Whatever drug the anti-war crowd was going to use was going to get banned by Nixon.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Take the same mentality and apply it to the politics today; gets interesting. What’s being vilified? What are the associates that may or may not be factual? Everything is propaganda
> Propaganda - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
It pays to collect a breadth of news / information from all sides and dive deep into any subject you want to know well (can't do everything).
In terms of identifying it, typically you'll see general discussion without diving into facts and / or name calling. Alternatively, you'll see downplaying of particular events, specifically of ones own "side" so to speak.
Here's a few articles that are clearly propaganda:
1. Omission - A group of similarly aligned pundits, reports, etc will not report on a topic. This is when the topic is likely partially true, but they have no response. Think "Hunter Biden Laptop" - which was reported pre-2020 election; but only reported on by the left wing news in 2022 (https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/hunter-bidens-infamous-laptop-...)
2. Propaganda - The more common thing you'll see is spin or dismissive name calling. Things like...
You'll see the name calling "denier" or "anti" a lot in the spins (think: "climate change denier", "election denier", "anti-vaxx", "anti-science", etc). Most of the time, if you actually read articles about said "denier", they really take a more nuanced view. The article itself is titled to attract a particular kind of reader. Often you have to read between the lines or go to a transcript to get a clear understanding of the persons views.
If you can't tell, I take particular beef with CNN. But most news on all sides of the spectrum are effectively doing the same. My particular beef with CNN started when they said (paraphrased): "It's illegal to read documents from wikileaks, you must get your news / interpretations from us" - https://streamable.com/6g5v
Sure, I am familiar with these talking points and I agree completely with your perspective.
What I was wondering aloud is, do some people have ideas about a way to discern what's more or less propagandized? IE, even being propagandized, it is relatively less so and safer for mental health (since being scooped up into a culture war can be pretty taxing). I was asking hoping someone might chime in with different perspectives/strategies. Something I might glean insight from.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
- Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman