4 ms·

> I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. To people who disagree with you, your opinion is always trivially dis

by timr 7mo ago

> I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. To people who disagree with you, your opinion is always trivially dismissed as "propaganda". This is neither insightful nor charitable, and applies universally to actors on any side of a political debate.

surgical_fire 7mo ago
The word propaganda has a meaning. In this case I think it was used correctly. Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea. And frankly, Bezos does very little to deserve charity when people evaluate his actions.
- timr 7mo ago
  > Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). > While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea We're talking about the opinion section. The editorial board writes opinions. You're fundamentally just upset that they switched from writing about opinions you prefer, to ones that you don't like, but they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda.
  - surgical_fire 7mo ago
    An opinion section can be spreading propaganda. Labeling a session as "opinion" in a newspaper should not give it free pass to say any sort of bullshit. And I am not upset at anything. I was never a Washington Post reader.
jrflowers 7mo ago
It kind of seems like you’re either arguing that there’s no such thing as propaganda, or that if a thing bothers someone then it can’t be propaganda. If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does.
- timr 7mo ago
  > If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does. Well, OK. If you want to call the New York Times opinion section "propaganda", then I guess I can't argue.
  - jrflowers 7mo ago
    This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. Is “I have imagined your opinion about a different thing that we aren’t talking about!” supposed to be some sort of gotcha? You called the Washington Post opinions section propaganda in another post. You seem to keep agreeing with the people that you’re responding to in a tone that sounds like you’re not agreeing with them. It seems like we all agree about Jeff Bezos turning the options section into his own personal propaganda outlet and you just want to add that you think other folks are angry? And you want us to know that you’re imagining our opinions about other stuff?
    - timr 7mo ago
      > This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. No, "we" are not doing that. You are asserting this, and I am saying that you are confusing the completely historically normal function of a newspaper editorial staff with "propaganda". Newspaper owners have, since newspapers have existed, controlled the editorial slants of their papers. The New York Times does similar things regularly -- but on the left -- and James Bennet famously was pushed out from the Times in 2020 for having the temerity to publish an editorial from a sitting US Senator, because that Senator said something right-wing, and AG Sulzberger (chairman of the Times) demanded his resignation for it. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-bennet-nyt-firing-00131826 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-benn... > You called the Washington Post opinions section propaganda in another post. I did not. > It seems like we all agree about Jeff Bezos turning the options section into his own personal propaganda outlet No.

by timr 7mo ago

surgical_fire 7mo ago

The word propaganda has a meaning. In this case I think it was used correctly. Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea. And frankly, Bezos does very little to deserve charity when people evaluate his actions.

timr 7mo ago
> Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). > While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea We're talking about the opinion section. The editorial board writes opinions. You're fundamentally just upset that they switched from writing about opinions you prefer, to ones that you don't like, but they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda.
- surgical_fire 7mo ago
  An opinion section can be spreading propaganda. Labeling a session as "opinion" in a newspaper should not give it free pass to say any sort of bullshit. And I am not upset at anything. I was never a Washington Post reader.

jrflowers 7mo ago

It kind of seems like you’re either arguing that there’s no such thing as propaganda, or that if a thing bothers someone then it can’t be propaganda. If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does.

timr 7mo ago
> If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does. Well, OK. If you want to call the New York Times opinion section "propaganda", then I guess I can't argue.
- jrflowers 7mo ago
  This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. Is “I have imagined your opinion about a different thing that we aren’t talking about!” supposed to be some sort of gotcha? You called the Washington Post opinions section propaganda in another post. You seem to keep agreeing with the people that you’re responding to in a tone that sounds like you’re not agreeing with them. It seems like we all agree about Jeff Bezos turning the options section into his own personal propaganda outlet and you just want to add that you think other folks are angry? And you want us to know that you’re imagining our opinions about other stuff?
  - timr 7mo ago
    > This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. No, "we" are not doing that. You are asserting this, and I am saying that you are confusing the completely historically normal function of a newspaper editorial staff with "propaganda". Newspaper owners have, since newspapers have existed, controlled the editorial slants of their papers. The New York Times does similar things regularly -- but on the left -- and James Bennet famously was pushed out from the Times in 2020 for having the temerity to publish an editorial from a sitting US Senator, because that Senator said something right-wing, and AG Sulzberger (chairman of the Times) demanded his resignation for it. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-bennet-nyt-firing-00131826 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-benn... > You called the Washington Post opinions section propaganda in another post. I did not. > It seems like we all agree about Jeff Bezos turning the options section into his own personal propaganda outlet No.