The debate "Foxnews is pure propaganda" was started by
February 17, 2020, 7:43 pm.
52 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 39 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 30 arguments, Allirix posted 16 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 12 arguments to the disagreers part.
Allirix, rainbowsocked, historybuff, coree10, Nemiroff, rfwthomasson, Joelm and 45 visitors agree.
jrardin12, Oxalaia, Joshua_Moris29, tyler0300 and 35 visitors disagree.
You're probably right about how it's usage has changed.
I've just always thought of propaganda as descriptive instead of normative, even when reading 1984.
But that may be because I sympathise with the rather extreme view that propaganda is needed to keep us united.
Either way, fox news is undeniably propaganda, CNN is arguably propaganda.
as with decimate, its neutral meaning may now fall under the "historic" category, meaning it no longer means that in any modern context.
this may be asking for too much work on your part, but can you show me any active usage of the neutral meaning in any pop culture, textbook, or non historic context? your own quote labeled the neutral definition historic.
regardless, i think i clarified my original accusation that fox news is *intentional* disinformation.
It can mean both deliberately manipulative and not. It didn't lose its neutral meaning just because it was often used in a negative context.
a 100 year old change sounds pretty consistent. dictionaries do not dictate language, they record it. many words change definitions over time. aweful used to mean "full of awe." decimate used to mean "kill 1 in 10," a roman army punishment.
if propaganda meant deliberate manipulation for the last century in common usage, then my accusation should be clear.
fox news is deliberatly selective information seeking to intetionally manipulate the worldview of its viewership. it, as an organization, is not simply bias. it is deliberate.
Not any information is propaganda, just information that pushes a specific reading of the information instead of a full and transparent analysis. Information that educates is just information. Obviously pushing a specific point of view is seen as bad, so the word often has negative connotations, but the word is technically neutral by itself.
"In fact, any campaign that is used to persuade can be called propaganda"
"In the 20th century, the term propaganda had often been associated with a manipulative approach, but propaganda historically is a neutral descriptive term"
so then you use propaganda to describe any form of broadcast containing any information, including news or educational information. wouldnt that make propaganda synonymous with information?
would it not be better to call information information and nefarious information propaganda? im 99% sure that is how they are used.
I think you're pretty critical, but you also have similar views to me so it's harder for me to say for certain.
And I don't really have a name for it other than adding an adjective like "malicious propaganda".
Here is a study showing that people who watch fox news know less about events than those who don't watch the news at all. The article doesn't explicitly make the link between this and being propaganda. But the reason why fox news viewers know less about events is because fox isn't actually trying to convey information to their viewers. They are 1) trying to get ratings and 2) trying to convey a political message (ie propaganda)
@Neimroff should have refrased his debate to something else.
i understand that you were not limiting it based on intention, but i am asking you to differentiate the two.
imo, propaganda is intentional misleading using fake or incomplete truths. if you wish to call it something else that is fine, but im accusing fox news of intent to mislead, not just convince. do you have a name for that? and do you feel that there needs to be a distinction?
i enjoy challenging other's views via the socratic method and devil's advocate, but at some point one must challenge ones own views. its much more challenging and engaging. if you dont mind for curiosity's sake, whats your assessment of my critical-ness?
I meant to say propaganda isn't JUST a nefarious dissemination of information to manipulate the population. To be clearer I should have said: it's not JUST nefarious actors behind propaganda, it's also indoctrinated innocents who just want to educate you.
But we're all indoctrinated in some way. Culture encodes us with a tonne of assumptions we haven't thought about critically. So we're all indoctrinated innocents just wanting to educate each other. That's why I like debating with people who hold different views, or pretending to take the opposite side and just Socratic question someone on their view. It may give me insight I never considered into why I also hold that view. Plus it's much easier to see when someone else isn't being critical than when I'm not being critical.
capitalism: i believe in socialism for the poor, but capitalism for the rich. a floor for the bottom, but no ceiling for the top. my solutions all lean left, but also all have a hint of right. im suprisingly moderate when i speak to liberals like history buff. however this isnt better or worse economics. corruption is bipartisan, and whats happening on the right is historically scary. and it predates trump. i blame McConnell but im not sure if he started or just continued. im not that old.
fox is not politics i disagree with, its blatant lies.
im not saying the right doesnt have legitamete complaints. gun ownership: i support limited forms. abortion: completely understandable considering the science is still unknown on the key questions. social welfare: i want to enable those without opportunity, but im also against enabling those who seek to abuse the system. i think both sides should be equally weighed.
