|
OAquinas posted:Yeah, but there's propaganda, and then there's "oh yeah they'll totally blow up carriers to solve the problem, there's no way that will go wrong" insane drivel. Just showing that for every "russian mastermind" plot they have about 10,000 "stupid bot tricks" attempts. Russian propaganda does not need to be sophisticed to be effective. For example, let me present Ted Rall, the smuggest and most untalented rear end in a top hat ever, and his devoted defenders who say he is truly the most trustworthy voice out there.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sputnik
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Fwiw there is a throughline to the RT family of propaganda, a common unified goal which is to encourage democratic and civic disengagement. While they'll take virtually any route to get to that point, it's a strong unifying feature of all of their stories- make you hate what's going on, distrust or hate other people or feel helpless to do anything, so you stop caring or being involved or evaluating source information. Or drive you so far into the fringe that you can't (and don't) engage in discourse. It's a distinguishing feature versus other propaganda systems targeting the US. China and the OPEC nations want to try to influence US public opinion on issues that effect them (comically so- I recommend actually skimming CD sometime with their purposes in mind). You usually won't see stories about how the US is a shithole (unless it's tied to, for example, getting Trump to drop the trade war). China really wants the US to keep functioning! The general message is "Hey, friends! China is great! The US is also great! By the way, you should totally let China control the entire Pacific Ocean! You can trust China to peacefully reunify with Taiwan! btw love your hair!" By contrast, RT and other direct media targeting sometimes says "Hi friends we are news, Russia strong, the US's sanctions should be dropped" but it's actually remarkably rare. They'd much rather give voice to infowars or Rand Paul or Glenn Greenwald or anyone who can get people to go off the deep end and stop believing they can make a difference. Unlike any other country, even actively propagandistic control states like China, the underlying ethos of Russian propaganda is a genuine contempt for and disgust with fundamental democratic social norms. China wants to control what its propaganda targets think and do. Russia wants them to stop thinking altogether and give up, because that makes them much easier to dominate (and, ofc, manipulate). To tie this back in and generally make a suggestion for the thread, you basically should never cite state-owned media propaganda entities for any truth value, because even truthful statements will be part of a larger false purpose, which will effect your processing of its messages. Propaganda is only useful for discussion for its features as propaganda. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Fwiw there is a throughline to the RT family of propaganda, a common unified goal which is to encourage democratic and civic disengagement. While they'll take virtually any route to get to that point, it's a strong unifying feature of all of their stories- make you hate what's going on, distrust or hate other people or feel helpless to do anything, so you stop caring or being involved or evaluating source information. Or drive you so far into the fringe that you can't (and don't) engage in discourse. Wont someone please think of the discourse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
New scandal https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1080678397792137216 The tower is part of the National Park Service and was closed. It is reopening for ~~reasons~~ that totally aren't Trump getting upset that he is effected by the shutdown
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Wont someone please think of the discourse? Literally, yes. I'm not talking some  poo poo. The goal of this model is to get people to stop believing in the value of civil society and turn inward and to the edges, because that makes them very easy marks for manipulation and domination. The desired belief system is "every politican is corrupt, all the news is fake, everyone with different beliefs is a moron, a shill or a subhuman other, and nothing I can do will make any difference- might as well just keep my head down and look out for number one".
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Literally, yes. I'm not talking some that this has been the desired end state for both American political parties since approximately the late seventies complicates matters somewhat. it turns out an electorate that has been taught that it should not expect the people it votes for to provide them anything is a really attractive idea, to elected officials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:that this has been the desired end state for both American political parties since approximately the late seventies complicates matters somewhat. I- no. No. That is literally the exact opposite! Both political parties very obviously do want their target audiences to believe in their ability to effect change through democratic participation. The goal of the political parties isn't general disaffection, it's specific ideologically motivated action! Republicans and Democrats do have expectations for their parties! Even Fox News still wants its target audience to trust someone. RT doesn't run interviews with Obama or even Trump, they run interviews with Ron Paul and Jill Stein. Trump represents a significant ideological shift away from these norms by the standards of both parties, but that's still meaningfully different from "all public officials are corrupt, hope is a lie, opposition leaders are puppets or the walking dead". Even if you hate both parties, fine, great, whatever. Their ideologies are not equivalent to Russian leadership in important and observable ways. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
There is an entire thread with a good OP dedicated to media criticism now that you two can have this argument in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There is an entire thread with a good OP dedicated to media criticism now that you two can have this argument in. I think a 'don't post literal state propaganda' in the thread might be a good rule going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Fwiw there is a throughline to the RT family of propaganda, a common unified goal which is to encourage democratic and civic disengagement. While they'll take virtually any route to get to that point, it's a strong unifying feature of all of their stories- make you hate what's going on, distrust or hate other people or feel helpless to do anything, so you stop caring or being involved or evaluating source information. Or drive you so far into the fringe that you can't (and don't) engage in discourse. There is one exception which proves this rule however: It's the Russian bought "Russia Beyond the Headlines" insert that was included in Sunday print editions of WaPo until recently and maybe still the