3 ms·

I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manne

by ctrl-j 8y ago

I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If any biased claim can be called propaganda - then it seems the word loses it's meaning. Perhaps the word propaganda is losing it's weight over time? Do we need a specific word for state sanctioned biased media? Or perhaps one specifically for attacks on political states or policies?

EpicEng 8y ago
>I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If you define "all media" as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, then sure. Of course it's a spectrum as well. For example I'd consider PBS a _far_ less biased source than e.g. Fox News, but I'm sure they have their moments as well. I'm not sure writing everything off as propaganda (or not) is useful in any way.
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that. You realize that _I_ am not defining anything, right? I suggest you write Webster. I think the problem is the pedantry of your typical engineer. No one is saying that all propaganda is equal, or that it is all inherently bad. Per a literal reading of the definition I find it hard to accept anything other than a laying out of factual data to not be propaganda, but it can be minor (e.g. PBS), major (e.g. Fox News), or somewhere in between. That's why I said above that I don't think this is a terribly useful discussion. But if you don't agree with that then maybe we can come to common ground on the "especially of a... misleading nature." Some reporting, even if biased, is far more misleading than the rest. So if Oliver presents the facts (_all_ the relevant facts) and then shares his interpretation of those facts, not propaganda I suppose. However, if anything relevant is left out I don't know how you can call it balanced.
    - skinnymuch 8y ago
      You’re the one who went out of their way to call all news technically propaganda. The definition quoted doesn’t necessarily say that.
- mc32 8y ago
  NPR’s bias/neutrality depends a lot on the reporter in question. Some truly attempt to be neutral, others have bias (within the same program/show). So knowing the personalities help suss things out a lot. David Green is pretty neutral, Innskeep not as much, for example.
bb88 8y ago
The 20th century changed the meaning of the word to be more about manipulation, where as the original definition was neutral. [1] The manipulation suggested deceitfulness on the part of the party creating and distributing it. So it's one of these things where OP can use a politically charged word, and then claim it was used in the neutral voice. Personally, rather than have an argument about what amounts to "propaganda" in the 21st century, let's just admit that Oliver is not deceitful, yet biased. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Sure that's fair. He's been guilty of this part though: >...often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. And honestly, what major news outlet today _isn't_? Is that not a huge problem with "mainstream media" (I hate that term) currently? So... still not sure he or others can escape that label.
  - bb88 8y ago
    That's usually called "rhetoric", which is fine because Oliver is arguing for a particular point of view, he's not a news source, as it were. We make distinctions between John Oliver and Rush Limbaugh say vs. The New York Times. > using loaded language You mean like using a loaded word like "propaganda" to describe "rhetoric" and "honest debate"?
  - 394549 8y ago
    You seem to be arguing exclusively from simple textual definitions of the term "propaganda" from the dictionary and Wikipedia. I don't think that's a fruitful approach because it fails to account for the nuances in meaning between different words and the contrasts and distinctions that those different terms are used to illustrate. I think Oliver's segment is more accurately classified as an op-ed piece with some satire, it's not propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

by ctrl-j 8y ago

EpicEng 8y ago

>I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If you define "all media" as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, then sure. Of course it's a spectrum as well. For example I'd consider PBS a _far_ less biased source than e.g. Fox News, but I'm sure they have their moments as well. I'm not sure writing everything off as propaganda (or not) is useful in any way.

skinnymuch 8y ago
PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that. You realize that _I_ am not defining anything, right? I suggest you write Webster. I think the problem is the pedantry of your typical engineer. No one is saying that all propaganda is equal, or that it is all inherently bad. Per a literal reading of the definition I find it hard to accept anything other than a laying out of factual data to not be propaganda, but it can be minor (e.g. PBS), major (e.g. Fox News), or somewhere in between. That's why I said above that I don't think this is a terribly useful discussion. But if you don't agree with that then maybe we can come to common ground on the "especially of a... misleading nature." Some reporting, even if biased, is far more misleading than the rest. So if Oliver presents the facts (_all_ the relevant facts) and then shares his interpretation of those facts, not propaganda I suppose. However, if anything relevant is left out I don't know how you can call it balanced.
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    You’re the one who went out of their way to call all news technically propaganda. The definition quoted doesn’t necessarily say that.
mc32 8y ago
NPR’s bias/neutrality depends a lot on the reporter in question. Some truly attempt to be neutral, others have bias (within the same program/show). So knowing the personalities help suss things out a lot. David Green is pretty neutral, Innskeep not as much, for example.

bb88 8y ago

The 20th century changed the meaning of the word to be more about manipulation, where as the original definition was neutral. [1] The manipulation suggested deceitfulness on the part of the party creating and distributing it. So it's one of these things where OP can use a politically charged word, and then claim it was used in the neutral voice. Personally, rather than have an argument about what amounts to "propaganda" in the 21st century, let's just admit that Oliver is not deceitful, yet biased. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

EpicEng 8y ago
Sure that's fair. He's been guilty of this part though: >...often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. And honestly, what major news outlet today _isn't_? Is that not a huge problem with "mainstream media" (I hate that term) currently? So... still not sure he or others can escape that label.
- bb88 8y ago
  That's usually called "rhetoric", which is fine because Oliver is arguing for a particular point of view, he's not a news source, as it were. We make distinctions between John Oliver and Rush Limbaugh say vs. The New York Times. > using loaded language You mean like using a loaded word like "propaganda" to describe "rhetoric" and "honest debate"?
- 394549 8y ago
  You seem to be arguing exclusively from simple textual definitions of the term "propaganda" from the dictionary and Wikipedia. I don't think that's a fruitful approach because it fails to account for the nuances in meaning between different words and the contrasts and distinctions that those different terms are used to illustrate. I think Oliver's segment is more accurately classified as an op-ed piece with some satire, it's not propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire