4 ms·

Don't forget the "Snowden's girlfriend is a 'pole dancer'" news story that has been on CNN America, the Daily Mail, Washington Times, Telegraph, USA Today, the

Don't forget the "Snowden's girlfriend is a 'pole dancer'" news story that has been on CNN America, the Daily Mail, Washington Times, Telegraph, USA Today, the Huffington Post, ABC News, and a few others. If anyone thinks that Western news isn't propagandist then there is your proof, right there, that they are. That isn't a real news story. It isn't in the public interest. It is just a character attack on the man and his family. She wasn't even in the public eye.

skore 13y ago
I don't like it either, but: "Somewhat strange information related to a story that's big right now" is quite a desirable commodity in the news business. It's a perfect opener ("Have you heard this candid fact about a person that you didn't even know about before yesterday!?") and fakes in-depth knowledge ("Oh boy, they're really looking into everything!") even if there's isn't much of a story right now. Yes, it's devoid of information. Yes, it's not in the public interest to know. Yes, it comes at a cost to the person talked about that is disproportional to the gain the audience has from the information. Yes, she wasn't in the public eye. But is this definite proof of propaganda? No. More likely it's just yet another outgrowth of what happens when news organizations are competing for attention. It's histrionic. But, well, there's human nature for you. [edit] As noted by a comment - I'm only pointing out a flaw in the OPs logic. This really might be propaganda, but OPs "proof" simply isn't one.
- eruditely 13y ago
  What sheer and utter apologism.
  - skore 13y ago
    I didn't mean to make an apology, just pointing out that the logic that is applied as "proof" isn't coherent proof at all.
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      It's not logic. There are women all over the country doing "pole dancing" classes and men and women who frequent "pole dancing" establishments and so it's really just a smear of a young woman for guilt by association. That's how shitty the "elites" are, they will go after anyone and everyone in their mad scramble to protect their golden gooses.
      - skore 13y ago
        Absolutely, but the bar for news is low. As long as people recognize something and then think "Oh!", it's good enough for release. "Pole dancing" may be a hobby for some folks, but it still is uncommon enough to be a tiny bit remarkable. I read the fact about the pole dancing stuff and thought "Oh.". So there. Once again - I completely follow the train logic and it could be that way. But it isn't necessarily proof for a theory about propaganda or "the elites".
        wavefunction 13y ago
        Indeed. The bit about the "elites" is just my own opinion. I mean people who are invested in the status quo and thus interested in maintaining it, even when it is apparent that there is a need for change. I put the term in quotes because it's more of a mindset they seem to have than an objective qualifier.
corresation 13y ago
Of course she is in the public eye: Friends and family of interesting parties always get pulled into the public eye, for stories having nothing at all to do with 'propaganda'. The same is true of so many other details that will always get looked up on people in this social media/online world time. There is nothing at all nefarious about it. Indeed, it is getting bizarre seeing people outraged that some truth about people is reported. Ms Mills identifies herself as a pole dancer. Snowden made banal online comments. Snowden dropped out of high school. These are not smears but are just interesting facts. They don't diminish either of them an iota in my eyes, but do add colour. A lot of people here seem to think these are deeply embarrassing facts that should remain hidden.
- gbrindisi 13y ago
  > Of course she is in the public eye: Friends and family of interesting parties always get pulled into the public eye I find this aspect and the fact that is obvious to most people, barbaric at best.
  - corresation 13y ago
    Blame falls on all of us. The media or the propaganda masters don't do this on a whim -- people have a hunger for details around a story. It is in all of our nature.
- jopt 13y ago
  I agree these are interesting details, and I'm happier for knowing more about the people involved. However, I also believe that these facts are smears. They are being published not to inform but as ad hominem attacks on Snowden. When the war logs leaked, I doubted that anyone would take the initial smears against Julian Assange seriously. I'm Swedish and the sexual misconduct allegations were a big conversation subject here. After a while, I realised that though I wasn't impressed by the ad hominems, they really did work on the general public. Older relatives and friends who were not in tune with the particular issues of the leak were much more interested in stories about the people behind it. These stories require no expert knowledge; they're relatable. It's daunting for a layperson to try to judge who's right or wrong in issues like war or spying, but it's easy and familiar to judge people over the perceived wholesomeness of girls they're involved with. Thus, to my disappointment, these friends and relatives categorically dismissed anything about the war logs by referring to Assange's personal affairs. Things like this are published to create negative associations; to cater to personal vanity (better-than-thou) and focus judgement on Snowden's character rather than the faceless institutions he ousted.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Instead of a character attack. Maybe they're just trying to pull clicks in from people hoping to see provacative photos. Pathetic either way.
rtpg 13y ago
Obviously this is a conspiracy by the government and not news org's trying to sell newspapers/clicks/ad dollars.

