4 ms·

Since you've editted, I will use a new comment. Propaganda is among others what to say, or not to say. When to say it. What words to use. 1) Where the NYT use

Since you've editted, I will use a new comment. Propaganda is among others what to say, or not to say. When to say it. What words to use. 1) Where the NYT uses manipulating western media, I would say China is engaging with world leading social networks. Basically China is buying likes. Big frickin' deal. But the NYT calls this manipulates Facebook and Twitter ( as if they are influencing the companies in itself ). 2) Manufacturing consent implies war : foreign adventures. It is not whataboutism because the US has a track record of these adventures and China has not.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Do you regard Tibet as an internal Chinese matter? The US has more of a track record, I'll admit. On the other hand, China keeps forever in a way that the US does not. I asked if you have any evidence. You didn't even hint that you had any, so I will assume that you do not. So we're back to "That's just your opinion."
- the-dude 5y ago
  Asking for evidence of manufacturing consent is not understanding manufacturing consent. Without being told, the media knows what is supposed to report on and what not to report on.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    "It's clearly true, no evidence needed"? At a minimum, that's not very persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. But worse, that kind of thinking is how you wind up with beliefs that no external evidence can persuade you are false. It's the same approach of both religious cults and conspiracy theorists. Mind you, you could in fact be right. But the thinking pattern has, at best, disreputable fellow travelers. Be cautious of that pattern of thinking.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      In this case it means you misunderstand the model [1] which doesn't require conspiracy or malicious intent. The book they published on it is just a mass of evidence that this is how it works, check it out if that's what you want. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Do you regard Tibet as an internal Chinese matter? The US has more of a track record, I'll admit. On the other hand, China keeps forever in a way that the US does not. I asked if you have any evidence. You didn't even hint that you had any, so I will assume that you do not. So we're back to "That's just your opinion."

the-dude 5y ago
Asking for evidence of manufacturing consent is not understanding manufacturing consent. Without being told, the media knows what is supposed to report on and what not to report on.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  "It's clearly true, no evidence needed"? At a minimum, that's not very persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. But worse, that kind of thinking is how you wind up with beliefs that no external evidence can persuade you are false. It's the same approach of both religious cults and conspiracy theorists. Mind you, you could in fact be right. But the thinking pattern has, at best, disreputable fellow travelers. Be cautious of that pattern of thinking.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    In this case it means you misunderstand the model [1] which doesn't require conspiracy or malicious intent. The book they published on it is just a mass of evidence that this is how it works, check it out if that's what you want. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model