|
quote:It's not conspiracy because it's a known thing You keep saying that, but so far your evidence for Rall being a propagandist for Sputnik is that he's employed by them. You keep ignoring the idea that Russia may choose to platform people already critical of the US, even if those people aren't lying, because that's still to Russia's benefit. You outright stated that Rall is molding his opinions to fit what he thinks Sputnik wants, and that's part of why he is untrustworthy. Where is your evidence of this? For their part, people like Rall, Schultz and Hedges have made the argument that leftism isn't welcome in the American media establishment, and that's why they're going to RT and Sputnik. You consider that idea self-evidently absurd, but you seem to have forgotten to justify this belief. Which agenda is Rall promoting? Assume a world where Rall is not lying, and is simply calling out problems as he sees them in America. Imagine that Sputnik gives him a platform, because platforming people critical of the US is in Russia's interest. Is Rall now a propagandist even if he's saying the same things as before? If yes, does that mean we should now disregard what he's saying? Edit: My main issue with your line of argument is that you're saying some media organization is hostile to the US, some person works there, ergo the things that person is saying are untrue or misleading. Propaganda can be true. If RT points out that American politicians are useless at dealing with school shootings, that's true, and it is not a reason not to discuss that subject. Esran fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Nov 6, 2022 |
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I am curious, can you profile a more moderate misinformation propagandist? Right wing too if you'd like. I think examples from across the spectrum are going to work better for people than one specific one. I mentioned them earlier, but the Center for Consumer Freedom is a good example of a domestic group doing disinformation that's arguably either conservative or moderate. Their work's harmful but smaller scale and far less morally outrageous than the Russian government's, but it still reflects disinformation propaganda under J&O's definition. They also work well as an example because they're also not very good at either their work, or at obscuring their sourcing. CCF started by doing specific anti-FDA regulation work on behalf of some of the largest food trade associations, but they eventually started taking positions from basically anyone who will pay them (because in practice, there are a lot of conflicts between industry groups. As a result of this, CCF will advocate for good positions and bad positions- for example, CCF ran a "sweet truths" group on behalf of the corn lobby that was one part of a decades-long war between corn and cane sugar groups, and iirc the site was all about defending against genuinely bad health claims being promoted by a similar cane sugar group. Right now, among other projects, it looks like they're running a campaign, presumably on behalf of the meat industry, attacking animal rights groups (arguably a good position) and animal welfare groups (not so much). There's never a good reason to rely on information that comes from CCF, because if it's accurate, other sources are available that aren't going to be manipulative in other ways. Methodologically, CCF usually sets up a proxy site and/or organization on behalf of their client, then uses it to generate media coverage or independent messaging on the issue. In doing so, they do very little to obscure that CCF is involved (CCF is often identified on the group's homepage). Instead, they let the mediation of the message through its initial spread do all the work - when a news org covers or mediates their material, the proxy org is often what's cited, not CCF. This is an example of the caveat I provided in the main post- a lot of disinformation doesn't need to obscure its source very hard, because the people who find it useful will bend over backwards to keep using it, and will fight hard to make even overt disinformation acceptable. Nutrition and food policy are generally a really terrible information space for reasons I can get into elsewhere; it's one part of why I started studying this stuff. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That Rall works for Sputnik is sufficient to establish that he's a propagandist. this assertion, unfortunately, has been demonstrated to be completely wrong on multiple high profile occasions. afficionados of American media over the past twenty years are of course familiar with dozens of cases of people taking American money then turning around and using that funding to pursue their personal goals over ours, but the oldest and highest-profile one goes back a little more than a century. the line goes: 'and who paid for Lenin's train tickets? because Lenin was a man accepting pay from the Kaiser of Germany, on the grounds that the Germans thought the things Lenin said were likely to disrupt imperial Russia's ability to wage war, and Lenin was willing to take one imperial power's pay to try to accomplish the goals he already had. both were confident they were putting one over on the other guy. and as it turned out, the guy accepting pay to say these things not only believed every word he was saying, he eventually found himself in a position to put them into practice. is Ted Rall Lenin, christ no, but the claim that being paid by a foreign power that disagrees with you proves your critiques are in bad faith has a hole big enough to build a nuclear superpower in it. it is ideologically convenient to dismiss all such people as bad faith propagandists. the evidence does not bear this assertion out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Esran posted:You keep saying that, but so far your evidence for Rall being a propagandist for Sputnik is that he's employed by them. Yes, the person being paid to produce content for a propaganda entity is a propagandist. This isn't complicated. Esran posted:You keep ignoring the idea that Russia may choose to platform people already critical of the US, even if those people aren't lying, because that's still to Russia's benefit. This "platforming" claim might bear water if the guy wasn't directly taking money from the organization, and if he hasn't been doing it for years and years. Esran posted:For their part, people like Rall, Schultz and Hedges have made the argument that leftism isn't welcome in the American media establishment, and that's why they're going to RT and Sputnik. You consider that idea self-evidently absurd, but you seem to have forgotten to justify this belief. It's self-evidently nonsense because a) there are