>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 propaga

>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.