5 ms·

You fully support a propaganda agency?

by s2g 9y ago

colordrops 9y ago
Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. No, it isn't. There is a lot of pretty good journalism and then there is a bunch of trash. But the balance - for now - is still on the good side. If Rupert Murdoch kicked the bucket it might get a bit better still. > I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. Such as? FOX vs Russia Today is not 'alternate' by any definition. But if you want to compare the Washington Post with the BBC or Al Jazeera then you might find some balance between those. > What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Agreed, but which narratives you pick still makes a huge difference even when you are trying to discount for bias. > Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting. Or maybe they just don't subscribe to your views and are letting you know their disagreement by downvoting you. If you think HN is full of brainwashed people or actual agents because of a couple of downvotes I suspect the problem is on your end.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    To answer your question on alternate sources, my favorites: https://www.theguardian.com https://www.theguardian.com https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com http://therealnews.com http://therealnews.com https://www.democracynow.org https://www.democracynow.org
  - colordrops 9y ago
    > No, it isn't. Except, yes, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/ https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-ti... https://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-government-propaganda-experts-working-on-news-at-cnn/ https://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-governme... https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/iraq-and-the-media/ https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/iraq-and-the-m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_State...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      I've actually read manufacturing consent and while I agree with the general idea that everything that we consume is propaganda to some degree I disagree that CNN is at the same level as Pravda in Russia. There is definitely a case to be made for mass media being complicit in all this but not to the extent that actual propaganda mechanisms are put to work. The state does not own CNN, it does not own the Washington Post and it does not own the Guardian. Ironically, it does own the BBC and there are definitely times when you just knew that there was more to a story than what you could read but on the whole the 'manufacturing of consent' is not the same as outright propaganda. For that you'd have to take a step back and look at some actual propaganda to see the difference. In the United States FOX comes pretty close (though not their 'hard news' section, that is still more or less factual), in Russia there are the various state owned media outlets and in China everything that the party sanctioned press will print would count as propaganda. The rest of the media can - still, and who knows for how much longer - be held to a slightly higher standard.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        You are moving the goalposts. We aren't talking about Pravda, we are talking about Russia Today, and we aren't talking about how bad the propaganda is, but whether it is propaganda at all. Also, you are misunderstanding how propaganda works in the US if you think the outlet needs to be state owned. I suggest the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism#Comparison_to_the_Classical_totalitarian_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism#Compa...
- daxorid 9y ago
  > there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting Know your audience. The only acceptable stance on HN is rabid and unsubstantiated Russiaphobia. Either don't comment or find a different community, on this topic. You're permitted to have an opinion on typesafe languages, tabs vs spaces, etc. Dissent from CIA or GCHQ talking points? Not so much.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > The only acceptable stance on HN is rabid and unsubstantiated Russiaphobia. That is simply not true.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      It sure does seem like it though. If you question that narrative at all you get downvoted.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Well, I'm pretty outspoken and I have a general anti-corporate streak running through me and I do not like the way the USA has comported itself on the world stage since 9/11 much. They had all the credit that they could possibly wish for and they totally fucked it up. The fact that my comments in that vein are not categorically downvoted (rather the opposite) should be a pretty strong proof that it is definitely possible to walk your own course on HN without being harassed. Where HN draws the line is: stuff that is unsourced or plainly made up or crackpot, falsehoods and apologist stuff. That will get you downvoted in a hurry.
        colordrops 9y ago
        There is no concrete evidence made publicly available whatsoever in the Russia hysteria that has been going on for 18 months. Bernie Sanders, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Jill Stein, Glenn Greenwald, and anyone who criticizes the left at all, even if they are leftist themselves, get called Russian stooges at this point. It's too much: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia...
robotrout 9y ago
Sure, I support BBC which has a very strong propaganda to news ratio. I also support RT and Al Jazeera. I do not support CNN, because it's ratio is so high it's offensive to me.
- colordrops 9y ago
  An unfortunate element of propaganda is that it is designed to not be detected by the majority of those receiving it, as evidenced by the down votes you are receiving. I don't understand how the HN crowd which is clearly full of very intelligent people don't see that sources like BBC and CNN are clearly propaganda outlets.
  - cinquemb 9y ago
    At some point an individual has to decide whether to try to fight the beliefs and behaviors of others, or to exploit that they hold/engage in such for some ends.

