4 ms·

> >Journalism — the historical counter to propaganda Wow. Then they need a lesson in the history of journalism. They might want to read up on hearst and pulit

> >Journalism — the historical counter to propaganda Wow. Then they need a lesson in the history of journalism. They might want to read up on hearst and pulitzer and the founding of modern american journalism. > "The good old days", except that never existed. Journalism has always been the tool for the powerful to paint a positive picture of themselves to the general public via "unbiased agents" called journalists who are "free to write anything" as long as it serves their masters. Agreed. It's a credit to the media how well they do their job to brainwash that they fool us into thinking they are objective and truthful. At the end of the day, foxnews and the nytimes are just propagandists like any other. But somehow, we have been told over and over that our guys tell the "truth" and the enemy spreads propaganda.

thebokehwokeh2 9y ago
> foxnews and the nytimes are just propagandists like any other This is a textbook example of the lazy, uneducated thinking that causes fear and outrage. Lazy lazy lazy false equivalence. To say that "they're all the same" is absolutely not the case and nor will it ever be. The sooner people become more discerning of the information that they consume, the better off we all will be. There is an extremely large gulf in the baseline quality of reporting between those two outlets. If you cannot discern that, then you are too far gone.
- chroem- 9y ago
  Just because you find one source more politically palatable than the other does not make your preferred news outlet less susceptible to being propaganda. It was the NYT after all which convinced the public that Saddam Hussein was armed to the teeth with WMD's, and the only solution was to give him (and his oil fields) a little taste of Freedom.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Those two things are not mutually exclusive. All other things being equal, I'd rather cite the NYT than Fox News. That doesn't mean the scale of bias isn't the same between NYT and Fox News. With regard to quality of reporting I think the gulfs really lie in the outlet/format. TV/cable news is worse than traditional/print news. Daily news is worse than weekly/monthly, etc. When you're reporting 24 hours a day you've gotta sensationalize a lot of shit to keep people watching. If you only print once a day, not so much. Once a week, even less so. I've gotten to the point now that I usually try to avoid the TV and daily print news altogether. If it's not important enough to make it in a weekly newspaper, it's probably not worth knowing about.
- mikekchar 9y ago
  I'll get myself in trouble, but the main difference between Fox News and the NYT is that the NYT is far more effective at disguising its bias. Let's face it, Fox News doesn't even try. My advice to you is to follow foreign news services and compare the news you get. The biggest challenge, unfortunately, is that you have to dig a bit because lately English language news is dominated by stories from Reuters and AP. You best bet, by far, is to get news in languages other than English for a fair comparison. However, if you can't do that, you should search google for news articles and compare them to the equivalent Reuters and AP articles to ensure that they didn't originate there. If you do that for a while, I suspect your opinion of the NYT (and many other respected English language news services) will change pretty dramatically. Which is not to say that there aren't good journalists, good editors, good news stories, etc, etc. These exist all over the world. However, the news is big business and also an institution that is critical for political success in any country. Educating yourself on the level of interference that occurs will only benefit you.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    Which sources would you recommend? The BBC and The Guardian are foreign and have their own news gathering networks but for the most part seem similar to the NYT. If it helps I can read French as well as English. When I was a kid I listened to Radio Moscow and to go honest found it not that much different from the BBC..
    - mikekchar 9y ago
      Al jazeera is worth watching. Both the BBC and the Guardian, while being foreign regurgitate a lot of stuff out of Reuters (especially BBC when it comes to foreign news). Take a look at NHK -- seemingly highly influenced by the Japanese government, but worth watching for the contrast. The key here is not to try to find the truth. Rather try to find different reports of the same events (or different editing wrt to what makes the final cut). It's quite hard if you are stuck in English because a huge amount of English language news reports come from the same pool of reporters. These reports are then packaged up differently, but the bias often exists prior to it getting to the final news service. It is interesting (and instructive), to try to find the source of news stories and then write down the names of the reporters whose stories make it into your news. What I've found (YMMV) is that only 3-4 reporters write most of the English language news for reports in certain regions. Those reports are then recycled through all of the news services. I first started doing this for Japanese news stories when I found serious factual errors in English language news stories related to Fukushima and nuclear power in Japan. In one instance, all of the news outlets reported that the power station near me was restarting within 2 weeks. So I went down to the power station and asked them. They denied the story and in fact, more than 6 years later, they are still not operating (though they do plan to restart soon). When I traced back all of the stories that I could find provenance for in the western press, I found that it all came back to 3 Japanese reporters for Reuters. Since then I've off and on checked western news reports and still find that those 3 reporters dominate all of the western news reports about Japan. Now, it's crap of me to say all this and not provide any proof. In my defence, I really don't want to get involved in the "fake news" thing going on in the US. It's not my intent to make any accusations, but rather to encourage people to look for themselves. I have not put forth the kind of effort necessary to make accusations that might affect somebody's career. What I'm saying is that it didn't take much effort at all for me to notice that something was not right, so if you look I think you'll also have no trouble seeing it either. Or I might be mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time it happened.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > This is a textbook example of the lazy, uneducated thinking that causes fear and outrage. I'm highly educated despite what you may think. >Lazy lazy lazy false equivalence. I have a degree in philosophy and I think you need a refresher course on logic. > To say that "they're all the same" is absolutely not the case and nor will it ever be. I didn't say they were the "same". Saying an apple and a banana are fruits doesn't mean that I'm saying an apple is a banana. Just because I say foxnews and the nytimes are propagandists doesn't mean I'm saying foxnews = nytimes. > The sooner people become more discerning of the information that they consume, the better off we all will be. Agreed. Hopefully, you'll join us one day in being a more discerning about information. > There is an extremely large gulf in the baseline quality of reporting between those two outlets. Agreed. NYTimes is far better quality propaganda. They have a lot more influence and credibility. But the NYTimes is still propaganda. > If you cannot discern that, then you are too far gone. One of us seem to gone for sure.

