3 ms·
It's both. There was spin, but there also weren't dedicated propaganda outlets (e.g., Fox News). You are right, though -- it took a lot of work to get content
by stochastic_monk 8y ago
It's both. There was spin, but there also weren't dedicated propaganda outlets (e.g., Fox News).
You are right, though -- it took a lot of work to get content to a large audience. That reduced the number of malicious agents who could and the speed with which they could successfully gain broad influence.
- pjc50 8y agoMurdoch propaganda press is not a new thing by a long way. Remember Hillsborough.
- zrobotics 8y ago>>There was spin, but there also weren't dedicated propaganda outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst While I agree that journalism is in crisis, this isn't the first time. While Hearst was famous for yellow journalism, his papers weren't the only ones, and often the emotional sensationalism was intended to support a particular candidate (or denounce their opponent).
- stochastic_monk 8y agoGood point, and thank you. I still think there’s a difference between tabloid journalism and a propaganda platform in scope. On the other hand, it showcases the barrier to entry that used to exist.