i have no problem with the right, but the current leadership, and their mouthpieces like fox are just twisting the truth in order to deceive. this will change but just now foxnews main page had several articles about the escalating corona virus outbreak including new community cases in the US. while just under that featuring a frequent contributer who is a doctor declaring that the World Health Organization is alarmist to parrot trump's tweets blaming the dems for creating a panic in order to drop the economy... cause dems are world wide now.
they are literally contradict themselves to uphold a facade of truth while spreading lies. this is not "bias". bias is normal, and obvious. this is intentional disinformation. this is propaganda.
i will continue to make my case slowly using current events to avoid cherry picking from years of data. this is real.
what would you call nefarious and intentional dissemination of information to mislead?
as for media bias fact check, cnn was labeled as "mostly factual", while foxnews was labeled as "mixed" (a step down). id love to hear what those categories mean specifically, but clearly cnn has far more accurate reporting.
if a news network cant even claim to be mostly factual, wtf is it?
certainly cnn is not good news, but succumbing to mass demand and viewer pressure is not the same as brainwashing viewers for the sake of those in charge.
ive never watched msnbc, but cnn and better left wing medias have held their own leaders accountable unlike fox. in fact most fox articles detailing corrupt democrats are just commandeering stories boken by a mainstream (or what they claim is left wing) investigative journalist.
honestly i dont think most "left wing media" is even left wing. when the american mainstream right denies logic, reason, and science... honest reporting appears left leaning.
pure propaganda likely doesnt exist, but fox news is reminding me more and more of the type of news your expect in russia or china. i totally understand not investing large amounta of effort into this, i feel the same, and although i can probably make a much stronger defense of cnn with extra research, i can certainly highlight some strong differences simply using the sites you linked.
in allsides.com cnn was once considered center but has since moved to leaning left, however they mentioned that it is somewhere in the border of those two.
fox on the other hand was straight right before being relabeled lean right by disputed assessment. using similar logic to their cnn assessment, that would make fox news lean right bordering on straight right, while cnn leans left bordering on center. that leaves the entire spectrum of "lean x" between them with fox much more extreme.
i also found it interesting that cnn was labeled as "anti-trump", not "anti-right". i dont think there is anything wrong with being anti a despicable person. i wont compare trump to terrible leaders just yet, but hes certainly as scummy as bernie maddoff or pharma bro Shkreli.
Honestly I don't care enough about cnns status to search for a specific one. It's certainly not "pure propaganda", as I'm also unsure if Fox News would be "pure" in that respect. But, I'd be easily convinced I'm wrong if you show any evidence to the negative, which may be hard given the analyses of these two websites put CNN as significantly left bias. So I assume that influences how they package their range of articles.
But as these guys say, CNN is bias by omission, but they're generally truthful compared to Fox News or MSNBC.
I'm left leaning myself so I'm definitely more willing to accept CNN tries to educate instead of persuade. My knee jerk reaction is to say they're left leaning because that's the objectively true way to view the world.
That's how I CAN see it, but I also hold a rather extreme nihilist/skeptical view that the values I hold dear aren't any more valuable than the values of the right. In my nihilist view, what makes values relevant to society are how many people hold those values. So when a significant population hold a set of values then they are just as legitimate as mine (since my left values are also held by a significant population). So a left wing version of reality isn't objectively better than a right wing version, they're just two equally legitimate dueling world views. Politics is that duel.
So propaganda isn't a nefarious dissemination of information to manipulate the population, it's just how our pluralist society (one that accepts many people have radically different views) plays politics.
can you give me an example of a cnn article that would fit the mold of pushing an agenda? opinion articles, or what they call "analysis" aside. and im not sure if its too much to ask for an estimate on how frequent such articles are.
my preference for on the fly news evaluation is to use the current headlines as a snap shot. it is anecdotal, but it is randomly selected rather then cherry picked.
An educator's goal is to inform. They do that with a critical analysis of the available facts of an issue. They try to present various sides of an issue, the grounds for doubting as well as the grounds for believing the statements they make, and the disadvantages as well as the advantages of each plausible course of action.
I imagine all news media lying on a spectrum between an educator and a propagandist, where we will likely disagree on where each person lies. Education for one person may be propaganda for another, it all depends on the information you have as well as your own blind spots, which we all have.
When information is packaged selectively to trigger support for a specific political view instead of being a critical analysis of the full truth then I believe it is propaganda.
It's in our nature to promote our political view so someone doesn't need to be nefarious to disseminate propaganda. We have our own values, we have our own world view, we have our own mind, so we have many blindspots to others' minds, values, and world views, and that makes it hard to critically analyse politics that affects people with those different minds.
It's not wrong to consume propaganda, as long as you're aware there may be more to the story.
