Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jwtadvice 3338 days ago
This is what makes most propaganda devastating.

What you are talking about is "white propaganda": telling the truth but in a manner that creates a useful perception.

This is unfortunately the basis of most information and news media today, as even "free" media industries compete to tell the stories and gain the access of intelligence and national security reporting (how we got the Iraq War propaganda in the US, how today the media industry is spreading "Russia did everything" nonsense, the current media sprint repeating propaganda about the situation in North Korea and the DPRK government's intentions).

> So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically.

Exactly.

I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device. Merely changing a headline or picture sets tone and dramatically alters perception - add to that editing, media campaigning, social media astroturfing, selective synonym choice...

"Perception management" is an regular propaganda term employed by the Department of Defense for this reason. The facts can be useful, but ultimately the objective is to change minds and decision making and to affect outcomes. And so you may be the subject of perception management that utilizes (aspects of) truth.

The most effective way of countering propaganda is to seek nuance when presented with characterizations, try to understand dispassionately the situation from every side, and to be skeptical of especially the things that you most routinely would like to agree.

Ironically this usually means consuming more propaganda on purpose: specifically looking for the narrative position of the United States, Russia, Britain, China, etc on various issues. This is also why it's an extremely good idea to read international news from all parties in a conflict during the entire duration of an event (e.g. Syrian Civil-Proxy War).

1 comments

I agree with a lot of what you say, but to take the following a little out of context ...

> I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device.

That can be taken too far and become the words of propaganda (whether or not the commenter intends it). Truth is not simple or always easy, but it's a real thing. The liar (not calling the parent a liar, but for purposes of example) says, 'the truth is complicated; we just have different opinions; look at all sides'; they say 'I lie, you lie, what's the difference?' No, there is truth, it's something to strive for, and it makes all the difference.

> I lie, you lie, what's the difference?

Definitely not what I'm trying to say.

> No, there is truth, it's something to strive for, and it makes all the difference.

Absolutely. This requires that one does not take any propaganda position to be wholeistically true including those of your home country.

The search for truth comes not from authority or consensus, but from experiential reality. No authority and no consensus has a monopoly on experiential reality including the American domestic and international propaganda programmes and the consensus that they create or the Russian domestic and international propaganda programmes and the consensus that they create.

Propaganda is influence.

Facts are facts.

>> I lie, you lie, what's the difference?

> Definitely not what I'm trying to say.

To be clear, I did say that I was taking it out of context and that my objection is to when it's taken too far.

> Propaganda is influence.

> Facts are facts.

Very well said.

However, I do think that comparing American and Russian propaganda is a false equivalency; they are not similar at all - that is what I'm referring to when I object to saying 'it's all the same'. I'm not naive; I don't at all trust everything the American government says, but there are many, many major differences between American news and information and Russian.

Yup.

Regarding the differences it's important to both compare and contrast.

The US likes to try to color Russian propaganda as "evil" or "illegitimate" or "propaganda based on lies" or some such other nonsense. There are a great many ways to contrast the propaganda programmes, but doing it moralistically is counterproductive and ineffective.