Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it everywhere in the mainstream media. I used to think about 10% of the mainstream media was propaganda, now it seems like about 90%.
I do the same. I look at advertising and marketing completely different now. The enemy of propaganda is an educated public that is capable of critical thinking.
I majored in Media Studies in college...it's literally all bullshit propaganda. Even if the underlying story is true, they twist and warp the facts and selectively cover events based on the agenda they are pushing.
All media is owned by probably 5 people....but the general population eats that shit up and seems to get offended if you inform them of that.
> Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it everywhere in the mainstream media.
I think it heavily depends on what media you see. The best journalism generally avoids it (i.e., the straight news side). Most journalism isn't in the top few percentile, but you don't need to read anything less than the best. I stick to the best, and when I encounter lesser stuff (e.g., I was visiting relatives and CNN was on TV), it's shocking and depressing how obviously bad it is. (BTW, one good source I discovered on that trip: BBC World News television - actually excellent cable news!)
But the opinion pages of even the best news sources (e.g., NY Times, Wall St Journal) are 99% exercises in propaganda; it almost defines opinion in the news. It's disgusting to me that they brazenly deceive their readers, but it's ok because it says 'opinion'.
However, where I see propaganda far more is online, not in the news media. I see it comments and blog posts, etc., including in this forum, sadly. The focus on the professional news media is odd to me; and in fact, and ironically, de-legitimizing the professional news media is a widespread propaganda campaign from a specific political grouping.
The BBC's World Service and non-UK coverage is generally pretty fantastic, but unfortunately they can no longer be trusted for anything related to the UK, speaking as a Brit.
By nature of their primary funding source (a "tax" levied on those who watch TV in the UK through the government, which thus controls their purse strings), they tend to be very soft on whoever the governing party is, especially at present. For one, Laura Kuenssberg, their political editor, has had a lot of allegations of bias against the current opposition party, some of which have been upheld in enquiries. She's also ended up serving as an unofficial mouthpiece for leaks from the conservative party on a number of occasions, parroting party talking points uncritically.
I remember ProPublica's story from a few days ago.
It was the very definition of propaganda: clearly biased, obviously wrong to anybody who has the slightest idea about finance and obviously working hard to push a foregone conclusion against an imagined enemy ("The Rich").
To my dismay, mainstream media, including the BBC, picked up the story as if it was anything else than bad journalism, thus offering it credibility. Because as flawed as it was, it served their cause.
> It was the very definition of propaganda: clearly biased, obviously wrong to anybody who has the slightest idea about finance and obviously working hard to push a foregone conclusion against an imagined enemy ("The Rich").
That repeats what a blog post on HN's front page said, but that doesn't make it true. It was the blog poster who didn't understand finance, as many on HN commented, and their argument was weak in many other ways. Also, the conclusion about ProPublica's motives has no evidence - even if the article is inaccurate in that way, there are many possible reasons why. It's an appeal to emotion when we start saying "the slightest idea", "obviously", and "imagined enemy", not to fact and reason.
Even the allegations don't necessarily fit the definition of propaganda; bias or even deceit are not necessarily propaganda.
Why are people so ready to believe that a carefully researched story, rich in evidence, is wrong and take at face value a ranting blog post, with no evidence or research, by some anonymous person?
The answer is, that is how propaganda works: An appeal to emotion, and many other tactics described in the OP, were in that blog post. That is killing our society, IMHO.
You seem to be conflating "propaganda" with "opinion". And also conflating "propaganda techniques" with "communication".
There is obviously some overlap. Propaganda is inherently opinionated and basic communication techniques used to convey any story of course also work with propaganda.
No, propaganda is weaponised rhetoric designed to obfuscate the truth while promoting compliant beliefs and expedient behaviours.
This is not about differences of opinion. It's about whether the population is allowed to have an independent opinion at all.
In the US it simply isn't. There's a gigantic shrieking fog-horn of pro-corporate anti-democratic extremism on one side, and a smaller but more shrill progressive air horn on the other.
Between those two it's very hard to debate anything on its merits. Most positions are tribally one-vs-the-other, wrapped in triggering rhetoric and imagery, and powered by stock cut-and-paste memes, opinions, and predigested talking points.
None of that is about communication.
There are reasons for all of this. Some are reasonable, some are toxic. But that's a different issues.
It doesn't change the fact that propaganda is the default media mode in the US - not just in the mainstream media and in advertising, but also in the form of the interactions and quality of relationship that are typically promoted on social media.
I agree with you that propaganda is weaponized rhetoric designed to obfuscate the truth while promoting specific beliefs and behaviors.
My point (in response to the parent comment stating that 90% of all "mainstream media" is propaganda) is that the assertion "90% of mainstream media is propaganda" seems to be stretching the definition of propaganda from the reasonable one which you have brought up to something more like "propaganda is rhetoric to promote beliefs".
To me, that original comment seems to be more similar to weaponized rhetoric (in this case, designed to promote the belief that "mainstream" media is untrustworthy) than to earnest communication or expression of opinion.
I consider media outlets mainstream when they are all owned and controlled by one of the big groups like Sinclair. E.g., if they've ever made it into one of those montages where all the anchors from all over the country say the same catch phrases. I think they're different, because they anchors cannot say what they know to be true, but must stick to the script even when they know it's wrong, or they get fired. The smaller independent outlets can push propaganda as well, but they're not forced to, and their outreach is a small fraction of the conglomerates.