other "leftist" sources not funded by the Russian government, b) the concept of "American media establishment" is vague and allows the claimant to render the claim unfalsifiable, and c) if they were actually interested in promoting leftism, they would consider why the propaganda agency that isn't interested in promoting leftism is continuing to employ them, and what the actual effects of their propaganda are! Esran posted:Which agenda is Rall promoting? Rall is promoting the agenda of the people who have been paying him for at least a decade to create material and place it in the US market. He's not repudiated them, he's not tried to leave, he's not subverted them, he's doubled down at every opportunity and his messaging follows along with other Russian messaging. It's gotten especially obvious since the second wave of invasion because the contradictions in his positions are necessarily so strained (and because he's been doing longform columns that also track really closely in time with lines from other parts of the outlet). Victar posted:I'm counting eight comics in a row from Ted Rall with the overt message "Biden and/or the Democrats are worthless" and the strongly implied subtext "(so don't bother voting for them)." Trapezium Dave posted:Friday's Rall is going to be about Ukraine which you would think would break the chain except the subtext is still "so don't bother voting". Trapezium Dave posted:Rall: Us Dictatorships Have To Stick Together Esran posted:Assume a world where Rall is not lying, and is simply calling out problems as he sees them in America. Imagine that Sputnik gives him a platform, because platforming people critical of the US is in Russia's interest. Is Rall now a propagandist even if he's saying the same things as before? If yes, does that mean we should now disregard what he's saying? I am not, anywhere, saying that we can't discuss the subjects of defects in US policy. We do not need to rely on propaganda to do so. If you find yourself needing to rely on the propaganda of foreign authoritarian governments as the sole source of "leftist" media, then you may have some underlying problems with both your media diet, and your understanding of leftism! I am not opposing the use of disinformation because it's "hostile to the US", I'm opposing disinformation because it's disinformation. Like Rall, we become mediators of the same false framing when we choose to spread it, and we share in his calculated bad faith. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's self-evidently nonsense because a) there are other "leftist" sources not funded by the Russian government, b) the concept of "American media establishment" is vague and allows the claimant to render the claim unfalsifiable, and c) if they were actually interested in promoting leftism, they would consider why the propaganda agency that isn't interested in promoting leftism is continuing to employ them, and what the actual effects of their propaganda are! this sets up a curious situation where the reason we can self-evidently disregard Ted Rall is the "actual effects of their [Ted Rall's] propaganda" for those of us who recall the heady days of 'if you're not supporting Bush, you're supporting the terrorists' this rings painfully familiar. never mind if what is being said is true, never mind if the things being criticized are actually bad, never mind if actually what you are being told from more 'legitimate' news outlets is a blatant lie: if you listen to these people, if you help legitimize these anti-american voices, you're helping the terrorists win. this is not 'self-evident,' it is a weak guilt by association play everyone here has experienced before. financial incentives are real! they exist! but you need to do more than gesture vaguely at how unpatriotic it would be to engage with material not pre-approved by American propagandists to explain why such things must be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this sets up a curious situation where the reason we can self-evidently disregard Ted Rall is the "actual effects of their [Ted Rall's] propaganda" I think you're aware that there are sources of information that aren't funded by the Russian government or "pre-approved by American propagandists."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I think you're aware that there are sources of information that aren't funded by the Russian government or "pre-approved by American propagandists." much as you are aware Ted Rall is not the sole source of leftist criticism! but twenty years ago, media analysis and criticism was quite clear: if you engaged with reporting not pre-cleared by American propagandists, you were letting the terrorists win. whether that propaganda was accurate was irrelevant: the outcome of listening to it would have been to harm the American war effort, and thus it was the dutiful media analyst's task to ignore and dismiss it. this recent event, and its ongoing aftermath, strongly informs modern discussions of which propaganda channels should be summarily dismissed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, the person being paid to produce content for a propaganda entity is a propagandist. This isn't complicated. Lots of people get paid to repeat things they actually believe. There's plenty of people who get paid lots of money to go in front of people and honestly express their personal beliefs, which genuinely align with what the group paying them wants to spread. You seem to be angling toward the idea that Russia is incompatible with Rall's beliefs, and therefore it's impossible that he could be going on RT if he truly believed what he claimed. But isn't it entirely plausible that he's simply inconsistent in his beliefs, or that your read on his beliefs' incompatibility with Russia is incorrect? You're making extremely strong (and rather acerbic) assertions about Rall's honesty or beliefs, without anything to back it up beyond restating that he went on RT and was paid. That's really a rather weak support for the claim, especially given that it's of secondary importance here and could easily be dropped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not conspiracy because it's a known thing. Rall works directly for Sputnik, and Sputnik is a propaganda outlet by any definition one might use. Sputnik may not pay all the other people who appear on their programming, but they do to Rall. The million mile wide gulf between Rall's stated beliefs and the agenda he's promoting, coupled with the fact that he's a propagandist, ought to make him a good example. In many other cases, we don't immediately know this, or its presented deniably. It's possible to identify that legitimating source obfuscation is happening by applying