4 ms·

> Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda. Based on the standard you are suggesting, yes. But not based on the Merriam-Webste

by ecjhdnc2025 2y ago

> Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda. Based on the standard you are suggesting, yes. But not based on the Merriam-Webster definition you're quoting. Criticism -- even the harshest criticism -- is not inherently for the purpose of injury.

ImJamal 2y ago
According to Merriam Webster's definition of injury: "hurt, damage, or loss sustained". Do you think this article is not attempting to damage the reputation of Modi? Dictionary.com has an interesting definition "Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made." Seems like it could possibly apply since there is an attempt to damage Modi's reputation. Do you really think Vox, a left leaning news outlet, is not intending to harm the reputation of Modi, a right leaning politician?
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  If you are a notable person and I have video of you kicking a puppy, and I publish it because you are a notable person and kicking a puppy is wrong, what would damage your reputation is kicking a puppy. Not me publishing it. This act of expanding the definition of propaganda to include the simple publication of harsh critical journalism is unbecoming.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    If nobody knows you kicked the puppy, then your reputation has not been harmed by you kicking the puppy. Once it becomes public, then your reputation has been harmed. I'm a bit confused how you think doing something that nobody knows about could cause reputational damage? To be clear I am not blaming the media for causing the reputational harm in this situation. The blame falls on the person who kicked the puppy, but it doesn't change the fact there was no damage until it was published. I think the problem we are having is we are starting with different core assumptions about propaganda. I believe it is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. You appear to believe it is always bad.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

ImJamal 2y ago

According to Merriam Webster's definition of injury: "hurt, damage, or loss sustained". Do you think this article is not attempting to damage the reputation of Modi? Dictionary.com has an interesting definition "Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made." Seems like it could possibly apply since there is an attempt to damage Modi's reputation. Do you really think Vox, a left leaning news outlet, is not intending to harm the reputation of Modi, a right leaning politician?

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
If you are a notable person and I have video of you kicking a puppy, and I publish it because you are a notable person and kicking a puppy is wrong, what would damage your reputation is kicking a puppy. Not me publishing it. This act of expanding the definition of propaganda to include the simple publication of harsh critical journalism is unbecoming.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  If nobody knows you kicked the puppy, then your reputation has not been harmed by you kicking the puppy. Once it becomes public, then your reputation has been harmed. I'm a bit confused how you think doing something that nobody knows about could cause reputational damage? To be clear I am not blaming the media for causing the reputational harm in this situation. The blame falls on the person who kicked the puppy, but it doesn't change the fact there was no damage until it was published. I think the problem we are having is we are starting with different core assumptions about propaganda. I believe it is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. You appear to believe it is always bad.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]