3 ms·

You have all been 'victims' of propaganda in the last few months with respect to COVID, it's happening in front of our eyes. Propaganda is just heavy-handed PR

by jariel 6y ago

You have all been 'victims' of propaganda in the last few months with respect to COVID, it's happening in front of our eyes. Propaganda is just heavy-handed PR used especially during times of crisis, and usually by civilian governments, not the military. In fact - this military exercise really is more under the category of 'psy ops' or 'battlefield disinformation' rather than 'propaganda'. The most classical forms of 'propaganda' would be the glorification to the point of misrepresentation of activities to ensure popular support and calm concerns back home during a war. So, the short-reels produced by the government and distributed to movie houses during WW2 would have been a form of propaganda. The classic 'Uncle Sam Wants YOU!' posters as well. As for contemporary propaganda - right now, during COVID we are absolutely being subject to forms of propaganda particularly related to masks. Do you remember at the start of the pandemic and they were saying don't wear masks? And now everyone is shaming those that don't? “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” - Dr. Fauci, March 8, 2020. How on earth could we pull a 'moral 180' on some behaviour so quickly without really any new information? "Why are you wearing that mask! Dr. Fauci said no!" ----> "Why are you not wearing a mask, spreader! Dr. Fauci said we need to wear masks!" The line of reasoning was that masks were in deep shortage, and in the scenario it made more sense to get supplies to front line medical staff, and particularly to avoid people hoarding masks. The effectiveness of masks was purposely downplayed to affect desired outcome of the population. You were lied to point blank, or rather, the information you were given was completely misrepresented, on purpose. Note that Dr. Fauci's statement in March 2008 was not 'a lie' - it was in fact factual, just misrepresentative, or rather, it was a specific articulation of facts with some kind of objective in mind. Take a moment of self awareness to grasp this implications of this, and that it was probably rational and necessary. This is the tip of the iceberg, and government officials are concerned with this issue of communications on a daily basis. 'What you are being told' and how you are being 'messaged' is very much controlled, it's not just an information dump of transparency. What we want and need is for behaviour to adapt, not so much for people to be specifically informed, especially on issues that are not hugely practical like the details of r0. This is propaganda. This is a pretty good example of what propaganda is because it demonstrates the moral ambiguity of 'truth, communication and outcomes'. FYI I should note, I'm not against masks or even the current public communications (i.e. propaganda) measures being used there, rather, just illustrating this is absolutely propaganda, i.e. "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

52-6F-62 6y ago
This comment is a blazing illustration of at least one "why" they were doing what they were doing. (all other questions aside)
542354234235 6y ago
> The line of reasoning was that masks were in deep shortage, and in the scenario it made more sense to get supplies to front line medical staff, and particularly to avoid people hoarding masks. The effectiveness of masks was purposely downplayed to affect desired outcome of the population. No. The line of reasoning was there was a deep shortage and with the information they had at the time, they did not think that masks were necessary or useful for the average person. They didn’t lie and say masks don’t work, they said masks don’t work like people think they do and they didn’t believe it was necessary or productive to wear them. And masks don’t provide meaningful protection to the person wearing them. They provide meaningful protection to the people around the mask wearer. So going and getting a non-N95 to keep from getting covid, was and is wrong. > “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” - Dr. Fauci, March 8, 2020…How on earth could we pull a 'moral 180' on some behaviour so quickly without really any new information? This can’t possibly be serious. We have been learning new information about this completely novel virus every single week. It is a completely new virus we knew nothing about a year ago. That statement was made on March 8th, when there were a few thousand cases in the US. We had a very different understanding of the fatality rate, the R naught value of infection rates, the methods of transmissibility, the incubation period, the rate of asymptomatic cases. The list goes on. > This is a pretty good example of what propaganda is because it demonstrates the moral ambiguity of 'truth, communication and outcomes'. This is a terrible example because it relies completely on both hindsight bias that people knew then what we know now about a novel virus, and on a basic lack of understanding of how masks even work, failing to understand the statements made about them. What was true about masks 9 months ago is true now. Wearing a non-N95 mask will do very little to protect you if you are exposed to Covid. Wearing a mask will drastically reduce you transmitting the virus to other people. The mask shouldn’t be seen as an individual prophylactic. The mask should be seen as a collective protection measure.

by jariel 6y ago

52-6F-62 6y ago

This comment is a blazing illustration of at least one "why" they were doing what they were doing. (all other questions aside)

542354234235 6y ago

> The line of reasoning was that masks were in deep shortage, and in the scenario it made more sense to get supplies to front line medical staff, and particularly to avoid people hoarding masks. The effectiveness of masks was purposely downplayed to affect desired outcome of the population. No. The line of reasoning was there was a deep shortage and with the information they had at the time, they did not think that masks were necessary or useful for the average person. They didn’t lie and say masks don’t work, they said masks don’t work like people think they do and they didn’t believe it was necessary or productive to wear them. And masks don’t provide meaningful protection to the person wearing them. They provide meaningful protection to the people around the mask wearer. So going and getting a non-N95 to keep from getting covid, was and is wrong. > “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” - Dr. Fauci, March 8, 2020…How on earth could we pull a 'moral 180' on some behaviour so quickly without really any new information? This can’t possibly be serious. We have been learning new information about this completely novel virus every single week. It is a completely new virus we knew nothing about a year ago. That statement was made on March 8th, when there were a few thousand cases in the US. We had a very different understanding of the fatality rate, the R naught value of infection rates, the methods of transmissibility, the incubation period, the rate of asymptomatic cases. The list goes on. > This is a pretty good example of what propaganda is because it demonstrates the moral ambiguity of 'truth, communication and outcomes'. This is a terrible example because it relies completely on both hindsight bias that people knew then what we know now about a novel virus, and on a basic lack of understanding of how masks even work, failing to understand the statements made about them. What was true about masks 9 months ago is true now. Wearing a non-N95 mask will do very little to protect you if you are exposed to Covid. Wearing a mask will drastically reduce you transmitting the virus to other people. The mask shouldn’t be seen as an individual prophylactic. The mask should be seen as a collective protection measure.