4 ms·

>"Now we see the propaganda machine at work." No, it's called public interest journalism. In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal it's quite logical tha

>"Now we see the propaganda machine at work." No, it's called public interest journalism. In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal it's quite logical that the public has an interest in knowing more about the inner working of of an opaque and powerful entity. >"the news media must turn each cycle into a full on character assassination." A "character assassination " by its very definition is an attack on a singular individual. You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. >"Regardless of how I feel about FB, I'm more disturbed by the media pattern." I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" simply because you yourself didn't feel it merited reporting on.

cavanasm 9y ago
RE: "character assassination" and corporations; if closely held corporations have the same rights as individuals now, could you character assassinate a closely held corporation?
- bsenftner 9y ago
  I'd only accept that type of equivalency when a corporation can be sent to a physical prison - like a real person.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    Or a corporate death penalty
- bogomipz 9y ago
  The doctrine of “corporate personhood” is the the claim that corporations should enjoy the same legal status and protections as citizens. Even if you subscribe to that doctrine it does not produce a single person whose reputation can be harmed.
fortythirteen 9y ago
> No, it called public interest journalism. There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism. > You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. This is metaphor for the pattern of behavior. They are taking the same methods they use for the news cycle's "horrible person of the week" and turning it on Facebook. > I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, and an almost complete omission of how the DNC did the same thing, and more, with CTR, I'm comfortable sticking with "propaganda".
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  So anything which doesn't fit your prescribed narrative is bad journalism? That seems like you have a disagreement with external realities. I heard they make pills for that now. You don't get a free pass on hosting deceptive ads because your platform is automated. Just like you don't get a free pass on any other crime by automating it. Further, when it's clear your staff is very aware of the illegal practice and is encouraging it by taking meetings with the people committing the crime, that removes any defense that the behavior is incidental to legal behavior. But yes, clearly this is all just a character assassination planned by the lizard people. Definitely the only reason at play here.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism." What an incredibly uninformed and naive statement to make. Just because inferior sources of something are abundant does not mean that quality alternatives don't exist. This is as absurd as drawing the conclusion that fine dining doesn't exist any more and pointing to the prevalence of fast food restaurants as evidence of this. There is no shortage of quality public interest journalism or entities committed to it. Here are some examples - The Marshall Project, First Look Media and ProPublica. >"Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, ..." There was no mention of the RNC in the news piece being discussed here.
  - gcb0 9y ago
    if the article had done minimal research, they would have included taboola, which is the affiliate scam of news publishers. the fact that they didn't hint that this thread assumptions are correct, and you are being slightly naive
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      So a 3,500 word piece that written over a 6 month period is suspect because a single vendor was omitted from the piece during? Right. It sounds like you definitely naive about both how the editorial process and how journalism works.
zombieprocesses 9y ago
> I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" simply because you yourself didn't feel it merited reporting on. There is a world of difference between objective reporting and biased propaganda. I hate facebook. I never signed up for facebook. But when news organizations are actively attacking facebook, it isn't reporting, it is propaganda. When news organizations are pushing #deleteFacebook, it isn't reporting, it isn't journalism, it is propaganda. If you want, use the waybackmachine and check HN's frontpage. For the last year, there has been anti-FB propaganda on it every single day. Today, there are 6 anti-FB stories. Yesterday, I counted 4. Just because you don't like facebook doesn't mean you have to like propaganda/anti-FB spam. I wish HN would allow us to opt out of topics. I already know FB is rubbish. I don't need constant spam from the news media and their social media team to tell me what I already know. Talk about polluting the internet. The likes of bloomberg and their social media team are just as guilty of it as facebook.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"There is a world of difference between objective reporting and biased propaganda." So lets examine the "propagandist" here - Bloomberg News. Selecting just a single Bloomberg tech reporter's(Sarah Frier) coverage of FB in the last year.[1] We see stories such as: "Sheryl Sandberg Calls for U.S. Policy Changes to Aid Working Mothers" "Facebook Is Determined to Build Ties With Automakers" "Facebook Hires Apple Veteran to Run Oculus VR Hardware" "Facebook's Strategy for Augmented Reality Starts With Phones" None of these stories contain any negative portrayal of FB. So clearly Bloomberg is not an anti-FB propagandist. So a news organization can be a part-time propagandist then? In other words they are only producing propaganda when the story contain unflattering details about a subject? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AP-41JG4_zk/sarah-frier https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AP-41JG4_zk/sarah-frier
  - zombieprocesses 9y ago
    > So a news organization can be a part-time propagandist then? Of course. > In other words they are only producing propaganda when the story contain unflattering details about a subject? No. They can be producing propaganda when they are pushing a flattering narrative as well. Like what foxnews does with trump. And it isn't just bloomberg. It's much of the media. As I said, there hasn't been a day without some propaganda about FB the past year. If you doubt it, do as I suggested. Go spend some time on the waybackmachine.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tzakrajs 9y ago
"Corporations are people too, my friend" -- a very pious individual /s

cavanasm 9y ago

RE: "character assassination" and corporations; if closely held corporations have the same rights as individuals now, could you character assassinate a closely held corporation?