scrutiny to the mediating source and to the methods of the root source- and, of course, because other people also do the work and you can read their material. To be clear, what I'm saying is not that Rall isn't influenced by Russian state actors. I'm saying that it requires conspiracy theory logic to claim that they are the ones who implanted whatever ideas he's spreading that are favorable to them, because the ostensible action is happening behind the scenes and all we have to go off of are the ultimate results matching what we believe the entity's goals to be, and our belief that the entity is unscrupulous enough to engage in this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I think you're aware that there are sources of information that aren't funded by the Russian government or "pre-approved by American propagandists." Seems like an unnecessary and rude accusation of bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Bear Enthusiast posted:Seems like an unnecessary and rude accusation of bad faith. Yes. Because there's an ongoing interesting discussion I won't probate this time, but will if it happens again. However, please report posts that break the rules such as this rather than bringing them up in thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, the person being paid to produce content for a propaganda entity is a propagandist. This isn't complicated. This is not necessarily true, see YMB's earlier post. Unless you are defining "propaganda" broadly as meaning "someone is being paid assuming they will push a particular set of viewpoints", and if so, I have bad news about nearly all news media. Discendo Vox posted:This "platforming" claim might bear water if the guy wasn't directly taking money from the organization, and if he hasn't been doing it for years and years. When I say "platform" I'm not referring to whether a person is being paid or not. I'm referring to how Sputnik chooses which people it wants to put on the air. Sputnik may decide to hire people who are already critical of the US system. You are stating that Rall is molding his opinions based on what he thinks Sputnik would like, rather than Rall's opinions being his own, which you simply have no evidence to support. Discendo Vox posted:It's self-evidently nonsense because a) there are other "leftist" sources not funded by the Russian government, b) the concept of "American media establishment" is vague and allows the claimant to render the claim unfalsifiable, and c) if they were actually interested in promoting leftism, they would consider why the propaganda agency that isn't interested in promoting leftism is continuing to employ them, and what the actual effects of their propaganda are! That's fair. I guess they could have gone to Telesur. (it's a fair point, but leftist outlets in the US are actually few and far between) I'm sure Sputnik doesn't want to promote leftism in Russia, but I don't think they care if Berners in the US get ideas. Discendo Vox posted:Rall is promoting the agenda of the people who have been paying him for at least a decade to create material and place it in the US market. Wow, those comics are damning. How dare he post that the Democrats are worthless, or that Ukraine banned opposition parties, or that the US duopoly doesn't really qualify as democracy, things that are totally misleading and untrue, which no leftist could actually believe. Discendo Vox posted:If you find yourself needing to rely on the propaganda of foreign authoritarian governments as the sole source of "leftist" media, then you may have some underlying problems with both your media diet, and your understanding of leftism! I am not opposing the use of disinformation because it's "hostile to the US", I'm opposing disinformation because it's disinformation. I never suggested using Sputnik as the sole source of media. I simply disagree with you that Rall is necessarily a propagandist in the narrow sense (i.e. I don't think he's lying about his beliefs, and I don't think he's deliberately trying to mislead people or arguing in bad faith. I don't think Sputnik is feeding him what to say either). I don't disagree that picking a non-Sputnik source is probably a fine idea, especially on story where the Russians likely have an interest in meddling. But I'd apply that same advice to every outlet. I think Cease to Hope's earlier post is much more useful as an approach to source criticism. Cease to Hope posted:You can apply these same frames to a CNN commentator or an editorial in the Times. Rather than assuming the speaker is lying or some sort of catspaw, it can be more revealing to look at what they profess to believe, what the mission of the platform ownership is, and what systems proscribe their message and elevated it to you in the first place. It can help you suss out the ways a story is misleadingly framed, and better guess what isn't being reported on or what wasn't in the picture. Edit: quote:Like Rall, we become mediators of the same false framing when we choose to spread it, and we share in his calculated bad faith I mean, I guess you'll believe what you want to believe, but I really don't think you have evidence supporting that he's arguing in bad faith or that his framing is dishonest, and I don't think you can ascribe that intent to everyone posting his comics either. Esran fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not, anywhere, saying that we can't discuss the subjects of defects in US policy. We do not need to rely on propaganda to do so. If you find yourself needing to rely on the propaganda of foreign authoritarian governments as the sole source of "leftist" media, then you may have some underlying problems with both your media diet, and your understanding of leftism! I am not opposing the use of disinformation because it's "hostile to the US", I'm opposing disinformation because it's disinformation. Like Rall, we become mediators of the same false framing when we choose to spread it, and we share in his calculated bad faith. This seems like an odd point of contention to me. Who here is relying on Ted Rall of all people for their political opinions? Who here is relying on Russian media "as the sole source of leftist media"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