thebokehwokeh2 9y ago

> foxnews and the nytimes are just propagandists like any other This is a textbook example of the lazy, uneducated thinking that causes fear and outrage. Lazy lazy lazy false equivalence. To say that "they're all the same" is absolutely not the case and nor will it ever be. The sooner people become more discerning of the information that they consume, the better off we all will be. There is an extremely large gulf in the baseline quality of reporting between those two outlets. If you cannot discern that, then you are too far gone.

chroem- 9y ago
Just because you find one source more politically palatable than the other does not make your preferred news outlet less susceptible to being propaganda. It was the NYT after all which convinced the public that Saddam Hussein was armed to the teeth with WMD's, and the only solution was to give him (and his oil fields) a little taste of Freedom.
Consultant32452 9y ago
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. All other things being equal, I'd rather cite the NYT than Fox News. That doesn't mean the scale of bias isn't the same between NYT and Fox News. With regard to quality of reporting I think the gulfs really lie in the outlet/format. TV/cable news is worse than traditional/print news. Daily news is worse than weekly/monthly, etc. When you're reporting 24 hours a day you've gotta sensationalize a lot of shit to keep people watching. If you only print once a day, not so much. Once a week, even less so. I've gotten to the point now that I usually try to avoid the TV and daily print news altogether. If it's not important enough to make it in a weekly newspaper, it's probably not worth knowing about.
mikekchar 9y ago
I'll get myself in trouble, but the main difference between Fox News and the NYT is that the NYT is far more effective at disguising its bias. Let's face it, Fox News doesn't even try. My advice to you is to follow foreign news services and compare the news you get. The biggest challenge, unfortunately, is that you have to dig a bit because lately English language news is dominated by stories from Reuters and AP. You best bet, by far, is to get news in languages other than English for a fair comparison. However, if you can't do that, you should search google for news articles and compare them to the equivalent Reuters and AP articles to ensure that they didn't originate there. If you do that for a while, I suspect your opinion of the NYT (and many other respected English language news services) will change pretty dramatically. Which is not to say that there aren't good journalists, good editors, good news stories, etc, etc. These exist all over the world. However, the news is big business and also an institution that is critical for political success in any country. Educating yourself on the level of interference that occurs will only benefit you.
- dboreham 9y ago
  Which sources would you recommend? The BBC and The Guardian are foreign and have their own news gathering networks but for the most part seem similar to the NYT. If it helps I can read French as well as English. When I was a kid I listened to Radio Moscow and to go honest found it not that much different from the BBC..
  - mikekchar 9y ago
    Al jazeera is worth watching. Both the BBC and the Guardian, while being foreign regurgitate a lot of stuff out of Reuters (especially BBC when it comes to foreign news). Take a look at NHK -- seemingly highly influenced by the Japanese government, but worth watching for the contrast. The key here is not to try to find the truth. Rather try to find different reports of the same events (or different editing wrt to what makes the final cut). It's quite hard if you are stuck in English because a huge amount of English language news reports come from the same pool of reporters. These reports are then packaged up differently, but the bias often exists prior to it getting to the final news service. It is interesting (and instructive), to try to find the source of news stories and then write down the names of the reporters whose stories make it into your news. What I've found (YMMV) is that only 3-4 reporters write most of the English language news for reports in certain regions. Those reports are then recycled through all of the news services. I first started doing this for Japanese news stories when I found serious factual errors in English language news stories related to Fukushima and nuclear power in Japan. In one instance, all of the news outlets reported that the power station near me was restarting within 2 weeks. So I went down to the power station and asked them. They denied the story and in fact, more than 6 years later, they are still not operating (though they do plan to restart soon). When I traced back all of the stories that I could find provenance for in the western press, I found that it all came back to 3 Japanese reporters for Reuters. Since then I've off and on checked western news reports and still find that those 3 reporters dominate all of the western news reports about Japan. Now, it's crap of me to say all this and not provide any proof. In my defence, I really don't want to get involved in the "fake news" thing going on in the US. It's not my intent to make any accusations, but rather to encourage people to look for themselves. I have not put forth the kind of effort necessary to make accusations that might affect somebody's career. What I'm saying is that it didn't take much effort at all for me to notice that something was not right, so if you look I think you'll also have no trouble seeing it either. Or I might be mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time it happened.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> This is a textbook example of the lazy, uneducated thinking that causes fear and outrage. I'm highly educated despite what you may think. >Lazy lazy lazy false equivalence. I have a degree in philosophy and I think you need a refresher course on logic. > To say that "they're all the same" is absolutely not the case and nor will it ever be. I didn't say they were the "same". Saying an apple and a banana are fruits doesn't mean that I'm saying an apple is a banana. Just because I say foxnews and the nytimes are propagandists doesn't mean I'm saying foxnews = nytimes. > The sooner people become more discerning of the information that they consume, the better off we all will be. Agreed. Hopefully, you'll join us one day in being a more discerning about information. > There is an extremely large gulf in the baseline quality of reporting between those two outlets. Agreed. NYTimes is far better quality propaganda. They have a lot more influence and credibility. But the NYTimes is still propaganda. > If you cannot discern that, then you are too far gone. One of us seem to gone for sure.