3 ms·
> Yes, and they published counter-propaganda from HK protestors. I would not be surprised if they did, but I hadn’t heard of this. Do you have a reference? >
by nemetroid 5y ago
> Yes, and they published counter-propaganda from HK protestors.
I would not be surprised if they did, but I hadn’t heard of this. Do you have a reference?
> Advertisement is propaganda.
I don’t disagree, but Wolodarski (at the time) fashioned DN as a neutral observer. As he is publishing this opinion piece under his editor-in-chief title, I can only assume he has changed stances (or maybe he just doesn’t want SvD’s editor-in-chief to be in the list of authors instead of him).
- nabla9 5y ago> I can only assume he has changed stances I don't see how that is different stance. You can oppose Chinese government and still allow them to buy ads in moderation to get their message trough. They are not in every front confrontation against Chinese government and neither is their readership or their government.
- nemetroid 5y agoObviously you can do that (since they’ve done it), but it severely limits your credibility when you do speak out.
- nabla9 5y agoI think it improves their credibility. They did approve it after some consideration. https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/peter-wolodarski-om-kritiken-mot-kinas-hongkongannons/ https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/peter-wolodarski-om-kritik... Newspapers have positions on free speech and human rights, but they are not supposed to be are not political crusaders who shut down everything they don't approve. If being adult who understands nuances is not being credible, this world is wrong.