I do want to say, Sputnik is a propaganda outlet. The fact that it is such a blatant propaganda outlet is useful for illustrating ways you can be directed to believe something by motivated actors, and what you can do about that. Lying isn't the only way to direct belief. How are we to understand something true said by someone with an obvious agenda?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I do want to say, Sputnik is a propaganda outlet. The fact that it is such a blatant propaganda outlet is useful for illustrating ways you can be directed to believe something by motivated actors, and what you can do about that. the ur-example of which being those good old arguments about Al Jazeera's reporting on the Iraq war. their reporting was, absolutely, propaganda! the Qatari royal family exerts some very strong editorial control over their reporting! it just so happened that the Qatari royal family was worried that the American invasion of Iraq was going to produce a bunch of armed radicals running around knocking everything over they could get their hands on, and so were happy to greenlight anyone saying "hey uh it looks like things are going pretty loving badly over there, maybe Americans should think about knocking it off." you can make a solid, principled argument that as material produced by a foreign propagandist outlet, we -should- have ignored all the Al Jazeera reports that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't going well. this would have resulted in being appreciably less informed about the reality of the world around us, but it would have kept us free from the influence of possibly malevolent propagandists. the value proposition on that one is a little messier than we'd probably prefer!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Basically the foundation of the argument is: why the hell would anyone have to lie to make anti-American propaganda? Separate from the actual discussion of Russia etc, the answer is "because it serves their purposes to do so". You could choose to be trying to vilify America on things it's actually OK-to-good at, for your own ends, and need to lie to accomplish that. Or, you could be lazy and not aware of certain historical facts or truths that make your argument easier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the ur-example of which being those good old arguments about Al Jazeera's reporting on the Iraq war. their reporting was, absolutely, propaganda! the Qatari royal family exerts some very strong editorial control over their reporting! it just so happened that the Qatari royal family was worried that the American invasion of Iraq was going to produce a bunch of armed radicals running around knocking everything over they could get their hands on, and so were happy to greenlight anyone saying "hey uh it looks like things are going pretty loving badly over there, maybe Americans should think about knocking it off." The only objection I'd raise here is the word "foreign," as we're not all from the same country. But otherwise I agree with you and it does sound like from a media literacy perspective, Al Jazeera should have been ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:To be clear, what I'm saying is not that Rall isn't influenced by Russian state actors. I'm saying that it requires conspiracy theory logic to claim that they are the ones who implanted whatever ideas he's spreading that are favorable to them, because the ostensible action is happening behind the scenes and all we have to go off of are the ultimate results matching what we believe the entity's goals to be, and our belief that the entity is unscrupulous enough to engage in this. Rall is employed, directly, by the propaganda source, to produce material on behalf of that source. He didn't go on their radio show a couple times, he's worked for them and produced content for them for more than a decade. You do not need to go further than this. The idea that you need to somehow prove the propagandist truly believes, or doesn't believe, the misleading arguments they are making, while in the employ of a propaganda agency, to call their arguments disinformation beggars belief, and misses the point. Esran posted:This is not necessarily true, see YMB's earlier post. Unless you are defining "propaganda" broadly as meaning "someone is being paid assuming they will push a particular set of viewpoints", and if so, I have bad news about nearly all news media. Rall works directly for a propaganda outlet, which is not the same as simply "being paid assuming they will push a particular set of viewpoints". Sputnik is not remotely comparable to "nearly all news media". He's also worked there for many years, moving his focus in full alignment with their positions. I have also demonstrated that Rall's status as an employed propagandist for that outlet is obscured, which was the whole point of the post in the first place. Esran posted:When I say "platform" I'm not referring to whether a person is being paid or not. I'm referring to how Sputnik chooses which people it wants to put on the air. Sputnik may decide to hire people who are already critical of the US system. You are stating that Rall is molding his opinions based on what he thinks Sputnik would like, rather than Rall's opinions being his own, which you simply have no evidence to support. Why would you think this would disqualify what he is doing from being disinformation, or from being propaganda? You think the propaganda entity would hire the people who would actually oppose them? Esran posted:That's fair. I guess they could have gone to Telesur. (it's a fair point, but leftist outlets in the US are actually few and far between) Telesur is also a propaganda outlet; in fact it shares resources with and swaps proxies with Russia on a pretty routine basis. Esran posted:I'm sure Sputnik doesn't want to promote leftism in Russia, but I don't think they care if Berners in the US get ideas. Sputnik is interested in encouraging civic disengagement in targeted populations, including specifically in causing division among the Democrats. Rall has served in this capacity for a very long time. I have provided examples of people in the politoons thread straight up commenting on how predictable this pattern has become. I've also pointed to multiple other entities operated by RT for the same purpose, using the same approach. Esran posted:Wow, those comics are damning. How dare he post that the Democrats are worthless, or that Ukraine banned opposition parties, or that the US duopoly doesn't really qualify as democracy, things that are totally misleading and untrue, which no leftist could actually believe. The opinion piece you've linked, like the cartoon, neglects to mention that the parties in question were endorsing or participating in the invasion, or that there are a whole bunch of political parties not banned in Ukraine of every political stripe not currently facilitating the invasion. As was said in the Ukraine conflict thread at the time, it's akin to Germany banning the NSDAP. This is, once again, a pretty great example of why how a selective framing of an issue facilitates disinformation, and how people will uncritically engage in it if it tells them