4 ms·

The orchestrated unison happened after Polin Cowell gave his presentation for war at the UN. As the phenomenal article from USA Today you referenced mentions, h

by rjf72 7y ago

The orchestrated unison happened after Polin Cowell gave his presentation for war at the UN. As the phenomenal article from USA Today you referenced mentions, his case was hardly compelling and full of aspersions with no unquestionable evidence (which is largely because as in hindsight we can now realize - such evidence did not exist), but that didn't stop the usual suspects of the New York Times, Washington Post, etc from not only unquestionably parroting it, but actively working to try to persuade people to support the war. That is why I do not think it hyperbolic to refer to what they engaged in as propaganda. In checking out USA Today their coverage of Hong Kong [1] today also seems remarkably level-headed in contrast again to the New York Times, Washington Post, et al - which are presenting the situation in a sensationalized and single-sided fashion. Unfortunately more tempered coverage seems to gain little to no traction, then and now. [1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/02/hong-kong-beijing-issues-ominous-warning-after-protests/1625926001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/02/hong-ko...

laughinghan 7y ago
I agree with you that it's not hyperbolic to call that "propaganda". Just like I don't think it's hyperbolic to call punching someone in the face "violence". That doesn't mean I think punching someone in the face is the same thing as murder. They're both violent, but they're completely, fundamentally different. The US mainstream media and the Chinese state media both engage in propaganda, but they're completely, fundamentally different. I have my quibbles with that USA Today article (which I actually found quite biased, presenting the views of 3 different Hong Kong or Chinese government offices but just one single protestor viewpoint). I have quibbles with NYT and WP coverage of Hong Kong too. But fundamentally, they're written with good-faith intent to inform. Though I perceived a bias in USA Today's coverage, they still did report on the woman shot in the eye by Hong Kong police with a less-lethal round. Chinese state media, by contrast, is reporting that she was hit in the eye by a fellow protestor, and even claims that "Internet sources" say she's in charge of paying protestors to demonstrate: http://m.news.cctv.com/2019/08/12/ARTIZFDwhpv8u9PFBzzWbYhP190812.shtml http://m.news.cctv.com/2019/08/12/ARTIZFDwhpv8u9PFBzzWbYhP19... That's not good-faith intent to inform. That's bad-faith intent to deceive. That's completely, fundamentally different the kind of "propaganda" that US media engages in.
- rjf72 7y ago
  The problem you have here is that this is a scenario where accurate reporting of this incident is in the interests of the US so why would you ever expect to see anything but forthright reporting? The question is what happens when accurate reporting is not in our interests? An extremely recent incident was the aid convoy in Venezuela. In a convoy sent by the US to Venezuela, one of the trucks ended up getting set on fire. All mainstream news sources in the US ran the story that Maduro forces had set the convoy on fire. Yet within a day non-US sources such as RT had published video showing that it was a protester had set the truck on fire. Indeed our media would eventually acknowledge it was all a lie, but only several weeks later. The timeline is: February 23rd - truck set on fire. western media runs nonstop articles blaming Maduro. politicians use it as effort to try to justify war. February 24th - RT publishes refutation clearly showing it was a protester who set the vehicle on fire [1] February 25th - March 9th - US media and politicians continue shoving the Maduro did it fabrication. March 10th - NYTimes acknowledges it was a protester who set the convoy on fire and very briefly runs a story as if its breaking news. [2] Even getting back to the Iraq reporting. Our media did not just passively present what was said. They actively evangelized and argued in favor of the evidence which was always, at best, dubious. Fundamentally I think one of the major differences in our propaganda is that we're simply much better at it. Propaganda should not make most people suspect it's propaganda. Ours doesn't - theirs does. [1] - https://www.rt.com/news/452326-venezuela-us-aid-truck-protesters/ https://www.rt.com/news/452326-venezuela-us-aid-truck-protes... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...

by rjf72 7y ago

laughinghan 7y ago

I agree with you that it's not hyperbolic to call that "propaganda". Just like I don't think it's hyperbolic to call punching someone in the face "violence". That doesn't mean I think punching someone in the face is the same thing as murder. They're both violent, but they're completely, fundamentally different. The US mainstream media and the Chinese state media both engage in propaganda, but they're completely, fundamentally different. I have my quibbles with that USA Today article (which I actually found quite biased, presenting the views of 3 different Hong Kong or Chinese government offices but just one single protestor viewpoint). I have quibbles with NYT and WP coverage of Hong Kong too. But fundamentally, they're written with good-faith intent to inform. Though I perceived a bias in USA Today's coverage, they still did report on the woman shot in the eye by Hong Kong police with a less-lethal round. Chinese state media, by contrast, is reporting that she was hit in the eye by a fellow protestor, and even claims that "Internet sources" say she's in charge of paying protestors to demonstrate: http://m.news.cctv.com/2019/08/12/ARTIZFDwhpv8u9PFBzzWbYhP190812.shtml http://m.news.cctv.com/2019/08/12/ARTIZFDwhpv8u9PFBzzWbYhP19... That's not good-faith intent to inform. That's bad-faith intent to deceive. That's completely, fundamentally different the kind of "propaganda" that US media engages in.

rjf72 7y ago
The problem you have here is that this is a scenario where accurate reporting of this incident is in the interests of the US so why would you ever expect to see anything but forthright reporting? The question is what happens when accurate reporting is not in our interests? An extremely recent incident was the aid convoy in Venezuela. In a convoy sent by the US to Venezuela, one of the trucks ended up getting set on fire. All mainstream news sources in the US ran the story that Maduro forces had set the convoy on fire. Yet within a day non-US sources such as RT had published video showing that it was a protester had set the truck on fire. Indeed our media would eventually acknowledge it was all a lie, but only several weeks later. The timeline is: February 23rd - truck set on fire. western media runs nonstop articles blaming Maduro. politicians use it as effort to try to justify war. February 24th - RT publishes refutation clearly showing it was a protester who set the vehicle on fire [1] February 25th - March 9th - US media and politicians continue shoving the Maduro did it fabrication. March 10th - NYTimes acknowledges it was a protester who set the convoy on fire and very briefly runs a story as if its breaking news. [2] Even getting back to the Iraq reporting. Our media did not just passively present what was said. They actively evangelized and argued in favor of the evidence which was always, at best, dubious. Fundamentally I think one of the major differences in our propaganda is that we're simply much better at it. Propaganda should not make most people suspect it's propaganda. Ours doesn't - theirs does. [1] - https://www.rt.com/news/452326-venezuela-us-aid-truck-protesters/ https://www.rt.com/news/452326-venezuela-us-aid-truck-protes... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...