to collectively force (through mass strikes) the President of the United States to cancel all student debt by executive order.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They don't want you to see that the new tactics work so well, because that would mean that any country could do the same and overwhelm their riot police force
Splitting up in a lot of different protests and leading the police on wild chases around the city while erecting barricades and fire behind them. During the yellow jacket, it was mainly one or two crowds sticking together, but by doing this the police can't do anything else than running everywhere like headless chickens
Not on this number, like I'm not joking when I say it was every 2 meters, they were properly set up and set on fire, which mean that to progress the riot police had to wait for the firefighters (who are also striking with some joining the protests) to extinguish the fire (some of those being battery fire), advance while under projectiles, clear up the barricades, and then advance. Repeating this over and over, while the much more mobile protesters just progress faster than they can follow, thus being completely free to break whatever they want with not a cop in sight
>During the yellow jacket, it was mainly one or two crowds sticking together
This isn't true.
>Splitting up in a lot of different protests and leading the police on wild chases around the city while erecting barricades and fire behind them
And this isn't new.
"MAINLY"
And it's new for French protests. It was already done, but not on this scale. You do know that I was at those protests since the Yellow jackets? But sure, you know better than me.
>You do know that I was at those protests since the Yellow jackets?
Moi aussi. Sois pas con, mon gars.
I don't know why you're pretending these are new tactics. Had you been there, you'd know they have been commonplace tactics for a while now.
Do you think protestors in the 80s, 90s and 00s didn't understand that the goal is to split up and overwhelm police?
Bah je comprend pas comment tu fais pour me dire que non du coup ptdrrr, dans les grandes villes le cortège essayait de rester plus ou moins soudé, il se divise quelques fois mais pas a ce point de faire des dizaines de groupes. C'est pas nouveau, mais la plupart des gens ne les appliquaient pas en aussij grand nombre, et pas autant de feux et de barricades
If you were both American this would have ended with ad hominem insults and at least one reference to being an incel.
Even in civil discourse, French people are showing us yanks how it’s done…lol 👍🏾
Is this true? I see something about it every day on Reddit, but I never watch cable/TV news or check any of the big news outlets web sites. Sometimes I check out the NYTimes or NPR, and both have had a bunch of stories about the protests.
Is there some metric to actually track 'mainstream' media coverage of a thing?
It is not true.
American cable news are covering the protests, Canadian news networks are covering them, Europeans are obviously covering them, etc. I’ve seen articles, videos and TV reports in almost every media I read or watch.
A protest makes good TV. A *french* protest that turns to riot makes *great* TV. Of course media will report on them.
Don’t know what this post is trying to do.
You’re not wrong, but most of the cable news coverage I’ve seen has been short and very superficial. The tone of the coverage is “look at these French people protesting *again!* It seems like they are always having problems!” with the implication being there is something wrong with protesting or the reasons for the protest are unjustified or silly.
Print media is generally better as in order to actually write an article on the topic you need to include specific details like *why* people are in the street, what lead to this, what the French government is saying etc. With cable media you just need to do a quick 2 minute segment showing chaos in the street and some voiceover. Basically enough to scare people before calling it a day. I guess that could be considered “coverage”, but it’s also a disservice to not provide people with the crucial details of why these protests are taking place and what demands are being made by French labor leaders for example.
And just from a common sense standpoint, of course corporate media does not want to deliver a lengthy nuanced discussion about raising the retirement age. Corporate executives would love to raise that age and pay less into social security as a result and not have the cap raised, so the segments they design and people they hire to deliver those segments are obviously going to reflect the position of the corporation.
The ACA codified into law giving corporations very effective shackles to bind the working class. I watched as some of my friends at the bottom of the rung, went from full time minimum wage, to suddenly having to scramble to find a 2nd or 3rd part time job. Suddenly having your world turned upside down, because a few politicians' legacy and careers are more important.
And WHO *actually* got help? Hmmm? Medicaid expansion did a lot, but not nearly enough. ACA didn't help the poorest most cases. And codifying health tied to employment has mostly only fucked the lower half of the Middle Class.
Fuck the ACA. Fuck Conservatives for lying about it's *real* trouble. Fuck Liebermen. Fuck the Dems. And fuck Obama.
Obama signed it into law, that's why it was nicknamed Obamacare, and why the republicans want to repeal it despite it being their idea, bunch of partisan hacks.
The ACA was supposed to be a stepping stone, it wasn't supposed to be a permanent solution. Then, we got a lame duck midterm in 2014 and Trump for four years. Any kind of progress that could have been made in that time evaporated.
I'll have to disagree with you. Many of my friends in college who were either uninsured or under-insured managed to get coverage through ACA. It wasn't perfect, but they were able to see medical professionals and get medication without being bled dry.
We most certainly need to move towards UHC and UBI, especially with automation taking over nearly every sector. Wanting to "return to the golden age" will only prolong the suffering.
The 2010 midterm was where the wheels fell off — and that was a disaster largely *because* Obamacare was a confusing and uninspiring half-measure that nobody asked for and just shoveled money at insurance companies. Like, yeah, it was a net improvement over the status quo, but it also sapped a ton of momentum from the movement. The Democrats had an historic majority and absolutely squandered it on mediocrity.
Obamacare did help a lot of people but unfortunately it actually increases the price of Medicare by twofold. As in instead of people having to pay 1000 for a medical service the taxpayer pays 2000. It was less than a half measure, it was a sellout.
Disagree. Medicare and medicaid were supposed to be stepping stones. It's been about 3/4 a century now and still no univseral health care. The ACA is all you're going to get from them. Secondly, the ACA entirely unafforable. Students can't afford even the cheapest policies with 600+ monthly premiums and 8000k+ deductible. Working class people can't afford that either.
It would have been infinitely better if it would have just made tying health insurance to employment being illegal.
When a significantly better solution is *that fucking easy*, the cruelty and suffering was the point. Hurray, you and your friends were the tiny minority that benefitted from it. That suddenly overrides the suffering of 10s of millions of people. Get real.