what they want. Esran posted:I never suggested using Sputnik as the sole source of media. The defense being raised, by both Rall and by the other people who work for Russian propaganda outlets, is explicitly that they are the only available place for true leftist media versus some ill-defined "mainstream." YMB's explicit framing of the issue was that the options are Sputnik, or material "pre-approved by US propagandists". Esran posted:I simply disagree with you that Rall is necessarily a propagandist in the narrow sense (i.e. I don't think he's lying about his beliefs, and I don't think he's deliberately trying to mislead people or arguing in bad faith. I don't think Sputnik is feeding him what to say either). From the loving OP: quote:A core issue with many people’s approach to media literacy is they think of it as finding a single, true lens through which to understand information and the world- a rule or worldview or rubric that they can use to decide what sources are good or bad. This is often couched in the language of universal skepticism, or seeing through the “mainstream media.” “I’m skeptical of every source” and "all media is biased" is bullshit. No one can be skeptical of every source equally, and all too often it means rejecting good sources that are just communicating challenging or unappealing information. Taking these positions actually makes a person even more vulnerable to disinformation, because disinfo campaigns actively target such individuals and prey upon their biases. The Intercept article I cited above OANN will both tell you- they will give you the stories no one else will. Edit: quote:I mean, I guess you'll believe what you want to believe, but I really don't think you have evidence supporting that he's arguing in bad faith or that his framing is dishonest, and I don't think you can ascribe that intent to everyone posting his comics either. Good news! I don't! The people who post Rall in the politoons thread do so to mock him and point out his dishonesty! However, they've discussed no longer doing it because no matter how bad it is, people still cannot resist defending its framing of issues because they find it rhetorically convenient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
This is a discussion forum, where people discuss often contentious issues. The people who you are speaking for should be prepared for and willing to discuss objections that are raised to their mockery (or at least not complain that objections are raised to begin with). Otherwise you just have an echo chamber. Besides, this is a very uncharitable framing of what usually happens in the political cartoon thread, at least from my perspective, as there are many, many Rall cartoons that get posted that don't get defended. Also, if you could respond to my previous question when you have the chance I'd appreciate it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Rall is employed, directly, by the propaganda source, to produce material on behalf of that source. He didn't go on their radio show a couple times, he's worked for them and produced content for them for more than a decade. You do not need to go further than this. The idea that you need to somehow prove the propagandist truly believes, or doesn't believe, the misleading arguments they are making, while in the employ of a propaganda agency, to call their arguments disinformation beggars belief, and misses the point. try investing in a little more belief, and as an intellectual exercise, let's try going further than that anyway. the assertion that this guy is OBVIOUSLY a bad faith propagandist who does not believe what he is saying, and as such can be summarily ignored, because he is taking money from people who believe differently from him, betrays a total lack of awareness of even recent history. it was not desinformatizya when lenin said 'world war one is a bad loving idea and we shouldn't be fighting it,' it was not disinformation when Al Jazeera said the Iraq War was going badly, and what you have presented here shows, at its very worst, that Ted Rall is a political cartoonist. is this a crime worthy of lengthy punishment in a healthy society? probably. but what you have shown here is not disinformation. it's someone who believes something you don't. if you are going to dismiss it as bad faith, you will need to show better work than 'he works for an outlet openly pushing a political agenda.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This is a discussion forum, where people discuss often contentious issues. The people who you are speaking for should be prepared for and willing to discuss objections that are raised to their mockery (or at least not complain that objections are raised to begin with). Otherwise you just have an echo chamber. Besides, this is a very uncharitable framing of what usually happens in the political cartoon thread, at least from my perspective, as there are many, many Rall cartoons that get posted that don't get defended. I am confident the political cartoon thread is able to discuss things other than endorsing disinformation without being an echo chamber, in much the same way that I don't think it will become an echo chamber by not debating the merits of Day by Day or Sinfest. Fister Roboto posted:Also, if you could respond to my previous question when you have the chance I'd appreciate it I already did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am confident the political cartoon thread is able to discuss things other than endorsing disinformation without being an echo chamber, in much the same way that I don't think it will become an echo chamber by not debating the merits of Day by Day or Sinfest. On the other hand, you are suggesting by proxy that Rall comics should not be defended, are you not? Why bring up these other people who are apparently frustrated by sometimes receiving counter-arguments against their mockery? That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of a discussion forum. Obviously there are some limits to what can and should be discussed, but I don't think that Rall crosses any of those lines. You're also making a pretty brazen assumption about the intentions of people trying to discuss these things ("people still cannot resist defending its framing of issues because they find it rhetorically convenient.") What do you base this assumption on? Also I don't see where you responded to my previous post at all. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
I don’t know why you all decided to break rules here instead of doing that in the Politoons thread, but, alas, I have to ask everyone to actually restate, in brief terms, what are their positions in this conversation, and to what end they would like to take it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