bsenftner 9y ago
I'd only accept that type of equivalency when a corporation can be sent to a physical prison - like a real person.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  Or a corporate death penalty
bogomipz 9y ago
The doctrine of “corporate personhood” is the the claim that corporations should enjoy the same legal status and protections as citizens. Even if you subscribe to that doctrine it does not produce a single person whose reputation can be harmed.

fortythirteen 9y ago

> No, it called public interest journalism. There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism. > You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. This is metaphor for the pattern of behavior. They are taking the same methods they use for the news cycle's "horrible person of the week" and turning it on Facebook. > I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, and an almost complete omission of how the DNC did the same thing, and more, with CTR, I'm comfortable sticking with "propaganda".

vorpalhex 9y ago
So anything which doesn't fit your prescribed narrative is bad journalism? That seems like you have a disagreement with external realities. I heard they make pills for that now. You don't get a free pass on hosting deceptive ads because your platform is automated. Just like you don't get a free pass on any other crime by automating it. Further, when it's clear your staff is very aware of the illegal practice and is encouraging it by taking meetings with the people committing the crime, that removes any defense that the behavior is incidental to legal behavior. But yes, clearly this is all just a character assassination planned by the lizard people. Definitely the only reason at play here.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism." What an incredibly uninformed and naive statement to make. Just because inferior sources of something are abundant does not mean that quality alternatives don't exist. This is as absurd as drawing the conclusion that fine dining doesn't exist any more and pointing to the prevalence of fast food restaurants as evidence of this. There is no shortage of quality public interest journalism or entities committed to it. Here are some examples - The Marshall Project, First Look Media and ProPublica. >"Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, ..." There was no mention of the RNC in the news piece being discussed here.
- gcb0 9y ago
  if the article had done minimal research, they would have included taboola, which is the affiliate scam of news publishers. the fact that they didn't hint that this thread assumptions are correct, and you are being slightly naive
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    So a 3,500 word piece that written over a 6 month period is suspect because a single vendor was omitted from the piece during? Right. It sounds like you definitely naive about both how the editorial process and how journalism works.

zombieprocesses 9y ago

> I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" simply because you yourself didn't feel it merited reporting on. There is a world of difference between objective reporting and biased propaganda. I hate facebook. I never signed up for facebook. But when news organizations are actively attacking facebook, it isn't reporting, it is propaganda. When news organizations are pushing #deleteFacebook, it isn't reporting, it isn't journalism, it is propaganda. If you want, use the waybackmachine and check HN's frontpage. For the last year, there has been anti-FB propaganda on it every single day. Today, there are 6 anti-FB stories. Yesterday, I counted 4. Just because you don't like facebook doesn't mean you have to like propaganda/anti-FB spam. I wish HN would allow us to opt out of topics. I already know FB is rubbish. I don't need constant spam from the news media and their social media team to tell me what I already know. Talk about polluting the internet. The likes of bloomberg and their social media team are just as guilty of it as facebook.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"There is a world of difference between objective reporting and biased propaganda." So lets examine the "propagandist" here - Bloomberg News. Selecting just a single Bloomberg tech reporter's(Sarah Frier) coverage of FB in the last year.[1] We see stories such as: "Sheryl Sandberg Calls for U.S. Policy Changes to Aid Working Mothers" "Facebook Is Determined to Build Ties With Automakers" "Facebook Hires Apple Veteran to Run Oculus VR Hardware" "Facebook's Strategy for Augmented Reality Starts With Phones" None of these stories contain any negative portrayal of FB. So clearly Bloomberg is not an anti-FB propagandist. So a news organization can be a part-time propagandist then? In other words they are only producing propaganda when the story contain unflattering details about a subject? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AP-41JG4_zk/sarah-frier https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AP-41JG4_zk/sarah-frier
- zombieprocesses 9y ago
  > So a news organization can be a part-time propagandist then? Of course. > In other words they are only producing propaganda when the story contain unflattering details about a subject? No. They can be producing propaganda when they are pushing a flattering narrative as well. Like what foxnews does with trump. And it isn't just bloomberg. It's much of the media. As I said, there hasn't been a day without some propaganda about FB the past year. If you doubt it, do as I suggested. Go spend some time on the waybackmachine.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tzakrajs 9y ago

"Corporations are people too, my friend" -- a very pious individual /s