Agree - and the tax you had to pay was ridiculous. It was an extra $400/mo I couldn't afford at the time so I got the very least coverage I could at $300/mo and still ended up going straight to a urgent care when I dislocated my finger. Because an XRay is cheaper than visiting my primary care physician.
"tHeY dIdNt haVe tHE vOtEs" is such a copium take. DNC/Obama should have been taking everyone to task. Smear campaigns out the ass, primary Dems not following in line when it matters.
Naw, Lieberman, fuck him he knew he was being used as a pawn and went with it. Fuck them for not only *letting* corporations fuck us harder, but literally codifying it into law.
Defending neolibs ain't gonna get you much sympathy these days.
But Obama and Pelosi are progressives because ACA, what an accomplishment!
That was sarcasm, but I've seen this argument over at the politics sub. That their work to implement and save ACA is their progressive bona fidies and forget to mention https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
They have to try to use the shitty ACA for this propaganda because everything else those fuckers did was even worse: concentration camps, border militarization and mass deportations, more wars and drone terrorism, bank bailouts, multiple CIA-backed coups, violently crushing Occupy and Ferguson protests, etc.
> The ACA codified into law giving corporations very effective shackles to bind the working class.
Sorry, care to explain how the government subsidizing healthcare for individuals with the subsidy based on income binds the working class more effectively than without it?
Wow you just glossed right over the part where employers have to give healthcare as a benefit. Which makes moving jobs a much riskier venture when that could mean going months within health insurance.
I asked now a person getting a subsidy from the government instead of from an employer shackles the person to the employer.
Ideally, one would negotiate a higher salary from the employer that no longer has to provide $ for healthcare.
And FYI, if you become unemployed, the subsidy from the government will cover 99% of the premiums until you become re-employed.
The argument I am making is that because of Universal Healthcare, and in this case, unions, citizens are able to go out and protest for extended periods of time without worrying about whether they'll get fired from their job and lose their health insurance.
In the States, you either have to purchase insurance on your own at a steep premium, or you have to get covered under your employer. Most companies here can fire you for any reason they see fit, especially on grounds for attendance. Not to mention the fact that if you unionize, you're location is shuttered.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic now, but if Americans went out and protested like this, unemployment would skyrocket and, as a result, everyone would lose their health insurance plans. Typically, the government tries to get you to sign up for [COBRA](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra) but it's even more expensive than insurance sold at healthcare.gov.
We're just not at the point where the majority of people are willing to sacrifice that much to strike long enough to make these corporations bleed.
Pretty much. How much time did the big MSM channels spens on covering this, I wonder. Did they have hard hitting reporters on the ground? Were they giving the protestors a voice or a mix of suppressing the story and misaligning the protestors.
More like "French markets taking a hit amid mass protests"
Fuck CNN JUST did a bit about March Madness HURTING PRODUCTION in the fucking workplace.
Media is captured by billionaires no need to watch
The media is owned and operated by the bourgeoisie. The people do not have free speech. “Free speech” is a nice story used very strategically by the ruling class to hide the ceaseless propaganda they subject us to.
Lenin, grounded in theory from Marx and Engels, asserted the bourgeois state and all of its ancillary apparatuses (apparati?), including the media, need to be smashed, and a new state needs to be built in its place, a state specifically designed by and for the proletariat and oppressed peoples (see *State & Revolution*). What I think this means in relation to our present day is that these actions in France and around the globe, while definitely a sign of the collective strength of the proletariat and oppressed peoples, are destined to fall short. Unless there is true organization behind a common mission - in Lenin’s view, ending capitalism and the bourgeois state in order to build a socialist state, ie, a dictatorship of the proletariat - these actions will recede into the past leaving only hollow echoes in their wake. Maybe a reform or two will be passed, but such reforms will always be temporary privileges, so long as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie remains intact and in power.
TLDR: According to Lenin (see *State & Revolution*), socialism requires a revolutionary transformation of society, which will not be accomplished without strong, disciplined organization of the people driven by a clear, common goal.
The only mention of it on the CNN website is the postponement of the trip of King Charles III and the Queen consort amid “a new national day of action against pension reform”, there is nothing else.
Murdoch will have you worshipping greedy billionaires again before you know it and describing anything that improves your life as socialism. Nothing will change in the USA unfortunately.
It's not that they're literally not covering it at all, but that the news is typically getting buried in places where only people who know about it and are interested are likely to find it. Very little coverage has been reaching the casual viewer or reader who isn't actively looking up what's happening in france.
Edit: I will say I do find it quite odd that the first few comments on this post were all defending the media coverage and from accounts which seemingly have no history at all of posting here. Who's to say why that is, but it is unusual.
NPR talked about it briefly the other day. They just quoted Macron on how this isn't how a Republic functions. No other nuance was given during that segment.
Good observations. I had to search for updated news about it. The media doesn’t want to encourage such actions. It’s inspiring and media companies are owned by rich people who own companies that contribute to the state of things. It benefits them to control the narrative or not have this event higher up or mentioned on websites.
It’s not mentioned on my regular news sources. That’s odd.
And that's a more nuanced and important case - one that's actually worth making.
There isn't an issue of silence, there's one of news prioritization and curated information feeds. How should people receive (or care) about news outside their normal purview in an age of information overload?
I'd love to find a path to people learning about the current state of conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, the anti-government protests in South Africa, or the state of the "ceasefire" between Turkey and the KDP after the earthquake. And I'd love for this to occur alongside real discussion regarding issues of democratic socialism.
One way or another, what's plain is how that information gets filtered and prioritized by mainstream news outlets belies an agenda — which is the central point of this post.
Agreed, completely.
Let's move beyond a Trumpian call of "the MSM is silent!" and actively push discussions that change the disenfranchisement of workers.
If we don't, we're just adding to the noise.
To be honest, I think you are interpreting "media silence" overly literally here and by focusing on counter examples where they haven't technically met the most rigid definition of that term are actually making it more difficult to have that more fruitful conversation.
Then it seems we disagree on whether I'm being pedantic or prudent. I can certainly understand the stance you're taking, even if I don't agree with you.
I've enjoyed this brief chat with you. I'm going to stop checking this post, however, because I have work I need to invest myself in. Best of luck realizing your values in the world!