What rules are being broken? Serious question. The conversation seemed cordial enough to me. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Rall is employed, directly, by the propaganda source, to produce material on behalf of that source. He didn't go on their radio show a couple times, he's worked for them and produced content for them for more than a decade. You do not need to go further than this. The idea that you need to somehow prove the propagandist truly believes, or doesn't believe, the misleading arguments they are making, while in the employ of a propaganda agency, to call their arguments disinformation beggars belief, and misses the point. quote:Over the course of a given episode, the hosts will invite on as many as 10 separate "guests", including people like Rall. Each guest will be "interviewed" by the hosts to address a set of generally preplanned questions and talking point answers You have still failed to provide evidence to support that Rall is making misleading arguments. Your examples from earlier were you and politoons posters disagreeing with his opinions. quote:Rall works directly for a propaganda outlet, which is not the same as simply "being paid assuming they will push a particular set of viewpoints". Sputnik is not remotely comparable to "nearly all news media". He's also worked there for many years, moving his focus in full alignment with their positions. I have also demonstrated that Rall's status as an employed propagandist for that outlet is obscured, which was the whole point of the post in the first place. quote:Why would you think this would disqualify what he is doing from being disinformation, or from being propaganda? You think the propaganda entity would hire the people who would actually oppose them? According to your own definition, disinformation is "false, incomplete, or misleading information". You have not provided any evidence or even examples of Rall disseminating information that is false, incomplete or misleading. We seem to be going around in circles on this point, and you consider the fact that he works at Sputnik as being damning, so I guess I'll drop talking about Rall specifically. Is your assertion that (debatably) true statements amplified by someone with an agenda are inherently misleading, regardless of their actual veracity, and so such statements shouldn't be posted here? quote:Telesur is also a propaganda outlet; in fact it shares resources with and swaps proxies with Russia on a pretty routine basis. quote:Sputnik is interested in encouraging civic disengagement in targeted populations, including specifically in causing division among the Democrats. Rall has served in this capacity for a very long time. I have provided examples of people in the politoons thread straight up commenting on how predictable this pattern has become. I've also pointed to multiple other entities operated by RT for the same purpose, using the same approach. quote:The opinion piece you've linked, like the cartoon, neglects to mention that the parties in question were endorsing or participating in the invasion, or that there are a whole bunch of political parties not banned in Ukraine of every political stripe not currently facilitating the invasion. As was said in the Ukraine conflict thread at the time, it's akin to Germany banning the NSDAP. This is, once again, a pretty great example of why how a selective framing of an issue facilitates disinformation, and how people will uncritically engage in it if it tells them what they want. quote:The defense being raised, by both Rall and by the other people who work for Russian propaganda outlets, is explicitly that they are the only available place for true leftist media versus some ill-defined "mainstream." YMB's explicit framing of the issue was that the options are Sputnik, or material "pre-approved by US propagandists". To be clear: The position I'm taking here is not that Sputnik is trustworthy, or that you should include it in your media diet. It's that if someone posts a Rall cartoon portraying Democrats as useless, you should not be allowed to call in the mod squad to nuke the offending poster (remember that you couched your post as moderation advice), simply because Rall is working for Sputnik. Instead, you should explain why the argument presented in the cartoon is misleading, or you should provide evidence that Rall's arguments are being dictated from Moscow. cinci zoo sniper posted:I don’t know why you all decided to break rules here instead of doing that in the Politoons thread, but, alas, I have to ask everyone to actually restate, in brief terms, what are their positions in this conversation, and to what end they would like to take it. My position is outlined a few lines above. I don't have an end to take it to after this post. I think we were largely done with this discussion even if we don't agree, and I don't think continuing it would be productive in any case, now that you're swinging the probate stick around for unclear reasons. Esran fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What rules are being broken? Serious question. The conversation seemed cordial enough to me. I would also like to know what rules are being broken, this post should not have been probated. I read through both the rules and the discussion and found no obvious rule breaks. If you are going to do the kind of intervention you did you can atleast explain yourself more clearly. While the rules try to be 'hard' so to say the targets are 'soft'. There is no binary of breaking and following the rules, or even a spectrum. More of a... pseudo-spectrum of interpretation. Roboto's post was probated for bad faith but it read to me as a completely good faith question (that i also had myself!). It would be more helpfull if instead of probating such a question you quoted a few example posts that you interpreted as breaking a rule, stating the rule it broke and a short reasoning why. Maybe even give some feedback on how it could have been made in a better way. Just refering to the rules without explanation risks confusion when different interpretation do not line up. In my opinion the 'heavy' kind of ruleset used here that require effort and rigour from the posters should require doubly so for the moderators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