> I called out mainstream media, as people often assume it is more reliable than the non-mainstream media.
It's pretty ambiguous: Where do you draw the line between them, and what evidence do you have about their relative reliability. The professional journalism I see, e.g. news sections in established newspapers, is far more accurate and honest than the non-mainstream stuff I see.
I believe non mainstream media is easier to recognize as propaganda or at least heavily biased, while mainstream media is oftentimes considered "unbiased" and "objective".
It's quantitatively different. Propaganda is most effective when its reach is maximized because having it appear in all mediums gives it the appearance of legitimacy.
The intent is pretty clear. You can distinguish it from sloppy journalism fairly easily. Especially when the stories from one particular outfit all slant the same way.
I am sorry but I have no idea how one would come to the conclusion that 90% of journalists are engaging in intentional propaganda. I can understand if you think they have unconscious biases that influence their work, but believing 90% of the profession ix trying to actively manipulate you is just disconnected from reality.
> believing 90% of the profession ix trying to actively manipulate you is just disconnected from reality.
As I wrote in the opening post, once one learns about how the propaganda is done, what the techniques are, you start recognizing it all over the place.
It's like when I took some courses in sales techniques. Then, I'd go to buy a car, and sure enough, the salesmens' pitches were right out of those courses. I never recognized them for what they were before.
Becoming aware of when someone is trying to manipulate you, how they are doing it, and why it works is kind of a superpower.
i don't think that's an example of the frequency illusion. it's only a bias if you are actively dismissing the counter arguments.
in the example of car salesman, i don't think it's controversial to say that they do in fact employ tactics that makes you more likely to purchase a car.
But as I mentioned in my opening post, propaganda generally requires intent to manipulate. So you are not only recognizing techniques, you are assuming intentionality and motive for usage of those techniques. That is the part I don't buy.
I don't want to necessarily pick on the left here, but the most in-your-face example is all the so-called 'wokeness' in the media. This is a conscious effort to promote the 'inclusiveness' or however you want to phrase it. It's discussed openly how do you want people to react to what you publish. Have you ever considered that it might be your own personal biases that you don't see it?
I don't want to necessarily pick on the right here, but the most in-your-face example is all the so-called 'rationality' in the media. This is a conscious effort to promote the 'reactionary tribalism' or however you want to phrase it.
You should try to consider what unnoticed propaganda has led you to (apparently) separate "wokeness," as a concept, from just "being polite" or "treating people with respect".
It is closely related to the similar discussions had over "political correctness".
How does one distinguish between propoganda and universally accepted truth? It's not propaganda that tomorrow is Wednesday. Basically everyone will tell you it is and want you to believe it is. Same with planetary roundness. Is that propaganda too? Let's say for the sake of argument, all of the ideals driving "wokeness" are actually rooted in the truth. Would it still be propaganda? How would you know?
> How does one distinguish between propoganda and universally accepted truth?
One tell is when they quote anonymous sources => propaganda. Another is using unconfirmed reports. Another is when the only source has a heavy incentive to misrepresent. Another is when the statistics make no sense, or do not support the thrust of the story.
Edit: Finally when we got an actually interesting topic to discuss among the ocean of controversies everyone forgets in a week and tech equivalents of cute animal pictures, mods suddenly decided to limit my account and I can no longer respond to anything. I don't want to deal with this BS, bye.
Last response, since I can't respond directly to shuntress:
Feel free to post examples of right-leaning media doing it. Like for example the mask idiocy, because your example doesn't make any sense. As I said, it wasn't my intention on picking on the left here. It's just that the 'mainstream' right don't have the 'activist spirit' like the left or the fringes have, so it happens behind the closed doors and saying the same about the right would be technically a mere speculation on my part. Activism on the other hand happens out in the open on the internet and you can see all the tactics for yourself. Also I'd love to refute the 'wokeness' meaning 'being polite', but that would probably be a somewhat longer discussion and given the situation I'm unable to do it. You can thank the mods.
Of course, it can't be anywhere near close to 90% as it's limited to just the left-leaning media, which is probably at most half of all media. I don't know the exact numbers, but I repeat again, it's only the most in-your-face example and the propaganda doesn't end on 'wokeness'.
You mean like how every left-leaning media publication said the lab-leak hypothesis was debunked, even though there was not a shred of evidence to substantiate debunking?
Interesting. The article defines propaganda differently than the dictionary.
The article: "Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium) designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion rather than to inform using logical truths and facts."
The dictionary: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
Not at all. In fact, effective propaganda will have its targets repeating it explicitly and internalizing it as a frame to other things. If nobody did that, propaganda wouldn't matter.
I'll do you one better. If you learn the history of media, then you'll realize why you see propaganda everywhere. Even more simply, one only has to ask why would anyone create a media company? Why did Trump threaten to create a media company after losing the election? To get the "truth" out there? Or get his propaganda out there? Every mainstream media company, in the US, Europe, China, Russia, etc was created the wealthy or politically elite. Once you understand this, everything falls into place and you can move on with your life. It's sad so many people waste their lives over news/media that exists to manipulate and control them. How many relationships, friendships, lives have been ruined by media?
It does feel like the propaganda to genuine news ratio has increased markedly roughly since the Trump presidency, however. That's worrying for many reasons, not the least that increases in propaganda are what one might describe as leading indicators of quite shitty times.
This is one of my favorite YouTube videos. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KewaCcYF9nY