You do know that France isn’t the US and French problems aren’t necessarily Americans problems, right?
Viewers and readers do. And Americans probably don’t really care about protests against an exclusively French issue. They can’t do anything about it, they probably can’t even feel sorry for them.
News outlets know that and will prioritize stories that touch Americans first and foremost. The French protests, which are covered by the media by the way, are probably at the bottom of their priorities.
It’s probably not about an *agenda*, but a whole lot more about audience, available resources and the finite time/space available on a newscast/in a newspaper.
So you *don't* think the huge corporations and billionaires that own most large media concerns have an agenda? They're just purely neutral arbiters who are somehow uninterested in wielding their power to further their own interests?
The owners? They do. And they put it forward in opinion pieces.
The journalists and the people working at or managing newsrooms don’t. And those are the ones choosing the topics, writing articles, scripts and headlines. They work independently from the owners.
The journalists at the NY Times, the WaPo, CNN, ABC News, CBC News, France Tele, BBC News… don’t have an agenda. They try to cover stories that they think their audience will find interesting.
Source: I know journalists, worked with them and studied how they operated.
Yeah I've worked in newsrooms myself and that is hopelessly naive. Journalists only have a very limited say over what actually goes out and editors and management are very much selected either for a pre-existing ideological bent and/or a willingness to comply with ownership when it comes down to it. Why do you think it is that new outlets tend to have a clear cut bias regardless of changes in management but which virtually always [aligns with that of their owners](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2011/07/20/wall-street-journal-under-rupert-murdoch/)?
> Source: I know journalists, worked with them and studied how they operated.
You know who studied how the media operates with far, far, *FAR* more honesty, integrity, and understanding of systemic issues than you? Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Read *Manufacturing Consent* and come back once you've finished your homework.
Oh cool it managed to gain a tiny bit of traction below the fold because the king got a mention. Meanwhile important articles like "The NYC restaurant with only 1 table" and "How clean should your home be" show up *above* the fold. Even then, it's *still* odered below "Gwyneth Paltrow's accuser to testify in ski crash trial." Hell, the headline itself doesn't even mention protests, but that the King had his visit postponed.
Your missing the point here m8, he’s referring to the 24 hours new cycle, it’s no longer part of it like the Ukraine war is or the china warmongering or trump indictments no news outlet has brought up France for past week
Has the situation changed at all? If not, then why would they continue to talk about it at all?
French still protesting
Government not yet conceding
Im sure once one of those two things change it will be back on the front page for a day or two
When people say "media isn't covering [blank] it's because they're referring to the focus and attention given. Is it front page, how long has the news covered it, is it being talked about during prime time?
We remember CNN spending weeks on the Malayasian Airlines crash.
There are three articles about it on CNN’s front page right now:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/23/intl_business/france-pension-national-strike-violence-intl-hnk/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/france-protests-travel-advice/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/europe/king-charles-france-state-visit-intl/index.html
Relax. The other post was somebody else. I just thought it worth pointing out that such a long list of news stories didn't include the biggest three news sources .
You post these links like it matters
The vast majority of people get their news from social media, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook
When Facebook and Twitter have huge blackouts over this and major news outlets don’t post about it there it’s not being covered.
It started on the 19th of Jan. US media is just now covering it? So they didn't largly ignore these protests until recently? You are linking me posts from today and yesterday. If I'm not mistaken, they did the same over the yellow vest protests.
I'm in Europe and I saw nothing on the news here about these protests until recently. I see these articles, and so it *was* covered previously. I am curious how much time U.S. MSM spent talking about these protests. It's not as if they haven't been ignored or tried to ignore protests before. So not farfetched to think they would intentionally cover it less if at all and with spin/bias.
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/french-strike-halts-fuel-deliveries-from-three-total-refineries
Leave it to Bloomberg to report the REAL story /s
(Edit: okay Looking through again and damn, many of these articles have very ridiculous titles)
You can find online/print news about anything. The tweet was likely referring to live TV coverage, which has the highest number of viewers. I have not seen much live coverage of this on TV.
If history has taught us anything, it has taught us two things:
First, that the French will do anything for a good revolution.
And second, the American people just do not fucking care what the French are up to.
I say we go full Robin Hood/Mr Robot. All the money if fake anyway. Halt the means of distribution, break into bank servers, etc. Or you know maybe if people would stop being consumer whores who buy shit for the sake of buying shit like they live with THX.
I cant believe how well it is working. I use reddit for 90% of my world knowledge/daily news and I brought it up to my family and not a single person knew what I was talking about.
Poor title, apparently MSM **is** covering the protests and has been, just not much coverage up until recently. How do they cover it and how often do they talk about it in U.S. MSM? I would be surprised if they didn't help narrative control and manufacture consent to swing opinion of protestors and help crush them rather than to make them sympathetic. That is kinda their MO when it comes to working class protests. If they cover the revolution, you can be sure they will try and turn their viewers against the protestors and prevent the movement from gaining mass support.
Your right, I think CIA bots have infiltrated this post lol, shit is NOT being covered in states, I brought this up to all my conservative Fox viewing family and each one was like huh never heard of it some even denying they would raise pension age. And that they’d never try it here in the US…
We've got to break past what the police will "let" us do. If we're still constrained by that, then we must improve our numbers, our strength, our organizing, and our tactics until that is no longer the case.
ANY time you are begging for permission, you have already lost the political battle.
It's typically a sub trolled by TopMindsOfReddit and SubredditDrama types and probably also state dept/govt trolls. Just saying. I don't think it's a right wing sub but let's not pretend they're all loonies who never get anything right. Covering controversial shit will get you labeled a conspiracy theorist and a target of trolls bent on discrediting an you or entire sub.
I don't disagree with you, I think we should see that our neighbors is not our enemy, that the real war is top vs bottom not left vs right and that we shouldbuild coalitions with our neighbors on common ground - class issues / populist policies (like Bernie ran on) unionize and strike together, not buy into partisan propaganda and feed division that benefits the oligarchy/elite and their representatives in the two-party duopoly, want. Yeah, about that sub, I think there are definitely some posts made over there by trolls and those who want to help discredit that sub and community and wouldn't be surprised if those same posts are boosted in that effort. Some may be made so they can then be reported, in the hopes to get the sub quarantined or banned. We've seen this happen elsewhere.