Esran posted:My position is outlined a few lines above. I don't have an end to take it to after this post. I think we were largely done with this discussion even if we don't agree, and I don't think continuing it would be productive in any case, now that you're swinging the probate stick around for unclear reasons. The reason why I’m intervening - and, mind you, with an unambiguous verbal warning that asks not that much at all of anyone here - is that the recent conversation makes it unnecessarily difficult to distinguish the line between one’s interest in contributing to this thread and one’s interest to rehash grudges from a different thread. That said, I don’t think sassy parting shots will do you much favour. Megamissen posted:I would also like to know what rules are being broken, this post should not have been probated. This sounds like something you could be interested in bringing up during the next D&D feedback thread, currently scheduled for February. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:This sounds like something you could be interested in bringing up during the next D&D feedback thread, currently scheduled for February. If you can’t be clearer in how you communicate before dropping down punishments, you should consider stepping down instead of dismissing their question for February.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The reason why I’m intervening - and, mind you, with an unambiguous verbal warning that asks not that much at all of anyone here - is that the recent conversation makes it unnecessarily difficult to distinguish the line between one’s interest in contributing to this thread and one’s interest to rehash grudges from a different thread. That said, I don’t think sassy parting shots will do you much favour. the re-launch of this thread's chosen subject matter was the drama around posting a bad cartoonist in the Politoons thread on Something Awful, and what it means for media literacy at large that people still agree with this guy who does bad political cartoons. if rehashing grudges from a different thread is off limits now, i'd suggest a re-relaunch with a different choice of subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the re-launch of this thread's chosen subject matter was the drama around posting a bad cartoonist in the Politoons thread on Something Awful, and what it means for media literacy at large that people still agree with this guy who does bad political cartoons. The post I used to get the thread going again is about how disinformation obscures its source; I chose it because a) I'd drafted the post when the thread was previously active, then made a second revision for it several weeks ago, and because b) I can use the model images from it to ease people into some of the concepts of social network analysis, which is the post I actually want to make sometime between now and whenever twitter dies. Rall was chosen as an example because he is someone DnD is widely familiar with, and because he is now openly known as a propagandist, which wasn't always the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That said, I don’t think sassy parting shots will do you much favour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The post I used to get the thread going again is about how disinformation obscures its source rather, you made a post about how motivated speakers conceal their motivations. that's helpful to know, but oftentimes a truth is more useful to a propagandist. it also means it's a very useful method for identifying everyday ways that narratives are created. Discendo Vox posted:
in this case, when M1 is "the propagandist simply chooses someone already saying the message they want to spread," you are describing an editorial page. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
To avoid any more off-topic posts, if anyone else feels like saying something about thread moderation tonight or in general - PM me or Koos Group.mawarannahr posted:If you can’t be clearer in how you communicate before dropping down punishments, you should consider stepping down instead of dismissing their question for February. They can post on their main if they want a serious engagement, though it’s also worth noting that my simultaneous post did offer adequate answers to gist of their post. Esran posted:I wasn't going for sass. From my point of view, you showed up in this thread which was being fairly civil, and made a demand for reasons that weren't clear. When another poster asked about the reason for this demand, you probated them for reasons that were (are still) unclear. I believe the rest of the quoted post does illustrate much of my issue with the posts tonight, but I do strongly disagree with the conversation not being on hostile terms. It was civil if in literary sense. As for the sixer issued, the reason stated in Leper’s is the extent of the public statements I’m going to make on the matter. If you would like to request more information about it, please PM Koos Group. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if rehashing grudges from a different thread is off limits now, i'd suggest a re-relaunch with a different choice of subject matter. Rehashing grudges is not a form of posting that does productively add to the discussion in most cases, I’m afraid. There’s a narrow exception to standing ground with one’s rebuttal to a point made, but that’s broadly it. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:in this case, when M1 is "the propagandist simply chooses someone already saying the message they want to spread," you are describing an editorial page. This is a good example that helps me understand this concept in a concrete way, thank you. Discendo Vox posted:
I think another example would be Top Gun or Top Gun 2 or any other movie that gets made with assistance from the military, where the propagandist P (the US Department of Defense) places the original message M1 (US military superiority) in a legitimating source P2 (mainstream popular movies). Edit: Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/27/top-gun-maverick-us-military/ quote:“Top Gun: Maverick” received support from the Department of Defense (DOD) in the form of equipment — including jets and aircraft carriers — personnel and technical expertise. This was authorized by the DOD Entertainment Media Office, which assists filmmakers telling military stories. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:rather, you made a post about how motivated speakers conceal their motivations. that's helpful to know, but oftentimes a truth is more useful to a propagandist. No, I'm pretty directly quoting the authors describing, explicitly, how disinformation propagandists obscure the identity of the originator of the message. Cease to Hope posted:in this case, when M1 is "the propagandist simply chooses someone already saying the message they want to spread," you are describing an editorial page. No, because the messenger is someone employed by the propagandist, and the relationship is concealed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