I wouldn't say all news is propaganda, but a lot of it is in the USA because the country has a large enough population for it to be more profitable to isolate 50%+ of the population from your message and make the other 50% loyal consumers. Just reporting a critical analysis of the full truth takes a long time and is less interesting to watch too.
that is a nice opinion, i disagree. unfortunately few reasons are given, just your conclusion so not much to respond to.
i am curious regarding your question to Allirix who indeed does seem to suggest that all forms of news and information related to anything political (which is many many things) is by default propaganda. although that may fit a vague 1 sentence dictionary definition, is that really what the word is meant to imply?
I looked more into propaganda and have come to the conclusion that if we stick to the definitions, all mainstream media is propaganda. Some propaganda, however, can be truthful and use facts, while others can lie. So this debate, while true, can also be applied to CNN and MSNBC and other left wing media. Basically this debate is propaganda.
@Allirix, so you are basically saying that all news is propaganda.
I don't even think propaganda needs to technically be false, just packaged in a way that motivates a particular political view.
1. is it possible to be a human without bias?
No, but certain approaches to thought can reduce it.
2. is it possible to have an opinion, and still do an honest job?
Yes, but if your goal is to honestly inform others you should communicate how your opinions may bias your message away from the full objective truth.
3. do you believe propaganda results from unconscious bias or intentional misinformation?
Both. I don't doubt many people at Fox News believe everything they say, same with CNN, and the others probably just follow along to fit to their culture.
@allirix a few questions
1. is it possible to be a human without bias?
2. is it possible to have an opinion, and still do an honest job?
3. do you believe propaganda results from unconscious bias or intentional misinformation?
the reason Allirix is being so civil is because he is just doing neutral commentary. he isnt supporting either position. i am, so my arguments directly confront your own.
when Russia says, we do bad stuff? what about you, they are in fact acknowledging that they do do bad stuff.
when you say fox is propaganda? what about cnn, you are acknowledging fox propaganda. to say fox is not propaganda you need to respond to my arguments against fox.
as to cnn, i have yet to see an argument for me to reply to. just a list of names with no explanation. i can say that cnn is obsessed with trump. although individually any of those stories are accurate reporting, trump just creates too much news and they should focus on his more important policy issues, less on his speeches and tweets. but cnn is clearly more mass appeal journalism then quality journalism. that doesn't make them propaganda tho, just lower quality news.
The danger of propaganda is it appeals to your world view so their message appears credible. What Fox News says is believable because it builds on concrete ideas you already believe.
A non political example is: if you are amazing at maths and someone says "algebra is easy for most people" you're more likely to agree, but if you are bad at maths and someone says "algebra is easy for most people" you're not going to agree.
The reason you'll never fall for cnns propaganda is because they're building on a world view you don't believe. You see the cracks in it because it doesn't align with your world view so you're far more critical of it.
Skeptisim is about applying the same "that's not credible" critical mindset you have for CNN to all ideas, even Fox News.
@Allirix Wouldn't propaganda have something to do with credibility, though or also?
You're committing a logical fallacy called "whataboutism", which is what Vladimir Putin does to make the USA look bad to Russians.
He's like "Russia does bad stuff? Pfft! What about all the bad stuff the USA does!?"
It's a logical fallacy because it doesn't absolve Russia of wrong doing, it just points the finger away from you.
The same applies to Fox News. Just because CNN or MSNBC are propaganda machines doesn't mean Fox News isn't.
If those two massive corporatations are propaganda machines, why isn't Fox News? Because you agree with what Fox News says? That's the same argument people would use to defend CNN or MSNBC. If you're using that argument you should consider the possibility that you've been indoctrinated by Fox News propaganda.
i have to explain why fox is propaganda. you just say "no it isnt"
then you make an empty claim about liberal news, and then i again have to do the explaining while you just post 1 sentence posts. sorry, but if your lazy, you lose. im not doing your work. isnt the right supposedly all about standing on your own feet? stand on your own feet then!
dude. like i said, if i just said fox news is propaganda because of trump, that would be retarded. and thats the exact depth of your argument. left wing news is propaganda because of random names no arguments.
im made the argument why fox is propaganda, your laziness can make your own argument. if you cant, then you have no case. quit crying.
Really @Neimroff, I am tired of talking to you. I might as well talk to a wall. Other people will read my comments and understand both sides and will either agree or disagree. I actually have a life and don't have time to explain everything. If you don't know my point of view on these issues you weren't paying attention. From now on I am going to ignore anything else you say.
i explained why fox is propaganda. you explain why these random names were treated unjustly, and ill debunk it if i disagree. stop being lazy.
btw, showing other examples of propaganda doesnt negate my arguments of fox being propaganda, so i guess we agree since you have no defense besides "what about someone else" fallacy.
