[jnaddef]

What bothers me is that there are very few things that are not propaganda.

All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they are accepted? Clearly a distinction is made between 'acceptable propaganda' and 'unacceptable propaganda', and this distinction is made by Facebook, an American company.

How acceptable is that?

[zachguo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[xupybd]

I think this may be it. America has a ban on trade with Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information.

[fuzz4lyfe]

That would be unconstitutional wouldn't it?

[AaronFriel]

Not a lawyer and would be interested to read a constitutional law journal on this.

I think the answer hinges on where the speech is considered to be, and whether the speaker is an American.

An Iranian national handing out leaflets in Washington, D.C. is protected speech by virtue of it occurring in the United States.

An American national posting on the internet is protected from United States government orders to censor their speech, regardless of where they post it, by virtue of their nationality.

Where it gets murky is: "Is an Iranian national posting on Facebook 'in America'? Does it depend on whether they make a comment in Iran or in the United States?"

That's the sort of hypothetical that a court might be keen to sidestep entirely and instead ask, "Is it constitutional for the US to order a US company (Facebook) to engage in non-viewpoint neutral censorship?"

[bcb1276]

No. The constitution generally doesn’t restrict a private company like FB from imposing restrictions on speech

[chrismcb]

The content was"American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information." Meaning that the government requires the companies, which would be unconstitutional.

[sonnyblarney]

I don't believe that Fox and CNN have political propaganda in the sense you might imply.

Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word.

Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident.

When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda.

Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.

[jnaddef]

I 100% agree with you, so let me clarify what I was trying to say in my first comment.

US will label as propaganda any article coming from RT - for Russia, or that Iranian journal - for Iran, and now FB starts simply censoring those contents.

At the same time in Russia or Iran, news coming from US are labelled as propaganda as well.

Depending on where you live, you get fed either one of these "propaganda" and you feel you are on the "good" side and that others are on the "bad" side.

My point is the world is not divided between "good" and "bad", everything is not black or white, and the fact that a website with billions of users has the power to decide what is good or bad (or has the obligation to follow directives from a government) is a very bad idea imho.

[sonnyblarney]

Please don't put CNN/MSNBC/Fox in the same camp as RT, or Chinese state sponsored news. That's not fair.

This is not a situation of moral relativity.

CNN, even Fox, are actually very independent news outlets. Their news is news. (Especially the non-editorial stuff, is usually above bar)

On some, mainly political issues, they are biased.

On some national issues, they 'close ranks'.

But they are not propaganda outlets.

RT is absolutely propaganda outlet. RT is an organ of the Russian state, created specifically to promote Russian interest abroad, and to serve as a mouthpiece for the government, specifically Putin.

Trump has friends in Fox News, but quite a number of haters; many popular folks there disagree with him quite loudly, a lot. Trump has no friends in most of the rest of the press, and there's no opportunity for him to set the agenda directly for example.

RT was designed so that Putin could create the narrative he chooses, and to oppress any opposition to his regime, or the state.

Even the BBC/CBC etc. have quite a degree of independence from state organs. They have obvious political leanings in many situations, and surely will work with the state on some issues, but they are in many ways 'more independant' because they don't have to survive on click-bait.

[JauntyHatAngle]

I would personally disagree with you, Murdoch has pretty clearly defined playbook which includes propaganda to further his own ends/political world view - FOX news is a part of that. He does the same with his papers in Australia in order to get the Liberal party voted in.

I'm going off the definition of propaganda being information of a biased/misleading/untrue nature, spread to further a political agenda/view.

It's intentionally misleading, and incorrect, in order to lead people down a particular political path.

In my view, this is still different to papers that present a cleaner view of the evidence/facts/situation.

Of course you can always omit/include details to present a story in a different light, but the degree of which makes a big difference. In the case of FOX, it is clearly so over the line that it becomes propaganda (in my view).

Can't comment on CNN though, never watched it.

[NeedMoreTea]

I agree with the point about the nationalism, and occasionally jingoism from US outlets across the political spectrum.

Fox, The Sun, and other Murdoch media has so definite an agenda, that it can't be distinguished from propaganda. I don't know how else to describe it. Have seen so little output from CNN that I can't comment.

Murdoch's cosying up to those in power - of both sides of politics - is so blatant and outrageous, in several of the countries he's operated in it's a wonder it's not firmly illegal. It has been his intent to turn many an election.

[sonnyblarney]

Rupert Murdoch is a businessman who 'sells news as a product' to a specific niche just like every other news outlet.

The amount of spin on his network is not one bit different from, I would say MSNBC for example. Perhaps a little more than CNN, but not by much.

Ted Turner (founder of CNN), and other such media moguls follow exactly the same pattern of creating 'news as a product' and occasionally using it to create/defend narrative either personal or political.

That's how the news business mostly has always worked.

'Murdoch hate' largely exists because he normally spouts opinions that a some groups really disagree with, and so they want to consider him propaganda.

The heads of NBC/CBC are under fire for their own extremely indefensible manipulations, such as 'killing' the Ronan Farrow story a few times before it went public. Great article here: [1].

Literally covering up a mass rapist for 'favours' or because they're buddies with Weinstein. And these people still have jobs?

'News' is rife with this kind of stuff, and I believe Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch are 'the same man'.

I don't believe CNN or Fox are propaganda outlets, rather, they serve mostly their business interest which is to cater to a 'certain audience', they will bend here and there given their execs/owners wishes, and during times of 'national concern' they'll close ranks a little bit.

Rupert Murdoch is actually much closer to 'normative media mogul' than he is unique. Even the families that own major media outlets in us (i.e. NY Times) and Sweden etc. have their agendas

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-nbc-killed-ronan-farrows-w...