[slg]

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.

[WalterBright]

> 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.

[MrsPeaches]

Just FYI this has name: The frequency illusion aka the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon. It’s a common cognitive bias.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

[hungryhobo]

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.

[slg]

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.

[ttt0]

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?

[shuntress]

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".

[DangitBobby]

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?

[WalterBright]

> 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.

It goes on and on.

[slg]

>One tell is when they quote anonymous sources => propaganda. Another is using unconfirmed reports.

This just shows a total lack of understanding for how journalism works.

[ttt0]

Truth and propaganda are not mutually exclusive.

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.

[DangitBobby]

Okay, fair enough. My question is, really, "what makes something propaganda?"

[slg]

What percentage of the media do you think engages in this "wokeness" propaganda? It is certainly nowhere even close to 90%.

[ttt0]

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'.

[infamouscow]

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?

[bosswipe]

If every single left-leaning media said the lab-leak hypothesis was debunked it should be easy for you to give me one citation.

[whatthesmack]

It's harder since they've all gone back and stealth-edited their articles.

Here's one example from PaulG: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1396769717805780994

[bosswipe]

Jeez those are some minor edits. This whole lab leak theory is turning into a major vindication talking point for the right but it's all built on a straw man as far as I can tell. And no one brings up things like hydroxychloroquine any more. Everything is framed as left vs right when it doesn't have to be just to increase polarization and outrage.

[infamouscow]

The problem is the hypothesis was dismissed without evidence and any suggestion for further inquery branded you an anti-science. The irony is unbelievable.

[bosswipe]

That's the victimization story that the right tells itself but I haven't seen much evidence that it happened.