Oh, and why did they all deserve it?
i mean how retarded would it be if i said fox is propaganda because trump....
trump what? i actually explained what about their coverage of trump is propaganda. it would be appreciated if you did the same. forget a rocket scientist, it would require a psychic to understand what your point is.
i remember them getting the coverage they deserve. please make your argument why their coverage was improper, because just stating their name says nothing of value.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to remember that those names have a lot to do with propaganda. But in case you have forgotten those people were either lied about or praised to paint a negative picture of Trump supporters.
thats not propaganda, thats just a series of names. do you care to actually explain your argument and what was propagandish about them?
Left Wing Media Propoganda: Covington and Brett Cavenaugh and the Michael Avenatti media love affair and don't forget Jussie Smollett.
reporting on what a president says means reporting that he said it. fox is posting articles in agreement with his conclusion, not just reporting his words.
the president suggested that 2 of the liberal supreme court judges recuse themselves from all of his cases because 1 of them said that his administration is asking for too many non-emergency emergency motions, and that the conservative judges are too quick to accommodate those requests.
noone reported anything suggesting that prior, but as soon as trump makes the demand, they start printing articles to just parrot his message.
It's always been normal to report on what a president says, and supporters of a president are less critical of what he says. Tweets are just Trump's version of a press release which Obama used.
trump tweets about the liberal judges being biased. then fox is covered in news about the judges being biased.
is trump their only investigative journalist? or are they simple a mouthpiece for him?
Well a coordinated message doesn't need to be logically consistent. Just coordinated across the different parts of the corporatation. So if each segment of a corporate media company said some variation of "225,000 jobs under obama is a weak recovery, but 225,000 jobs under trump is a booming economy" then I'd say it's coordinated. Also, the statement isn't necessarily false as there may be qualifying reasons about why 225k in Obama's time is different to now. But without those details it's especially propagandy because it doesn't provide a critical analysis or acknowledgement of common opposing views.
From the little I've seen of Fox News and CNN and MSNBC Ive only seen cherry picking and assertions. But I've probably seen the worst of what they have.
if an entire network, or even multiple networks all carry the message that matter is made of atoms, or humans have 2 hands, or china exists.... would that be propagandy? i think your theory needs to make exceptions for well known and uncontroversial facts.
on the other hand, an uncordinated message can still be propagandy. saying 225,000 jobs under obama is a weak recovery, but 225,000 jobs under trump is a booming economy sounds pretty propagandy.
I don't actually consume any corporate media in the USA so I don't have an informed opinion of it. I just said an extreme view to get a response lol since this platform is so quiet.
BUT. If an entire network has a coordinated message across all its platforms then that's very propaganda-ry.
quoting from the Wikipedia article: "lying press"
"lying press (german: lugenpresse, lit. press of lies) is a pejorative political term used largely by german political movements for the printed press and mass media at large as a *propaganda tactic* to discredit the free press."
under the history section:
"The nazis adopted the term for their propaganda against the Jewish communities, and later the foreign press."
if all our information is propaganda, then we are not free, and this is not a democracy. everything becomes lies, order breaks down, and strongmen take over.
is that your honest view of our situation?
in what was is npr or cnbc propaganda?
are you saying there is no truth?
if there is no truth, how can a democracy function? that is the strategy of dictators and wanna be dictators. dismantle truth, divide the public, then conquer.
a handful of liberal nobodies, again, is not news, its opinion.
cnn does have republicans. senators, governors, candidate... people who are actually part of the news, not opinions discussing the news.
fox "news" is an opinion machine with commentary. they don't do journalism, they respond to journalism.
bias is a stupid term. all humans are bias in all ways. its called having an opinion. we are not automatons.
one can be biased (as all humans) and still do dillegent work to present independent facts to the best of your ability.
fox news is not unintentional bias, it is intentional propaganda.
I will say that FOX NEWS has liberals on it. People like Juan Williams, Dona Brazille, another blond haired girl with large glasses and Geraldo. CNN doesn't have conservatives on their shows and especially no Trump supporters to explain their point of view.
Media has always been biased no matter how far you go back in time.
All corporate media is propaganda in the USA
All of CNN is opinion on TV. At least FOX NEWS you can distinguish between opinion and news. I really don't go to their website.
half of their front page articles are commentary from their inhouse pundits.
opinion pieces are not reporting.
Yeah, we remember from Obama's days.
the free press is meant to hold the powerful accountable.
state media propaganda makes excuses for the powerful.
the only news they report is local crimes, which is terrible for a national network.
most of its national news is more like a response to real news.
real news: 1000+ attorneys, Democrat and republican demand barr quit.
foxnews: an analyst's opinion on why trump and barr should continue interfering in cases of trump's friends.
cmon faux news defenders. say something.