3 ms·

"propaganda (n.) information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." If the

"propaganda (n.) information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." If the Taiwanese government ministries were putting out information _of a misleading or slanted nature_ in their official capacity, the press and public would rightly call them out on it.

mc32 7y ago
But the minister herself indicates the government did just that in the past Beside, if the press and public could and would call out government propaganda (which according to the minister is pretty much indistinguishable from disinformation) why would they need the government to pre-empt and counter it if it's easy to spot?
- komali2 7y ago
  I think because the Taiwanese government is taking the "responsible for public safety and security" role to a natural conclusion for the 21st century - fake news is dangerous, the government is doing its role to combat that. The free press still exists and can fact check away. And, since Taiwan is democratic, if a minister takes the piss, the press can report on it, and the public can elect someone else.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > But the minister herself indicates the government did just that in the past In that more autocratic era, the people who called out the government would have been arrested and imprisoned. That has now changed and that the public and press are now more freely allowed to challenge what is being said by their government.
- my_first_acct 7y ago
  In the "past" that the minister is referring to, Taiwan was a military dictatorship; other than a few brave souls sitting in jail, there was no political opposition, and there was no free press. There was no (legal) alternative to government propaganda. Even publications from overseas were censored (by ink and scissors) as they entered Taiwan. The article suggests that today's government, under the careful supervision of the opposition parties and the independent press (both of which now exist), has resources that allow it to detect propaganda, and preemptively respond to it, in a way that individuals cannot.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Let’s just say the KMT (blue) and the DPP (Green Party) have differing takes on some things.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      KMT being basically pro unification means the PRC is more Chiang Kai-Shek style than DPP I guess? Conservativism trumps historical rivalries.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
I think it's dangerous to assume that one side are the good guys who never lie while the other are the bad guys who always do. Disinformation comes from all sides and one has to be critical of everything.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Yeah by making your own counter-message, you're being humble with respect to that possibility. Let there be two propagandas dropped at the same time and hopefully the truth will tip the scales.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    If the truth was self-evident fake news would not exist... Often there isn't even one truth. And of course when you have two competing versions there is no guarantee that one is true, or that one is not true for that matter. I'm just saying to people should use caution and not take anything at face value.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      > If the truth was self-evident fake news would not exist... Note I saw saying "if there are two narratives". The "fake news" situation is often just one narrative. (US cable news has no narrative. Or brain.) The government shouldn't assume it's correct. But if there is a wide variety of narratives it should be less difficult for the populace.
vkou 7y ago
Mainstream press doesn't like to call the government out on bald-faced lies, because then they get cut off from government information sources. This is currently happening with the White House. Nobody has enough of a spine to be sufficiently critical of the firehose of garbage that it broadcasts, because their press correspondent credentials will be revoked.
- mc32 7y ago
  It doesn’t even have to be adversarial. Sometimes you have a fawning press. or the premier, President, prime minister, etc., can be very charismatic.

mc32 7y ago

But the minister herself indicates the government did just that in the past Beside, if the press and public could and would call out government propaganda (which according to the minister is pretty much indistinguishable from disinformation) why would they need the government to pre-empt and counter it if it's easy to spot?

komali2 7y ago
I think because the Taiwanese government is taking the "responsible for public safety and security" role to a natural conclusion for the 21st century - fake news is dangerous, the government is doing its role to combat that. The free press still exists and can fact check away. And, since Taiwan is democratic, if a minister takes the piss, the press can report on it, and the public can elect someone else.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> But the minister herself indicates the government did just that in the past In that more autocratic era, the people who called out the government would have been arrested and imprisoned. That has now changed and that the public and press are now more freely allowed to challenge what is being said by their government.
my_first_acct 7y ago
In the "past" that the minister is referring to, Taiwan was a military dictatorship; other than a few brave souls sitting in jail, there was no political opposition, and there was no free press. There was no (legal) alternative to government propaganda. Even publications from overseas were censored (by ink and scissors) as they entered Taiwan. The article suggests that today's government, under the careful supervision of the opposition parties and the independent press (both of which now exist), has resources that allow it to detect propaganda, and preemptively respond to it, in a way that individuals cannot.
- mc32 7y ago
  Let’s just say the KMT (blue) and the DPP (Green Party) have differing takes on some things.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    KMT being basically pro unification means the PRC is more Chiang Kai-Shek style than DPP I guess? Conservativism trumps historical rivalries.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

I think it's dangerous to assume that one side are the good guys who never lie while the other are the bad guys who always do. Disinformation comes from all sides and one has to be critical of everything.

Ericson2314 7y ago
Yeah by making your own counter-message, you're being humble with respect to that possibility. Let there be two propagandas dropped at the same time and hopefully the truth will tip the scales.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  If the truth was self-evident fake news would not exist... Often there isn't even one truth. And of course when you have two competing versions there is no guarantee that one is true, or that one is not true for that matter. I'm just saying to people should use caution and not take anything at face value.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    > If the truth was self-evident fake news would not exist... Note I saw saying "if there are two narratives". The "fake news" situation is often just one narrative. (US cable news has no narrative. Or brain.) The government shouldn't assume it's correct. But if there is a wide variety of narratives it should be less difficult for the populace.

vkou 7y ago

Mainstream press doesn't like to call the government out on bald-faced lies, because then they get cut off from government information sources. This is currently happening with the White House. Nobody has enough of a spine to be sufficiently critical of the firehose of garbage that it broadcasts, because their press correspondent credentials will be revoked.

mc32 7y ago
It doesn’t even have to be adversarial. Sometimes you have a fawning press. or the premier, President, prime minister, etc., can be very charismatic.