3 ms·

You say that some issues of The Economist are propagandist. I am inclined to take this opinion seriously. This said I wonder how you got to this conclusion. Wha

You say that some issues of The Economist are propagandist. I am inclined to take this opinion seriously. This said I wonder how you got to this conclusion. What exactly ticked you off? I am asking this because I myself fell for some propaganda and this has shaken me up. I want to learn how to recognize propaganda better.

paganel 5y ago
> What exactly ticked you off? Can't pinpoint to an exact thing, because good propaganda is always diffuse, it kind of encircles you. Were it to be more "straightforward" it would be way easier for the target subject to just reject it, thus denying the propagandist's objective. It is easier for said target subject to say "no" (let's say) to one big thing that is presented to him than to say "no" to lots of smaller things addressed/presented to him, but which smaller things, taken together, have the same "effect" as the one big thing. Back to The Economist, and after that long digression, the signs were in a sort always there. For example when it comes to the China section that it's included in every issue there was always that feeling that nothing that the Chinese government/authorities did was right. If something good was happening in China it was because of individual people, if something bad was happening, it was, of course, the government's fault. And maybe the "government" is the wrong word, because there are lots of people in the West itself who think that the Government is always wrong, too, it was more like "it was the fault of the Chinese regime taken as a whole, of the way it was set up, of its ideological system". But when it came to the US the bad things were never the fault of the government, or if some government-related person was doing something wrong (think the previous US president) then it was the fault of that particular person, not of the entire system per se. Also, said US system, even with its minor faults, was always presented as being capable of self-correction, there was always an intrinsic belief that "things will get better, by definition". No such hope was attached to the Chinese-based system, which was always presented as an ideological dead-end (maybe not in this direct words, but that was the idea). And then there are even smaller things. One that stood up to me was when the previous president was accused of lying, a thing that lots of other US president had done in the past (and will probably do in the future, too) but which I hadn't seen presented as such by this magazine, I mean, not with those words. And not only that, but that lye accusation was written down in one of their columns with a capital L, something like "the big Lye", which is a basic propaganda technique: one is not a mere "traitor", but a big, dangerous, "Traitor", one just cannot think and reason about a nondescript "people", one instead dreams big nationalistic things while thinking about the "People" etc. The war/Russia issue I was talking about had all of the above dialed up to 100.
- worik 5y ago
  The Economist wears its prejudice on its sleeve and acknowledges them. It was literally founded as a propaganda organ for the liberals in England. In opposition to the "Corn Laws" It is also "where the Queen goes, go we". So if England (not Britain, England) declares war they are in, boots and all. They cheer lead the Iraqi debacle then years later talked of "those mistaken supporteds of the Iraqi invasion including this magazine". It is what I like about them. Most media does not admit it bias, the Economist admits it every day. "FROM A CYNICAL European perspective, Viktor Orban’s election triumphs are like covid-19 wave" it says. Because it has always been anti Orban. Always called on the Hungarian voters to rejected him. I disagree with many of their priors (I find the emphasis on individual rights as opposed to collective rights unbalanced. Collective rights exist an often conflict with individual rights and I put the balance in a different place) But I have huge respect for the honesty. You can label it "propaganda". It is not incorrect. But it is unsubtle and very honest. Compare that to Fox News or the Guardian both of which do not recognise that their views are prejudice at all.

paganel 5y ago

> What exactly ticked you off? Can't pinpoint to an exact thing, because good propaganda is always diffuse, it kind of encircles you. Were it to be more "straightforward" it would be way easier for the target subject to just reject it, thus denying the propagandist's objective. It is easier for said target subject to say "no" (let's say) to one big thing that is presented to him than to say "no" to lots of smaller things addressed/presented to him, but which smaller things, taken together, have the same "effect" as the one big thing. Back to The Economist, and after that long digression, the signs were in a sort always there. For example when it comes to the China section that it's included in every issue there was always that feeling that nothing that the Chinese government/authorities did was right. If something good was happening in China it was because of individual people, if something bad was happening, it was, of course, the government's fault. And maybe the "government" is the wrong word, because there are lots of people in the West itself who think that the Government is always wrong, too, it was more like "it was the fault of the Chinese regime taken as a whole, of the way it was set up, of its ideological system". But when it came to the US the bad things were never the fault of the government, or if some government-related person was doing something wrong (think the previous US president) then it was the fault of that particular person, not of the entire system per se. Also, said US system, even with its minor faults, was always presented as being capable of self-correction, there was always an intrinsic belief that "things will get better, by definition". No such hope was attached to the Chinese-based system, which was always presented as an ideological dead-end (maybe not in this direct words, but that was the idea). And then there are even smaller things. One that stood up to me was when the previous president was accused of lying, a thing that lots of other US president had done in the past (and will probably do in the future, too) but which I hadn't seen presented as such by this magazine, I mean, not with those words. And not only that, but that lye accusation was written down in one of their columns with a capital L, something like "the big Lye", which is a basic propaganda technique: one is not a mere "traitor", but a big, dangerous, "Traitor", one just cannot think and reason about a nondescript "people", one instead dreams big nationalistic things while thinking about the "People" etc. The war/Russia issue I was talking about had all of the above dialed up to 100.

worik 5y ago
The Economist wears its prejudice on its sleeve and acknowledges them. It was literally founded as a propaganda organ for the liberals in England. In opposition to the "Corn Laws" It is also "where the Queen goes, go we". So if England (not Britain, England) declares war they are in, boots and all. They cheer lead the Iraqi debacle then years later talked of "those mistaken supporteds of the Iraqi invasion including this magazine". It is what I like about them. Most media does not admit it bias, the Economist admits it every day. "FROM A CYNICAL European perspective, Viktor Orban’s election triumphs are like covid-19 wave" it says. Because it has always been anti Orban. Always called on the Hungarian voters to rejected him. I disagree with many of their priors (I find the emphasis on individual rights as opposed to collective rights unbalanced. Collective rights exist an often conflict with individual rights and I put the balance in a different place) But I have huge respect for the honesty. You can label it "propaganda". It is not incorrect. But it is unsubtle and very honest. Compare that to Fox News or the Guardian both of which do not recognise that their views are prejudice at all.