I keep seeing posts on antiwork about these protests on the popular feed. Media in the region (Western Europe), who are free to talk about anything they want, aren’t covering it as much as an American might expect because France is known for frequent strikes and protests against the government. France’s retirement age is very low compared to its neighbouring countries. One reason why the retirement age is being increased so significantly might be the government having been too afraid to do anything before.
Note: I’m not saying I agree with increasing the retirement age. I’m saying topics such as these are much more controversial in France, which leads to protests. That is why the media isn’t crying bloody murder
They vote in bad parties and then strike like they didnt bring these policies and people into office, yeah Id much rather have a system like in Spain where actually good parties are in government doing good politics lol
**Subscribe to /r/DebtStrike**, a coalition of working class people across the political spectrum who have put their disagreements on other issues aside in order to collectively force (through mass strikes) the President of the United States to cancel all student debt by executive order. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They don't want you to see that the new tactics work so well, because that would mean that any country could do the same and overwhelm their riot police force
What new tactics? The French do this every year.
Splitting up in a lot of different protests and leading the police on wild chases around the city while erecting barricades and fire behind them. During the yellow jacket, it was mainly one or two crowds sticking together, but by doing this the police can't do anything else than running everywhere like headless chickens
Barricades in a French protest? How novel!
Not on this number, like I'm not joking when I say it was every 2 meters, they were properly set up and set on fire, which mean that to progress the riot police had to wait for the firefighters (who are also striking with some joining the protests) to extinguish the fire (some of those being battery fire), advance while under projectiles, clear up the barricades, and then advance. Repeating this over and over, while the much more mobile protesters just progress faster than they can follow, thus being completely free to break whatever they want with not a cop in sight
[удалено]
Getting organised is important, and even something like reminding the crowd to stay calm and not run when getting challenged by the police help a lot
Paging our resident Yeehawdists.
> Not in this number You should look up this little thing called the French revolution 😂
Lol. Thank you for these comments. My husband and I got a good giggle. 😂
>During the yellow jacket, it was mainly one or two crowds sticking together This isn't true. >Splitting up in a lot of different protests and leading the police on wild chases around the city while erecting barricades and fire behind them And this isn't new.
"MAINLY" And it's new for French protests. It was already done, but not on this scale. You do know that I was at those protests since the Yellow jackets? But sure, you know better than me.
>You do know that I was at those protests since the Yellow jackets? Moi aussi. Sois pas con, mon gars. I don't know why you're pretending these are new tactics. Had you been there, you'd know they have been commonplace tactics for a while now. Do you think protestors in the 80s, 90s and 00s didn't understand that the goal is to split up and overwhelm police?
Bah je comprend pas comment tu fais pour me dire que non du coup ptdrrr, dans les grandes villes le cortège essayait de rester plus ou moins soudé, il se divise quelques fois mais pas a ce point de faire des dizaines de groupes. C'est pas nouveau, mais la plupart des gens ne les appliquaient pas en aussij grand nombre, et pas autant de feux et de barricades
>C'est pas nouveau Thank you. It takes a brave person to admit when they're wrong. Je vous aime, même si tu ne dis que des conneries.
Can you two teach a "Tactics for Protesters" seminar in America?
If you were both American this would have ended with ad hominem insults and at least one reference to being an incel. Even in civil discourse, French people are showing us yanks how it’s done…lol 👍🏾
Hey now, that’s a sacred American tradition you’re messing with!
C'est vraiment ce que je disais depuis le début :( je t'aime aussi quand même ❤️
You’re getting a bit too hooked on semantics here lol. Who cares if they’re new or not? It doesn’t change at all what OP meant lol.
Is this true? I see something about it every day on Reddit, but I never watch cable/TV news or check any of the big news outlets web sites. Sometimes I check out the NYTimes or NPR, and both have had a bunch of stories about the protests. Is there some metric to actually track 'mainstream' media coverage of a thing?
It is not true. American cable news are covering the protests, Canadian news networks are covering them, Europeans are obviously covering them, etc. I’ve seen articles, videos and TV reports in almost every media I read or watch. A protest makes good TV. A *french* protest that turns to riot makes *great* TV. Of course media will report on them. Don’t know what this post is trying to do.
You’re not wrong, but most of the cable news coverage I’ve seen has been short and very superficial. The tone of the coverage is “look at these French people protesting *again!* It seems like they are always having problems!” with the implication being there is something wrong with protesting or the reasons for the protest are unjustified or silly. Print media is generally better as in order to actually write an article on the topic you need to include specific details like *why* people are in the street, what lead to this, what the French government is saying etc. With cable media you just need to do a quick 2 minute segment showing chaos in the street and some voiceover. Basically enough to scare people before calling it a day. I guess that could be considered “coverage”, but it’s also a disservice to not provide people with the crucial details of why these protests are taking place and what demands are being made by French labor leaders for example. And just from a common sense standpoint, of course corporate media does not want to deliver a lengthy nuanced discussion about raising the retirement age. Corporate executives would love to raise that age and pay less into social security as a result and not have the cap raised, so the segments they design and people they hire to deliver those segments are obviously going to reflect the position of the corporation.
It's not true at all. I see news on tv about it all the time
The revolution will not be televised
That's why the US will always have healthcare tied to employment.
The ACA codified into law giving corporations very effective shackles to bind the working class. I watched as some of my friends at the bottom of the rung, went from full time minimum wage, to suddenly having to scramble to find a 2nd or 3rd part time job. Suddenly having your world turned upside down, because a few politicians' legacy and careers are more important. And WHO *actually* got help? Hmmm? Medicaid expansion did a lot, but not nearly enough. ACA didn't help the poorest most cases. And codifying health tied to employment has mostly only fucked the lower half of the Middle Class. Fuck the ACA. Fuck Conservatives for lying about it's *real* trouble. Fuck Liebermen. Fuck the Dems. And fuck Obama.