Can someone go into more granular, like, specific detail about the kinds of procedural/administrative things that come with movies using military equipment in the u.s.? Like, what actually happens? I've heard it explained as "the studio gets free stuff and the military organization gets to make suggestions to the script that push a pro-military narrative." Is that what people here think, or am i oversimplifying/wrong? e: the reason I want to know is that everyone in my social sphere adores Marvel movies (among others) and it seems like the studio that produces them is constantly flush with really expensive military vehicles and equipment. No one has ever explained to me in depth what the contract between whatever organizational body and the studio would look like or what happens logistically (do they invite them in during table reads and accept notes about the script? does someone read the entire script and make notes? do they just preemptively write a script that makes their equipment-supplying friends look good?). It comes up in my head a lot, but I don't know anything about the specifics and I could never explain a step-by-step procedure for how a huge, wealthy studio with no tanks acquires tanks in exchange for something else. NeatHeteroDude fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, I'm pretty directly quoting the authors describing, explicitly, how disinformation propagandists obscure the identity of the originator of the message. Then I disagree with the authors. You're making a nitpicky distinction without a difference. In any event, your example isn't an example of either model, if you insist subterfuge is required. Ted Rall works for Sputnik, and writes editorials for them. He's not an authority they've subverted; he's some guy who used to draw cartoons for the LA Times years ago, and would probably have no outlet wider than a Twitter account if it weren't for Sputnik. And it's not a secret that he works for them: on top of them publishing his articles on sputniknews.com, he wrote an article titled "Why I Work For Sputnik." It doesn't even make any sense to suggest that he's secretly subverted, since his stock in trade has been saying that American society is hypocritical, censorious, and unjust for quite a while. Nothing here is concealed! There's no reason to believe he's anything but what he says he is, which is clearly a fool. NeatHeteroDude posted:Can someone go into more granular, like, specific detail about the kinds of procedural/administrative things that come with movies using military equipment in the u.s.? Like, what actually happens? I've heard it explained as "the studio gets free stuff and the military organization gets to make suggestions to the script that push a pro-military narrative." As I understand it, that's pretty much it, although sometimes the "free stuff" is access to things that they normally wouldn't have access to at all, like military hardware. It also often comes with a quid-pro-quo to copromote the movie along with the military in military advertising, while copromoting the military in movie advertising. Top Gun was the famous pioneer, but off the top of my head Man of Steel and Captain Marvel were also big examples. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
This is the D&D I crave. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Rall is employed, directly, by the propaganda source, to produce material on behalf of that source. He didn't go on their radio show a couple times, he's worked for them and produced content for them for more than a decade. You do not need to go further than this. The idea that you need to somehow prove the propagandist truly believes, or doesn't believe, the misleading arguments they are making, while in the employ of a propaganda agency, to call their arguments disinformation beggars belief, and misses the point. I didn't say you have to prove what the propagandist does or does not believe, but only that the M1 occurred, and the message was secretly transmitted. It would not be unreasonable to infer this in certain circumstances, but it still seems to require a certain conspiracy theory sort of logic definitionally, because it's dealing with something hidden. I've understood the definition of conspiracy theory to be taking motive and opportunity alone to assume guilt, because finding evidence is not possible due to the secretive nature of the conspiracy, and that would apply here. Sharkie posted:This is a good example that helps me understand this concept in a concrete way, thank you. I think that would fall into the category of deflective rather than legitimating, because the military is not (as far as I'm aware) taking the extra step of screening the movies they assist with, or otherwise presenting them as evidence that their goals and methods are legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:I didn't say you have to prove what the propagandist does or does not believe, but only that the M1 occurred, and the message was secretly transmitted. It would not be unreasonable to infer this in certain circumstances, but it still seems to require a certain conspiracy theory sort of logic definitionally, because it's dealing with something hidden. I've understood the definition of conspiracy theory to be taking motive and opportunity alone to assume guilt, because finding evidence is not possible due to the secretive nature of the conspiracy, and that would apply here. Do you mean screening as in "showing for an audience" or "reviewing before release" because it seems like they do both, but the process of how exactly they control movie production is somewhat secretive. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3040994/sailors-treated-to-advance-screenings-of-top-gun-maverick/ quote:Approximately 800 sailors were in attendance for this event. Also present were Adm. Daryl Caudle, Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command; Vice Adm. Daniel Dwyer, Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet; and Read Adm. John Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic. Though they do say https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-maverick-memorial-day-tom-cruise-pentagon-propaganda quote:“Top Gun,” also a Paramount product, came out post-Vietnam, at a time of public reticence about military adventurism. The movie became a military-supported public relations blitz that supercharged recruiting. As we found in our research, the Pentagon’s Entertainment Media Office internally wrote that the film “completed rehabilitation of the military’s image, which had been savaged by the Vietnam War.” So it does seem they present them as evidence their goals and methods are legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:31
|
|