4 ms·

Stories are chosen for a reason. I don't know what that reason was, in this case, but you can be certain that it benefits those in control of the printing pres

Stories are chosen for a reason. I don't know what that reason was, in this case, but you can be certain that it benefits those in control of the printing press. It is in this sense that all journalism is propaganda of one sort or another. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

chrisseaton 5y ago
> I don't know what that reason was Right.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  So, you get it now? This story is most certainly made to influence you in some way (i.e. make you feel something). That's the literal definition of propaganda, after all.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > So, you get it now? You said you thought it was supposed to make us feel good, then you said you don't know what it was supposed to do. Both things cannot be true at the same time, can they?
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      I never said it was supposed to make anyone feel good. You are confused. You asked: > Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts. I just showed you how it is supposed to make you feel something.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > I just showed you You just claimed it - you didn't show anything but your opinion! There are lots of reasons people print stories - such as earning income.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I did. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        That’s polemic. In reality we know the situation is more subtle. For example news outlets do in practice write stories that are critical of their advertisers. Many write stories that are critical of themselves.
Nasrudith 5y ago
Or it could be because it sells papers as River Dave attracted a lot of attention. Black and white thinking is presented as critical thinking far too often.
anigbrowl 5y ago
As a one time sub-editor I can tell you the most pressing reason is often to fill space - ie the 'news hole' which is what people buy (or visit the website of) a paper to read, and which makes the advertising profitable to sell in the first place. I take your point about PR/propaganda, which is surely a factor in this public (rather than anonymous) donation from a CEO of a company with a mediocre reputation. But while some editorial decisions are as political as you say, others are just pragmatic bids upon a fickle public's attention.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  And I take your point about "filling space." But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? How do you think your bosses, and the publisher would feel?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? But news organisations do this all the time! Companies like Google advertise in all major national newspapers, but of course those newspaper carry criticism of Google. Have you really never noticed this?
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    I've been out of that business for a long time now, but short answer is yes, absolutely. Yes, it might create problems - there is always and has always been tension between editorial and business. This can definitely be a problem at the local level, it's gonna be hard for a small paper to run a negative story about a big industry or company that's the biggest employer in a town or region or that advertises heavily in the paper, eg real estate firm or the like. I have had stories spiked because they were 'too political' and that sucked. And I've quit jobs for ethical reasons (though not in that same context), which also sucked. I think your criticism is valid but I also think that an overly ideological analysis - which a guy like Noam Chomsky does a lot - can mislead one into oversimplifying a complex picture. Understanding the idea and mechanics of manufacturing consent is important for media literacy and political understanding. But it's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when consuming media, not an iron law of social behavior; if you start assuming that everyone in the media is part of a giant consent-manufacturing conspiracy, then you can fall into a different cognitive trap that is just as bad as uncritical acceptance.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> I don't know what that reason was Right.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
So, you get it now? This story is most certainly made to influence you in some way (i.e. make you feel something). That's the literal definition of propaganda, after all.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > So, you get it now? You said you thought it was supposed to make us feel good, then you said you don't know what it was supposed to do. Both things cannot be true at the same time, can they?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I never said it was supposed to make anyone feel good. You are confused. You asked: > Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts. I just showed you how it is supposed to make you feel something.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > I just showed you You just claimed it - you didn't show anything but your opinion! There are lots of reasons people print stories - such as earning income.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I did. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        That’s polemic. In reality we know the situation is more subtle. For example news outlets do in practice write stories that are critical of their advertisers. Many write stories that are critical of themselves.

Nasrudith 5y ago

Or it could be because it sells papers as River Dave attracted a lot of attention. Black and white thinking is presented as critical thinking far too often.

anigbrowl 5y ago

As a one time sub-editor I can tell you the most pressing reason is often to fill space - ie the 'news hole' which is what people buy (or visit the website of) a paper to read, and which makes the advertising profitable to sell in the first place. I take your point about PR/propaganda, which is surely a factor in this public (rather than anonymous) donation from a CEO of a company with a mediocre reputation. But while some editorial decisions are as political as you say, others are just pragmatic bids upon a fickle public's attention.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
And I take your point about "filling space." But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? How do you think your bosses, and the publisher would feel?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? But news organisations do this all the time! Companies like Google advertise in all major national newspapers, but of course those newspaper carry criticism of Google. Have you really never noticed this?
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  I've been out of that business for a long time now, but short answer is yes, absolutely. Yes, it might create problems - there is always and has always been tension between editorial and business. This can definitely be a problem at the local level, it's gonna be hard for a small paper to run a negative story about a big industry or company that's the biggest employer in a town or region or that advertises heavily in the paper, eg real estate firm or the like. I have had stories spiked because they were 'too political' and that sucked. And I've quit jobs for ethical reasons (though not in that same context), which also sucked. I think your criticism is valid but I also think that an overly ideological analysis - which a guy like Noam Chomsky does a lot - can mislead one into oversimplifying a complex picture. Understanding the idea and mechanics of manufacturing consent is important for media literacy and political understanding. But it's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when consuming media, not an iron law of social behavior; if you start assuming that everyone in the media is part of a giant consent-manufacturing conspiracy, then you can fall into a different cognitive trap that is just as bad as uncritical acceptance.