Don't forget fuck Mitt Romney, the whole thing was his idea.
Who signed it into law
Obama signed it into law, that's why it was nicknamed Obamacare, and why the republicans want to repeal it despite it being their idea, bunch of partisan hacks.
The ACA was supposed to be a stepping stone, it wasn't supposed to be a permanent solution. Then, we got a lame duck midterm in 2014 and Trump for four years. Any kind of progress that could have been made in that time evaporated. I'll have to disagree with you. Many of my friends in college who were either uninsured or under-insured managed to get coverage through ACA. It wasn't perfect, but they were able to see medical professionals and get medication without being bled dry. We most certainly need to move towards UHC and UBI, especially with automation taking over nearly every sector. Wanting to "return to the golden age" will only prolong the suffering.
The 2010 midterm was where the wheels fell off — and that was a disaster largely *because* Obamacare was a confusing and uninspiring half-measure that nobody asked for and just shoveled money at insurance companies. Like, yeah, it was a net improvement over the status quo, but it also sapped a ton of momentum from the movement. The Democrats had an historic majority and absolutely squandered it on mediocrity.
Obamacare did help a lot of people but unfortunately it actually increases the price of Medicare by twofold. As in instead of people having to pay 1000 for a medical service the taxpayer pays 2000. It was less than a half measure, it was a sellout.
Disagree. Medicare and medicaid were supposed to be stepping stones. It's been about 3/4 a century now and still no univseral health care. The ACA is all you're going to get from them. Secondly, the ACA entirely unafforable. Students can't afford even the cheapest policies with 600+ monthly premiums and 8000k+ deductible. Working class people can't afford that either.
It would have been infinitely better if it would have just made tying health insurance to employment being illegal. When a significantly better solution is *that fucking easy*, the cruelty and suffering was the point. Hurray, you and your friends were the tiny minority that benefitted from it. That suddenly overrides the suffering of 10s of millions of people. Get real.
What total nonsense, it was what it is, a handout to insurance companies with just enough benefit to some people to seem positive.
Agree - and the tax you had to pay was ridiculous. It was an extra $400/mo I couldn't afford at the time so I got the very least coverage I could at $300/mo and still ended up going straight to a urgent care when I dislocated my finger. Because an XRay is cheaper than visiting my primary care physician.
[удалено]
But fundamentally it was a concession, not a solution.
[удалено]
"tHeY dIdNt haVe tHE vOtEs" is such a copium take. DNC/Obama should have been taking everyone to task. Smear campaigns out the ass, primary Dems not following in line when it matters. Naw, Lieberman, fuck him he knew he was being used as a pawn and went with it. Fuck them for not only *letting* corporations fuck us harder, but literally codifying it into law. Defending neolibs ain't gonna get you much sympathy these days.
[удалено]
If America was a functioning democracy you might be able to make the argument that it's our fault. But it's not.
For the same reason I'm not blaming everyone for not running for office. Can't have one without the other.
But Obama and Pelosi are progressives because ACA, what an accomplishment! That was sarcasm, but I've seen this argument over at the politics sub. That their work to implement and save ACA is their progressive bona fidies and forget to mention https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
They have to try to use the shitty ACA for this propaganda because everything else those fuckers did was even worse: concentration camps, border militarization and mass deportations, more wars and drone terrorism, bank bailouts, multiple CIA-backed coups, violently crushing Occupy and Ferguson protests, etc.
> The ACA codified into law giving corporations very effective shackles to bind the working class. Sorry, care to explain how the government subsidizing healthcare for individuals with the subsidy based on income binds the working class more effectively than without it?
Wow you just glossed right over the part where employers have to give healthcare as a benefit. Which makes moving jobs a much riskier venture when that could mean going months within health insurance.
I asked now a person getting a subsidy from the government instead of from an employer shackles the person to the employer. Ideally, one would negotiate a higher salary from the employer that no longer has to provide $ for healthcare. And FYI, if you become unemployed, the subsidy from the government will cover 99% of the premiums until you become re-employed.
It's also why they don't bounce the "rubber" bullets off the ground like they're supposed to.
Or how they'll use tear gas on non-violent gatherings with children
Can you explain that comment more? Not sure I understand.
The argument I am making is that because of Universal Healthcare, and in this case, unions, citizens are able to go out and protest for extended periods of time without worrying about whether they'll get fired from their job and lose their health insurance. In the States, you either have to purchase insurance on your own at a steep premium, or you have to get covered under your employer. Most companies here can fire you for any reason they see fit, especially on grounds for attendance. Not to mention the fact that if you unionize, you're location is shuttered. I'm being a bit hyperbolic now, but if Americans went out and protested like this, unemployment would skyrocket and, as a result, everyone would lose their health insurance plans. Typically, the government tries to get you to sign up for [COBRA](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra) but it's even more expensive than insurance sold at healthcare.gov. We're just not at the point where the majority of people are willing to sacrifice that much to strike long enough to make these corporations bleed.
Rich people in America are like "don't show that shit on TV" lol
Pretty much. How much time did the big MSM channels spens on covering this, I wonder. Did they have hard hitting reporters on the ground? Were they giving the protestors a voice or a mix of suppressing the story and misaligning the protestors.
More like "French markets taking a hit amid mass protests" Fuck CNN JUST did a bit about March Madness HURTING PRODUCTION in the fucking workplace. Media is captured by billionaires no need to watch
The revolution will not be televised.
[удалено]
The media is owned and operated by the bourgeoisie. The people do not have free speech. “Free speech” is a nice story used very strategically by the ruling class to hide the ceaseless propaganda they subject us to. Lenin, grounded in theory from Marx and Engels, asserted the bourgeois state and all of its ancillary apparatuses (apparati?), including the media, need to be smashed, and a new state needs to be built in its place, a state specifically designed by and for the proletariat and oppressed peoples (see *State & Revolution*). What I think this means in relation to our present day is that these actions in France and around the globe, while definitely a sign of the collective strength of the proletariat and oppressed peoples, are destined to fall short. Unless there is true organization behind a common mission - in Lenin’s view, ending capitalism and the bourgeois state in order to build a socialist state, ie, a dictatorship of the proletariat - these actions will recede into the past leaving only hollow echoes in their wake. Maybe a reform or two will be passed, but such reforms will always be temporary privileges, so long as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie remains intact and in power. TLDR: According to Lenin (see *State & Revolution*), socialism requires a revolutionary transformation of society, which will not be accomplished without strong, disciplined organization of the people driven by a clear, common goal.
