3 ms·
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 l
by 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 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.