skore 13y ago

I don't like it either, but: "Somewhat strange information related to a story that's big right now" is quite a desirable commodity in the news business. It's a perfect opener ("Have you heard this candid fact about a person that you didn't even know about before yesterday!?") and fakes in-depth knowledge ("Oh boy, they're really looking into everything!") even if there's isn't much of a story right now. Yes, it's devoid of information. Yes, it's not in the public interest to know. Yes, it comes at a cost to the person talked about that is disproportional to the gain the audience has from the information. Yes, she wasn't in the public eye. But is this definite proof of propaganda? No. More likely it's just yet another outgrowth of what happens when news organizations are competing for attention. It's histrionic. But, well, there's human nature for you. [edit] As noted by a comment - I'm only pointing out a flaw in the OPs logic. This really might be propaganda, but OPs "proof" simply isn't one.

eruditely 13y ago
What sheer and utter apologism.
- skore 13y ago
  I didn't mean to make an apology, just pointing out that the logic that is applied as "proof" isn't coherent proof at all.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    It's not logic. There are women all over the country doing "pole dancing" classes and men and women who frequent "pole dancing" establishments and so it's really just a smear of a young woman for guilt by association. That's how shitty the "elites" are, they will go after anyone and everyone in their mad scramble to protect their golden gooses.
    - skore 13y ago
      Absolutely, but the bar for news is low. As long as people recognize something and then think "Oh!", it's good enough for release. "Pole dancing" may be a hobby for some folks, but it still is uncommon enough to be a tiny bit remarkable. I read the fact about the pole dancing stuff and thought "Oh.". So there. Once again - I completely follow the train logic and it could be that way. But it isn't necessarily proof for a theory about propaganda or "the elites".
      - wavefunction 13y ago
        Indeed. The bit about the "elites" is just my own opinion. I mean people who are invested in the status quo and thus interested in maintaining it, even when it is apparent that there is a need for change. I put the term in quotes because it's more of a mindset they seem to have than an objective qualifier.

corresation 13y ago

Of course she is in the public eye: Friends and family of interesting parties always get pulled into the public eye, for stories having nothing at all to do with 'propaganda'. The same is true of so many other details that will always get looked up on people in this social media/online world time. There is nothing at all nefarious about it. Indeed, it is getting bizarre seeing people outraged that some truth about people is reported. Ms Mills identifies herself as a pole dancer. Snowden made banal online comments. Snowden dropped out of high school. These are not smears but are just interesting facts. They don't diminish either of them an iota in my eyes, but do add colour. A lot of people here seem to think these are deeply embarrassing facts that should remain hidden.

gbrindisi 13y ago
> Of course she is in the public eye: Friends and family of interesting parties always get pulled into the public eye I find this aspect and the fact that is obvious to most people, barbaric at best.
- corresation 13y ago
  Blame falls on all of us. The media or the propaganda masters don't do this on a whim -- people have a hunger for details around a story. It is in all of our nature.
jopt 13y ago
I agree these are interesting details, and I'm happier for knowing more about the people involved. However, I also believe that these facts are smears. They are being published not to inform but as ad hominem attacks on Snowden. When the war logs leaked, I doubted that anyone would take the initial smears against Julian Assange seriously. I'm Swedish and the sexual misconduct allegations were a big conversation subject here. After a while, I realised that though I wasn't impressed by the ad hominems, they really did work on the general public. Older relatives and friends who were not in tune with the particular issues of the leak were much more interested in stories about the people behind it. These stories require no expert knowledge; they're relatable. It's daunting for a layperson to try to judge who's right or wrong in issues like war or spying, but it's easy and familiar to judge people over the perceived wholesomeness of girls they're involved with. Thus, to my disappointment, these friends and relatives categorically dismissed anything about the war logs by referring to Assange's personal affairs. Things like this are published to create negative associations; to cater to personal vanity (better-than-thou) and focus judgement on Snowden's character rather than the faceless institutions he ousted.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Instead of a character attack. Maybe they're just trying to pull clicks in from people hoping to see provacative photos. Pathetic either way.

rtpg 13y ago

Obviously this is a conspiracy by the government and not news org's trying to sell newspapers/clicks/ad dollars.