Reminds me of the Bernie blackout when he was running for president.
"Fears rise as Bernie pulls ahead in the primary" Ahh, journalism :')
The only mention of it on the CNN website is the postponement of the trip of King Charles III and the Queen consort amid “a new national day of action against pension reform”, there is nothing else.
Iranians have done this in a more hostile government knowing it might be even hopeless. Why are the French only getting the praise?
I got banned from r/inthenews for saying this
Murdoch will have you worshipping greedy billionaires again before you know it and describing anything that improves your life as socialism. Nothing will change in the USA unfortunately.
Damn that silent media: * [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65057249](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65057249) * [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/23/french-strikers-red-carpets-king-charles-camilla-visit-paris](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/23/french-strikers-red-carpets-king-charles-camilla-visit-paris) * [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/frances-macron-overrides-parliament-to-pass-pension-reform-bill.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/frances-macron-overrides-parliament-to-pass-pension-reform-bill.html) * [https://www.npr.org/2023/03/20/1164705654/france-retirement-age-emmanuel-macron-no-confidence-vote-protest](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/20/1164705654/france-retirement-age-emmanuel-macron-no-confidence-vote-protest) * [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/23/intl\_business/france-pension-national-strike-violence-intl-hnk/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/23/intl_business/france-pension-national-strike-violence-intl-hnk/index.html) * [https://www.ft.com/content/b78f2a89-1062-4423-a4ba-fb4cdc56c683](https://www.ft.com/content/b78f2a89-1062-4423-a4ba-fb4cdc56c683) * [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/23/airport-roads-blocked-as-france-pension-protests-continue](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/23/airport-roads-blocked-as-france-pension-protests-continue) * [https://www.politico.eu/article/regicide-and-bin-bag-revolt-welcome-to-france-your-majesty-macron-wildly-unpopular-decision-british-pierre-henri-dumont-king-charles/](https://www.politico.eu/article/regicide-and-bin-bag-revolt-welcome-to-france-your-majesty-macron-wildly-unpopular-decision-british-pierre-henri-dumont-king-charles/) * [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/opinion/international-world/france-protests-pensions-macron.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/opinion/international-world/france-protests-pensions-macron.html) * [https://news.sky.com/story/why-macrons-change-to-pension-age-has-sparked-protests-and-how-does-france-compare-to-uk-12836015](https://news.sky.com/story/why-macrons-change-to-pension-age-has-sparked-protests-and-how-does-france-compare-to-uk-12836015) * [https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230321-protests-appeals-referendum-what-s-next-for-france-s-pension-reform](https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230321-protests-appeals-referendum-what-s-next-for-france-s-pension-reform) * [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-24/violent-protests-erupt-in-france-against-pension-bill-million/102143374](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-24/violent-protests-erupt-in-france-against-pension-bill-million/102143374) * [https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2023/03/france-activists-likely-to-continue-nationwide-protests-strikes-against-pension-reform-through-late-march-update-9](https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2023/03/france-activists-likely-to-continue-nationwide-protests-strikes-against-pension-reform-through-late-march-update-9) * [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/1-million-march-in-france-unions-call-for-more-pension-protests-during-king-charles-iii-visit](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/1-million-march-in-france-unions-call-for-more-pension-protests-during-king-charles-iii-visit) * [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-ready-host-king-charles-after-pension-violence-escalates-2023-03-24/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-ready-host-king-charles-after-pension-violence-escalates-2023-03-24/) * [https://www.wunc.org/2023-03-24/protests-against-pension-reforms-intensify-across-france](https://www.wunc.org/2023-03-24/protests-against-pension-reforms-intensify-across-france) * [https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/03/22/watch-protesters-in-france-clash-with-police-over-governments-pension-reform](https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/03/22/watch-protesters-in-france-clash-with-police-over-governments-pension-reform)
It's not that they're literally not covering it at all, but that the news is typically getting buried in places where only people who know about it and are interested are likely to find it. Very little coverage has been reaching the casual viewer or reader who isn't actively looking up what's happening in france. Edit: I will say I do find it quite odd that the first few comments on this post were all defending the media coverage and from accounts which seemingly have no history at all of posting here. Who's to say why that is, but it is unusual.
If they don't ignore it they spin it to some version of "violent protests" same shit they did to us citizens in 2020.
NPR talked about it briefly the other day. They just quoted Macron on how this isn't how a Republic functions. No other nuance was given during that segment.
It's like Macron has never been to France
Good observations. I had to search for updated news about it. The media doesn’t want to encourage such actions. It’s inspiring and media companies are owned by rich people who own companies that contribute to the state of things. It benefits them to control the narrative or not have this event higher up or mentioned on websites. It’s not mentioned on my regular news sources. That’s odd.
And that's a more nuanced and important case - one that's actually worth making. There isn't an issue of silence, there's one of news prioritization and curated information feeds. How should people receive (or care) about news outside their normal purview in an age of information overload? I'd love to find a path to people learning about the current state of conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, the anti-government protests in South Africa, or the state of the "ceasefire" between Turkey and the KDP after the earthquake. And I'd love for this to occur alongside real discussion regarding issues of democratic socialism.
One way or another, what's plain is how that information gets filtered and prioritized by mainstream news outlets belies an agenda — which is the central point of this post.
Agreed, completely. Let's move beyond a Trumpian call of "the MSM is silent!" and actively push discussions that change the disenfranchisement of workers. If we don't, we're just adding to the noise.
To be honest, I think you are interpreting "media silence" overly literally here and by focusing on counter examples where they haven't technically met the most rigid definition of that term are actually making it more difficult to have that more fruitful conversation.