You fully support a propaganda agency?

by s2g 9y ago

You fully support a propaganda agency?

Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting.

jacquesm 9y ago
> Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. No, it isn't. There is a lot of pretty good journalism and then there is a bunch of trash. But the balance - for now - is still on the good side. If Rupert Murdoch kicked the bucket it might get a bit better still. > I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. Such as? FOX vs Russia Today is not 'alternate' by any definition. But if you want to compare the Washington Post with the BBC or Al Jazeera then you might find some balance between those. > What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Agreed, but which narratives you pick still makes a huge difference even when you are trying to discount for bias. > Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting. Or maybe they just don't subscribe to your views and are letting you know their disagreement by downvoting you. If you think HN is full of brainwashed people or actual agents because of a couple of downvotes I suspect the problem is on your end.
- colordrops 9y ago
  To answer your question on alternate sources, my favorites: https://www.theguardian.com https://www.theguardian.com https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com http://therealnews.com http://therealnews.com https://www.democracynow.org https://www.democracynow.org
- colordrops 9y ago
  > No, it isn't. Except, yes, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/ https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-ti... https://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-government-propaganda-experts-working-on-news-at-cnn/ https://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-governme... https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/iraq-and-the-media/ https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/iraq-and-the-m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_State...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I've actually read manufacturing consent and while I agree with the general idea that everything that we consume is propaganda to some degree I disagree that CNN is at the same level as Pravda in Russia. There is definitely a case to be made for mass media being complicit in all this but not to the extent that actual propaganda mechanisms are put to work. The state does not own CNN, it does not own the Washington Post and it does not own the Guardian. Ironically, it does own the BBC and there are definitely times when you just knew that there was more to a story than what you could read but on the whole the 'manufacturing of consent' is not the same as outright propaganda. For that you'd have to take a step back and look at some actual propaganda to see the difference. In the United States FOX comes pretty close (though not their 'hard news' section, that is still more or less factual), in Russia there are the various state owned media outlets and in China everything that the party sanctioned press will print would count as propaganda. The rest of the media can - still, and who knows for how much longer - be held to a slightly higher standard.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      You are moving the goalposts. We aren't talking about Pravda, we are talking about Russia Today, and we aren't talking about how bad the propaganda is, but whether it is propaganda at all. Also, you are misunderstanding how propaganda works in the US if you think the outlet needs to be state owned. I suggest the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism#Comparison_to_the_Classical_totalitarian_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism#Compa...
daxorid 9y ago
> there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting Know your audience. The only acceptable stance on HN is rabid and unsubstantiated Russiaphobia. Either don't comment or find a different community, on this topic. You're permitted to have an opinion on typesafe languages, tabs vs spaces, etc. Dissent from CIA or GCHQ talking points? Not so much.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > The only acceptable stance on HN is rabid and unsubstantiated Russiaphobia. That is simply not true.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    It sure does seem like it though. If you question that narrative at all you get downvoted.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Well, I'm pretty outspoken and I have a general anti-corporate streak running through me and I do not like the way the USA has comported itself on the world stage since 9/11 much. They had all the credit that they could possibly wish for and they totally fucked it up. The fact that my comments in that vein are not categorically downvoted (rather the opposite) should be a pretty strong proof that it is definitely possible to walk your own course on HN without being harassed. Where HN draws the line is: stuff that is unsourced or plainly made up or crackpot, falsehoods and apologist stuff. That will get you downvoted in a hurry.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        There is no concrete evidence made publicly available whatsoever in the Russia hysteria that has been going on for 18 months. Bernie Sanders, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Jill Stein, Glenn Greenwald, and anyone who criticizes the left at all, even if they are leftist themselves, get called Russian stooges at this point. It's too much: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia...

robotrout 9y ago

Sure, I support BBC which has a very strong propaganda to news ratio. I also support RT and Al Jazeera. I do not support CNN, because it's ratio is so high it's offensive to me.

colordrops 9y ago
An unfortunate element of propaganda is that it is designed to not be detected by the majority of those receiving it, as evidenced by the down votes you are receiving. I don't understand how the HN crowd which is clearly full of very intelligent people don't see that sources like BBC and CNN are clearly propaganda outlets.
- cinquemb 9y ago
  At some point an individual has to decide whether to try to fight the beliefs and behaviors of others, or to exploit that they hold/engage in such for some ends.