> 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.
> 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:
- "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests ..." - https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/conte...
- "Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned " - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-c...
There's two tactics I've seen:
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...
- "Why inflation can actually be good for everyday Americans and bad for rich people" - https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/economy/inflation-good-bad-wi...
I personally think the above is damage control and effectively paid propaganda. Clearly inflation is bad for everyone, no one likes paying more.
- "Climate change: How to talk to a denier" - https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61844299
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