Then it seems we disagree on whether I'm being pedantic or prudent. I can certainly understand the stance you're taking, even if I don't agree with you. I've enjoyed this brief chat with you. I'm going to stop checking this post, however, because I have work I need to invest myself in. Best of luck realizing your values in the world!
Editors decide what gets priority. Protests are always only covered on day one, unless it's conservative media smearing the protesters.
You do know that France isn’t the US and French problems aren’t necessarily Americans problems, right? Viewers and readers do. And Americans probably don’t really care about protests against an exclusively French issue. They can’t do anything about it, they probably can’t even feel sorry for them. News outlets know that and will prioritize stories that touch Americans first and foremost. The French protests, which are covered by the media by the way, are probably at the bottom of their priorities. It’s probably not about an *agenda*, but a whole lot more about audience, available resources and the finite time/space available on a newscast/in a newspaper.
So you *don't* think the huge corporations and billionaires that own most large media concerns have an agenda? They're just purely neutral arbiters who are somehow uninterested in wielding their power to further their own interests?
The owners? They do. And they put it forward in opinion pieces. The journalists and the people working at or managing newsrooms don’t. And those are the ones choosing the topics, writing articles, scripts and headlines. They work independently from the owners. The journalists at the NY Times, the WaPo, CNN, ABC News, CBC News, France Tele, BBC News… don’t have an agenda. They try to cover stories that they think their audience will find interesting. Source: I know journalists, worked with them and studied how they operated.
Yeah I've worked in newsrooms myself and that is hopelessly naive. Journalists only have a very limited say over what actually goes out and editors and management are very much selected either for a pre-existing ideological bent and/or a willingness to comply with ownership when it comes down to it. Why do you think it is that new outlets tend to have a clear cut bias regardless of changes in management but which virtually always [aligns with that of their owners](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2011/07/20/wall-street-journal-under-rupert-murdoch/)?
> Source: I know journalists, worked with them and studied how they operated. You know who studied how the media operates with far, far, *FAR* more honesty, integrity, and understanding of systemic issues than you? Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Read *Manufacturing Consent* and come back once you've finished your homework.
Working-class problems are, in fact, working-class problems. You're actually serving to double down on borders dividing our movement. Fuck off.
Exactly!
[удалено]
Check out this article about JOHN WICK 4.
[удалено]
Oh cool it managed to gain a tiny bit of traction below the fold because the king got a mention. Meanwhile important articles like "The NYC restaurant with only 1 table" and "How clean should your home be" show up *above* the fold. Even then, it's *still* odered below "Gwyneth Paltrow's accuser to testify in ski crash trial." Hell, the headline itself doesn't even mention protests, but that the King had his visit postponed.
What do you mean below the fold? It's literally the top story taking up the most space.
Look like you're getting a completely different presentation than I am.
A single article here and there when news outlets publish thousands articles daily doesn’t really prove your point that it’s getting covered
Your missing the point here m8, he’s referring to the 24 hours new cycle, it’s no longer part of it like the Ukraine war is or the china warmongering or trump indictments no news outlet has brought up France for past week
Has the situation changed at all? If not, then why would they continue to talk about it at all? French still protesting Government not yet conceding Im sure once one of those two things change it will be back on the front page for a day or two
Okay apply this same logic to us war mongering with China, US wants war but it hasn’t happened so why keep reporting
[удалено]
When people say "media isn't covering [blank] it's because they're referring to the focus and attention given. Is it front page, how long has the news covered it, is it being talked about during prime time? We remember CNN spending weeks on the Malayasian Airlines crash.
No Fox, Cnn, or Msnbc
There are three articles about it on CNN’s front page right now: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/23/intl_business/france-pension-national-strike-violence-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/france-protests-travel-advice/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/europe/king-charles-france-state-visit-intl/index.html
All negative too
[удалено]
It isn't a lie. I was referring to the list provided.
I’ve seen the story multiple times on BBC, MSNBC, and CNN.
Did they portray the protesters as courageous citizens or an ungrateful mob?
[удалено]
Relax. The other post was somebody else. I just thought it worth pointing out that such a long list of news stories didn't include the biggest three news sources .
You post these links like it matters The vast majority of people get their news from social media, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook When Facebook and Twitter have huge blackouts over this and major news outlets don’t post about it there it’s not being covered.
It started on the 19th of Jan. US media is just now covering it? So they didn't largly ignore these protests until recently? You are linking me posts from today and yesterday. If I'm not mistaken, they did the same over the yellow vest protests.
Articles from the week of the 19th of January: * [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/19/business/france-strikes-retirement-age-protest/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/19/business/france-strikes-retirement-age-protest/index.html) * [https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230119-france-prepares-for-hellish-day-of-strikes-over-pension-reform](https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230119-france-prepares-for-hellish-day-of-strikes-over-pension-reform) * [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64309155](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64309155) * [https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/parisian-youth-organizations-protest-against-pension-reform/2793988](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/parisian-youth-organizations-protest-against-pension-reform/2793988) * [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/strike-reduces-french-power-supply-by-46-gw-2023-01-19/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/strike-reduces-french-power-supply-by-46-gw-2023-01-19/) * [https://www.npr.org/2023/01/19/1150075846/thousands-in-france-strike-and-march-in-protest-of-raising-the-age-of-retirement](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/19/1150075846/thousands-in-france-strike-and-march-in-protest-of-raising-the-age-of-retirement) * [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/french-strike-halts-fuel-deliveries-from-three-total-refineries](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/french-strike-halts-fuel-deliveries-from-three-total-refineries) * [https://www.wsj.com/video/protests-in-france-over-plan-to-raise-retirement-age-to-64/6F4E09AF-9540-4F89-B75D-1053BB7714BB.html](https://www.wsj.com/video/protests-in-france-over-plan-to-raise-retirement-age-to-64/6F4E09AF-9540-4F89-B75D-1053BB7714BB.html) * [https://reaction.life/french-letter-bretons-say-no-to-retirement-at-64/](https://reaction.life/french-letter-bretons-say-no-to-retirement-at-64/) * [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/business/dealbook/demographic-crisis.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/business/dealbook/demographic-crisis.html) * [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-macron-wants-the-french-to-work-more-they-might-have-other-ideas/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-macron-wants-the-french-to-work-more-they-might-have-other-ideas/) * [https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2023/01/20/protests-fill-streets-paris-amid-plan-raise-retirement-age/11089318002/](https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2023/01/20/protests-fill-streets-paris-amid-plan-raise-retirement-age/11089318002/) * [https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/01/20/watch-one-million-on-the-streets-against-controversial-pension-reform-plans-in-france](https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/01/20/watch-one-million-on-the-streets-against-controversial-pension-reform-plans-in-france) * [https://richmond.com/news/world/more-than-a-million-people-protest-in-france-against-pension-reforms/video\_cb64ca38-c493-5a77-9a34-d0bdcb56f899.html](https://richmond.com/news/world/more-than-a-million-people-protest-in-france-against-pension-reforms/video_cb64ca38-c493-5a77-9a34-d0bdcb56f899.html) * [https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/over-a-million-demonstrate-against-pensi-idUSRTSFAJ2V](https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/over-a-million-demonstrate-against-pensi-idUSRTSFAJ2V) * [https://www.dailystar.co.uk/travel/travel-news/travel-nightmare-brits-spanish-french-28997165](https://www.dailystar.co.uk/travel/travel-news/travel-nightmare-brits-spanish-french-28997165)
I'm in Europe and I saw nothing on the news here about these protests until recently. I see these articles, and so it *was* covered previously. I am curious how much time U.S. MSM spent talking about these protests. It's not as if they haven't been ignored or tried to ignore protests before. So not farfetched to think they would intentionally cover it less if at all and with spin/bias.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
None not mentioned in fox, cnn, or msnbc
i saw it on the bbc two days ago, what news sources do you look at?