NYTimes. If you are not familiar, its an extremely whitebread bunch of articles on Russian culture and economic news. It's comparable to VOA or even just the regular WaPo, very high quality articles meeting the highest standards of traditional print journalism. So it would be stuff on native Siberian whaling traditions, or a profile of modern balerinas in St. Petersburg, or an article about the development of a new oil field. I'm fairly sure this insert was not targeted at the American public though. It's target was specifically American politicians and business leaders. I think it's purpose was to create positive impressions of the country and suggest business opportunities to potential investors, to encourage a softer or cooperative relationship between the countries that would facilitate investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I think a 'don't post literal state propaganda' in the thread might be a good rule going forward. I don’t think there’s anyone in D&D who reads this thread at this point who doesn’t know or doesn’t care what RT and Sputnik are and they are seldom posted as it is. What the Russian government thinks of the US also seems rather pertinent these days. Edit: I realized that my first sentence is unclear, what I meant was that D&D seems split into “Russia propaganda bad” and “who fuckin’ cares” camps and there’s no “what is this mysterious RT you speak of???” constituency as far as I can tell. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:There is one exception which proves this rule however: It's the Russian bought "Russia Beyond the Headlines" insert that was included in Sunday print editions of WaPo until recently and maybe still the NYTimes. If you are not familiar, its an extremely whitebread bunch of articles on Russian culture and economic news. It's comparable to VOA or even just the regular WaPo, very high quality articles meeting the highest standards of traditional print journalism. So it would be stuff on native Siberian whaling traditions, or a profile of modern balerinas in St. Petersburg, or an article about the development of a new oil field. Yeah absolutely, and of course it's operated out of RT's parent entity as well, but has mostly distinct staff. I always forget about rbth because it's so outside of the usual messaging we encounter here, but it's the exact soft targeting I'm used to with AJ et al. Lightning Knight posted:I don’t think there’s anyone in D&D who reads this thread at this point who doesn’t know or doesn’t care what RT and Sputnik are and they are seldom posted as it is. What the Russian government thinks of the US also seems rather pertinent these days. RT, Sputnik, and the many other state propaganda outlets are not going to provide insight into what the source government thinks of the US, any more than debating Ben Shapiro gives you insight into his inner motivations. It's not a good faith or valid source of information about anything other than its propaganda content. With regard to the need for calling propaganda out as such, I'd start by saying that I do think some users are unaware of what is or isn't propaganda, but more importantly, there's a need to continuously, actively separate propaganda from valid sources of information. The most insidious feature of propaganda, and with not explicitly reframing propaganda as distinct from valid information sources, is that it remains influential even if the audience is nominally aware of its nature. This is because the inclination of the message recipient is always to initially parse the message as if it were good faith. This is very similar to the frustration that Sartre's anti-semite is able to inspire with their "right to play"- the recipient must consciously reject the impulse to interact with the information in good faith. Eventually, we think "oh, but that one has a point", or we fail to spot which parts are the lies, and allow ourselves to open up to it. This is what allows such systems to be effective in countries where all of the citizens know that the media is entirely state-controlled; they still can't maintain the distinction and wind up relying on false information, either out of motivated reasoning, cynicism, or simple inattention. The distinction between valid and invalid, good faith and bad faith, real and fake news requires continuous reinforcement and correction from outside sources. Propaganda isn't news, and it can't serve as news. When we think of it as a form of news, we are doing what its creators want. Sorry, I taught classes on this stuff right during the 2016 election and it's assumed particular importance to me as a result. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
I agree with not posting propaganda, especially when it is a modern targeting. To have this thread be free of it seems important. News about these propaganda efforts would be different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 10:04
|
|
|
"Don't post news that you know is from a transparently corrupt source" seems pretty obvious? Unless the topic is itself how X source is corrupt of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:"Don't post news that you know is from a transparently corrupt source" seems pretty obvious? Great, so we can't post news now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
please dont post any news source owned by billionaires
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:please dont post any news source owned by billionaires It is not the same thing—Bloomberg isn’t trying to dismantle public agency and discourse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
thegoatgod_pan posted:It is not the same thing—Bloomberg isn’t trying to dismantle public agency and discourse. llgmosofao
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
thegoatgod_pan posted:It is not the same thing—Bloomberg isn’t trying to dismantle public agency and discourse. Yes it is, we just don’t recognize it as such because we’ve been conditioned to accept American corporate media as inherently legitimate and well-intentioned. I think the discussion of exactly what level of terrible RT is versus American corporate media is interesting but a debate worth having elsewhere in this forum for debate. For now I think RT and adjacent media is relevant enough to allow and if nothing else deserves a response when it comes up if you feel it’s super dangerous. There’s also the reality that there are people who are platformed by RT et. al. who are newsworthy in themselves, like Greenwald or Richard Wolff. Edit: here is the thread I referenced - https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3876538&perpage=40&pagenumber=6 I think this is a good discussion to continue there. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Here is my simple view of the RT. For Christmas this year they openly gloated about Russia trying to assassinate people in Britain so they can go gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Do you have any examples of Bloomberg media trying to dismantle public discourse, and destroy democracy, public agency etc., or is this just a Qltist paranoia seizure in progress?
