3 ms·
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 de
by 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 agoSure 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 agoThat'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 agoYou 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
- EpicEng 8y agoI agree. I started with the definition and, honestly, I had no idea it was so broad. In reality most would not consider this stuff propaganda until it crosses over into seriously misleading territory.
- StanislavPetrov 8y agoI agree with most of your statement, but Oliver is most certainly deceitful, while also being biased. His deceit may not be deliberate (and we could come up with yet another term to denote deliberate deceitfulness), but it is often evident. His deceit is most evident on foreign affairs, which is not surprising given his devotion to orthodox, bi-partisan DC establishment foreign policy. His clips about Venezuela and Syria could easily have been produced in-house at Langley or Foggy Bottom production studios (if they had better writing). In many ways the evolution of John Oliver mirrors the evolution of Howard Dean, who began as a rational, reasonably moderate progressive voice for change but got captured by the neo-liberal establishment that gave him millions of dollars and a position of "respectability".
- icebraining 8y agoWhat clips on Syria are you talking about?