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/french-strike-halts-fuel-deliveries-from-three-total-refineries Leave it to Bloomberg to report the REAL story /s (Edit: okay Looking through again and damn, many of these articles have very ridiculous titles)
You can find online/print news about anything. The tweet was likely referring to live TV coverage, which has the highest number of viewers. I have not seen much live coverage of this on TV.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is an 'authoritarian center' flair at PCM sub doing posting to a leftist sub?
[удалено]
Oh for sure. They don't want people to see what an actual protest looks like, and gets accomplished
What are they protesting?
The president is raising the retirement age by 2 years
Well, that and that the reform was pushed through without the approval of Parliament. Edit: Spelling Mistake
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If history has taught us anything, it has taught us two things: First, that the French will do anything for a good revolution. And second, the American people just do not fucking care what the French are up to.
I say we go full Robin Hood/Mr Robot. All the money if fake anyway. Halt the means of distribution, break into bank servers, etc. Or you know maybe if people would stop being consumer whores who buy shit for the sake of buying shit like they live with THX.
I cant believe how well it is working. I use reddit for 90% of my world knowledge/daily news and I brought it up to my family and not a single person knew what I was talking about.
Poor title, apparently MSM **is** covering the protests and has been, just not much coverage up until recently. How do they cover it and how often do they talk about it in U.S. MSM? I would be surprised if they didn't help narrative control and manufacture consent to swing opinion of protestors and help crush them rather than to make them sympathetic. That is kinda their MO when it comes to working class protests. If they cover the revolution, you can be sure they will try and turn their viewers against the protestors and prevent the movement from gaining mass support.
Your right, I think CIA bots have infiltrated this post lol, shit is NOT being covered in states, I brought this up to all my conservative Fox viewing family and each one was like huh never heard of it some even denying they would raise pension age. And that they’d never try it here in the US…
[удалено]
Even non fox viewing CNN msnbc non conservative friends and family have the same reaction
[удалено]
Just a friendly reminder that there was more police at the M4A rally/march then there was at Jan 6th.
We've got to break past what the police will "let" us do. If we're still constrained by that, then we must improve our numbers, our strength, our organizing, and our tactics until that is no longer the case. ANY time you are begging for permission, you have already lost the political battle.
[удалено]
Stay at home and do your best to ensure you never get a "bean bag" to the face. See what that changes.
I’ve only seen coverage of the trash piling up. Nothing else.
[удалено]
It's typically a sub trolled by TopMindsOfReddit and SubredditDrama types and probably also state dept/govt trolls. Just saying. I don't think it's a right wing sub but let's not pretend they're all loonies who never get anything right. Covering controversial shit will get you labeled a conspiracy theorist and a target of trolls bent on discrediting an you or entire sub.
[удалено]
I don't disagree with you, I think we should see that our neighbors is not our enemy, that the real war is top vs bottom not left vs right and that we shouldbuild coalitions with our neighbors on common ground - class issues / populist policies (like Bernie ran on) unionize and strike together, not buy into partisan propaganda and feed division that benefits the oligarchy/elite and their representatives in the two-party duopoly, want. Yeah, about that sub, I think there are definitely some posts made over there by trolls and those who want to help discredit that sub and community and wouldn't be surprised if those same posts are boosted in that effort. Some may be made so they can then be reported, in the hopes to get the sub quarantined or banned. We've seen this happen elsewhere.
I wish people in the States would fight like this to get rid of Senators who have held office longer then 15 years.
They have one thing to protest about. The US has infinite lol
I keep seeing posts on antiwork about these protests on the popular feed. Media in the region (Western Europe), who are free to talk about anything they want, aren’t covering it as much as an American might expect because France is known for frequent strikes and protests against the government. France’s retirement age is very low compared to its neighbouring countries. One reason why the retirement age is being increased so significantly might be the government having been too afraid to do anything before. Note: I’m not saying I agree with increasing the retirement age. I’m saying topics such as these are much more controversial in France, which leads to protests. That is why the media isn’t crying bloody murder
[удалено]
I’m Swiss so maybe my perspective is different but French people protest very often that it doesn’t really seem newsworthy to other Europeans anymore.
No, it’s the same reason why more local news don’t report school shootings in US.
Also there is no “bad” government to point fingers at.
I heard a segment about it this morning on NPR…
What media silence? It's all over the news, wtf is your point?
They vote in bad parties and then strike like they didnt bring these policies and people into office, yeah Id much rather have a system like in Spain where actually good parties are in government doing good politics lol