thegoatgod_pan fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
There’s an important difference between sources that: 1 have a bias but report the news; 2 push an agenda and omit “off-message stories; and 3 are propaganda factories that only publish interesting stuff if it can get you to lower your guard enough to absorb the bullshit. It’s interesting watching this discussion from the UK because we never had a belief in the good faith or impartiality of most of our media: our papers are and always have been proud of being partisan garbage. The exception *was* the BBC, but it has become much more of a state broadcaster in the past 3-4 years and has also had serious problems with fascists infiltrating the current affairs programmes. FT is pretty good too but not very political. I actually totally agree that it’s bad to watch propaganda. The entire point of it is to influence you on a level you don’t notice. And the message of RT, Infowars etc is 100% “Don’t trust the rest of your society”. I mean if someone wants to watch it then it’s not like you can stop them, but it would be good if people could maybe just share key points if they think there are good ones instead of linking to the cesspool directly. Paraphrasing this stuff helps avoiding spreading the brainworms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Equating RT with Infowars is loving insane and disingenuous. It's like comparing Al-Jazeera to Infowars. It's a foreign news site with bias, not an insane attack engine for utterly false stories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:Equating RT with Infowars is loving insane and disingenuous. It's like comparing Al-Jazeera to Infowars. It's a foreign news site with bias, not an insane attack engine for utterly false stories. Lol see this is the harm propaganda causes to the brain, case in point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/agents-fire-tear-gas-asylum-seekers-mexico-border-190102082249473.html Speaking of Al-Jazeera, the US border patrol is currently firing tear gas at women, children, and journalists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes it is, we just don’t recognize it as such because we’ve been conditioned to accept American corporate media as inherently legitimate and well-intentioned.  There are similarities but to equate the two is really wildly dismissive of just how insidious propaganda actually is. Journalism serves a purpose, but a significant portion of journalists have some meaningfully artruistic intentions or understand that what they're doing involves some moral responsibility to society. I don't know how you can remotely equate that to straight up propaganda, hell that's why people keep quitting RT claiming they felt duped and used.Beefeater breaks it down well up above.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:Equating RT with Infowars is loving insane and disingenuous. It's like comparing Al-Jazeera to Infowars. It's a foreign news site with bias, not an insane attack engine for utterly false stories. This discussion started based on a story suggesting China wanted to bomb American aircraft carriers in the immediate future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:This discussion started based on a story suggesting China wanted to bomb American aircraft carriers in the immediate future. I've been seeing opinion pieces suggesting this for literally years, from mostly British papers. Is the UK a propaganda machine dedicated to dismantling democracy? (yes but well uh)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:Equating RT with Infowars is loving insane and disingenuous. It's like comparing Al-Jazeera to Infowars. It's a foreign news site with bias, not an insane attack engine for utterly false stories. nope, it's an attack engine for utterly false stories. the only difference is that mental illness probably plays less of a role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:Equating RT with Infowars is loving insane and disingenuous. It's like comparing Al-Jazeera to Infowars. It's a foreign news site with bias, not an insane attack engine for utterly false stories. Think of RT as Putin's fox news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Maybe the focus should be more on not posting trash journalism instead of wondering whether it's propaganda or not because with the state of the media these days that is pretty much all of it to some degree or other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
maybe people should post links to news articles and stop being hypocrites about only wanting propaganda they agree with. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/03...-to-stop-trump/ A veteran national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in a Monday email for becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine’s promotion of militarism and imperialism. As a result of NBC/MSNBC’s all-consuming militarism, he said, “the national security establishment not only hasn’t missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength” and “is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism.” The NBC/MSNBC reporter, William Arkin, is a long-time, prominent war and military reporter, perhaps best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010, co-reported with two-time Pulitzer winner Dana Priest, on how sprawling, unaccountable and omnipotent the national security state has become in the post-9/11 era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:Equating RT with Infowars is loving insane and disingenuous. It's like comparing Al-Jazeera to Infowars. It's a foreign news site with bias, not an insane attack engine for utterly false stories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S5TfbYKnKI
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Think of RT as Putin's fox news. Except the influence is in the opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
It’s crazy how Fox News is the literal opposite of State Media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It’s crazy how Fox News is the literal opposite of State Media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
______ bless America https://twitter.com/MattLaslo/status/1080908706890403840
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
mystes posted:In the sense that it tells the president what to think rather than the other way around, yes. That's what Shimrra meant, yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes it is, we just don’t recognize it as such because we’ve been conditioned to accept American corporate media as inherently legitimate and well-intentioned. I'm beginning to see now why evilweasel keeps getting probed for calling a spade a spade
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:28
|
|
