3 ms·
He is simply saying that there's no such thing as anti-propaganda by definition, there can only be propaganda from opposing viewpoints. It's mainly a linguistic
by JonnieCache 15y ago
He is simply saying that there's no such thing as anti-propaganda by definition, there can only be propaganda from opposing viewpoints. It's mainly a linguistic distinction. Chill out. He's almost agreeing with you.
>Please... Your only excuses is if you are being sarcastic or are actually getting paid to say that.
Nobody has to provide you with an "excuse" for their views.
- rdtsc 15y agoI got that, however he followed it by the statement that US posts factual information, implying that only other side is somehow trying to influence public opinion but US is posting just facts. Making it seem as it is "propaganda" vs "facts". So I made up a stupid example to show how even presenting facts in a certain way is enough to completely skew the type & tone of the message.
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoThere are surely many govt agencies spreading misinformation - no argument. But the article is about a group trying to support open communication, dispelling rumors and trying to tone down the rhetoric. It exists, its the army(!) doing it, and its newsworthy. Calling it 'propaganda' doesn't make it false or wrong. Btw just say what you want to say. No need to play 'he meant/she meant'.
- danssig 15y ago>But the article is about a group trying to support open communication, dispelling rumors and trying to tone down the rhetoric. The implication is that the communication is not open, but propaganda. This is almost certainly the case and even if it isn't at this second it will be. How can we assume the people "dispelling rumors" even know the truth?