4 ms·
It's a well-known adage that a lie by omission is still a lie. Complete coverage of a topic or event is not just a positive analysis of factual claims, but also
by netbioserror 3y ago
It's a well-known adage that a lie by omission is still a lie. Complete coverage of a topic or event is not just a positive analysis of factual claims, but also a negative analysis of facts omitted. This is an incredibly fuzzy realm where it is actually impossible to know if a story is truly complete. Thus, the entire pursuit of "objective journalism" to me seems a folly.
I much prefer that partisan actors pursue their incentives to include competing details, from which I can synthesize a Bayesian analysis of what is most likely to have happened. Often, the attempt to slander partisan coverage of events is done to cover up for partisan reporting masquerading as "objective" while omitting or massaging crucial details that only the slandered opposition will point out.
- aebtebeten 3y agoLinebarger's Psychological Warfare (1954) suggests making substantial use —in 'white' propaganda, at least— of omission: > The Japanese who obediently hated the Americans when it was their duty to do so nevertheless could not help looking at maps that showed where the Americans actually were. Nazis who despised us and everything we stood for nevertheless studied the photographs of our new light bombers. The appeal of credible fact is universal; propaganda does not consist of doctoring the fact with moralistic blather, but of selecting that fact which is correct, interesting, and bad for the enemy to know. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_137 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... (unfortunately he seems to hold the wartime propagandist to higher standards than we currently see in peacetime "journalism"?) Edit: > Almost all good propaganda—no matter what kind—is true. It uses truth selectively.