3 ms·

Not at all. PropOrNot outlines eight steps to manually identify Russian propaganda [0]. Of course it's not an exact science, but it's a lot more rigorous than

by panarky 10y ago

Not at all. PropOrNot outlines eight steps to manually identify Russian propaganda [0]. Of course it's not an exact science, but it's a lot more rigorous than just "anything critical of standard US foreign policy". [0] http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html

barrkel 10y ago
That algorithm is an exercise in bias confirmation; it's ludicrous, IMO. Any criticism of current orthodox ideology is interpreted as a point in favour of Russian propaganda. Could it possibly be that some people have the genuine thought that starting a new cold war with Russia wouldn't be a very good idea? Or is that simply impossible without it being a Russian propaganda plot? IMO this is all heat that obscures what's going on. There's a new culture war afoot. IMO this site (PropOrNot) is a paranoid reaction to the rejection by a certain segment of the American population to an orthodox groupthink. Instead of people talking to one another and trying to communicate, they're polarizing. It's no good. (I flagged the article, FWIW.)
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
These are some of the steps they use to identify propaganda: Check to see whether the social-media account/commenter/outlet has a history of generally echoing the Russian propaganda "line" by using themes, arguments, talking points, images, and other content similar to those used by obvious Russian propaganda outlets. These themes include: 1. How terrible, weak, aggressive, and corrupt the the opponents of Russia and their friends are: The US, Obama, Hillary Clinton, the EU, Angela Merkel, NATO, Ukraine, Jewish people, US allies, the "mainstream media", and democrats, the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes. Investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, "NATO", on their site by Googling for "site:whateversite.com NATO" and seeing what comes up. 2. How dangerous standing up to Russia would be: It would inevitably result in "World War 3", nuclear devastation, etc, and regardless of who shot first or is bombing civilians where now, would be the West's fault. Russian propaganda never suggests it would just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time. This is the criteria for being a russian propaganda outlet? Basically, anyone who parrots 'Crooked Hiliary' is now part of it. This is hogwash

by panarky 10y ago

barrkel 10y ago

That algorithm is an exercise in bias confirmation; it's ludicrous, IMO. Any criticism of current orthodox ideology is interpreted as a point in favour of Russian propaganda. Could it possibly be that some people have the genuine thought that starting a new cold war with Russia wouldn't be a very good idea? Or is that simply impossible without it being a Russian propaganda plot? IMO this is all heat that obscures what's going on. There's a new culture war afoot. IMO this site (PropOrNot) is a paranoid reaction to the rejection by a certain segment of the American population to an orthodox groupthink. Instead of people talking to one another and trying to communicate, they're polarizing. It's no good. (I flagged the article, FWIW.)

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

These are some of the steps they use to identify propaganda: Check to see whether the social-media account/commenter/outlet has a history of generally echoing the Russian propaganda "line" by using themes, arguments, talking points, images, and other content similar to those used by obvious Russian propaganda outlets. These themes include: 1. How terrible, weak, aggressive, and corrupt the the opponents of Russia and their friends are: The US, Obama, Hillary Clinton, the EU, Angela Merkel, NATO, Ukraine, Jewish people, US allies, the "mainstream media", and democrats, the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes. Investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, "NATO", on their site by Googling for "site:whateversite.com NATO" and seeing what comes up. 2. How dangerous standing up to Russia would be: It would inevitably result in "World War 3", nuclear devastation, etc, and regardless of who shot first or is bombing civilians where now, would be the West's fault. Russian propaganda never suggests it would just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time. This is the criteria for being a russian propaganda outlet? Basically, anyone who parrots 'Crooked Hiliary' is now part of it. This is hogwash