|
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." The entity looking to use stuff from the US military applies to the DoD Entertainment Media Office, usually through a liaison office for whichever branch they're actually planning on using resources from. The governing regulation is 32 CFR §328. The core policy rationale/limits are under §328.4(a): quote:DoD assistance may be provided to an entertainment media production, to include fictional portrayals, when cooperation of the producers with the Department of Defense benefits the Department of Defense, or when such cooperation would be in the best interest of the Nation based on whether the production: So in practice the company pays the DoD for whatever the DoD provides, and the DoD has to believe it's at least not going to harm the military's reputation. I'm not very familiar with the regulation, but part of the requirements is that the company doing it includes credits to the DoD. Documents involved with DoD assistance in this stuff is also FOIAble. edit: the linked regulation also provides the template legal agreements they use for production assistance. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Nov 7, 2022 |
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Koos Group posted: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. They are, and they are. In the case of screening movies, the key terms to look for are "script approval". Top Gun is a famous example. As for presenting them as evidence that their goals and methods are legitimate, there is the co-advertising, and the fact that most movies that work with the military present the military in a positive or sympathetic light, with some famous examples (like Hurt Locker) that are critical of the military where military approval falls apart. This was significantly more tense in the New Hollywood run of anti-war Vietnam movies. Is this covert? It's not a secret, but it's not something that you're really meant to think about, either. You're just meant to think that being in the military is cool and fun. Thinking of propaganda strictly as misinformation isn't helpful unless you're just trying to get people banned from Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not very familiar with the regulation, but part of the requirements is that the company doing it includes credits to the DoD. Documents involved with DoD assistance in this stuff is also FOIAble. From the article I posted: quote:What exact changes did the Pentagon make to the new “Top Gun: Maverick”? We don’t know, and that’s part of the problem. While we have script change details for hundreds of other productions, such as “Godzilla” and “Fast and Furious 8,” the military has repeatedly invoked a “trade secrets” exception to block our Freedom of Information Act requests when it comes to its most high-value assets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
Sharkie posted: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. I mean showing to an audience. Reviewing before release wouldn't make a difference in which type of propaganda mediation it is. But yes, if they are showing it to soldiers to make the military seem more legitimate, and making it seem as though the movie is a work that springs naturally and honestly from the artistic impulses of a director rather than having been influenced them, then that would seem to fall under legitimating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Then I disagree with the authors. You're making a nitpicky distinction without a difference. Yeah, I linked it and described why it was written. I also described how Sputnik has him appear in their programming without saying he works for them, which is the actual basis for the application of the legitimating source model. Cease to Hope posted: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. And yet people continue to accept and rationalize and defend his framing of these issues, at length, and equivocate or misrepresent or ignore in order to do so. What Rall is is a propagandist in the employ of a Russian state agency, and what he is routinely presented as, and presents himself as, is independent - just like so many other entities operated by the state do, because it plays well with their audience. As the original post describes, they're happy to have it both ways. Similarly, Redfish insists that it's independent, even as RT refers to it as one of their media projects in other settings. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
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. It does not fit that definition, because whether it's Rall or any of the other examples, we can in fact find the relevant evidence. Rall works for RT as a propogandist, and Rall's output both in RT and outside of RT does not disclose that he works for RT. This sort of information is discoverable, and can be further inferred where the practices and elements of the construction of the messaging correspond to the practices of the propagandist source. I've provided other examples of this with Russian outlays already. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It does not, because whether it's Rall or any of the other examples, we can in fact find the relevant evidence. What would you consider to be hard evidence that the P2 believes something as a result of the secret M1, as opposed to coming to the conclusion on their own or hearing it from some other source and then the P1 realizing that they can use the P2 for their goal because they already believe it? The only thing I can think of is timing, i.e. the P2 doesn't start advocating a certain message until immediately after they meet P1 or come into their employ. Discendo Vox posted:Rall works for RT as a propogandist, and Rall's output both in RT and outside of RT does not disclose that he works for RT. This sort of information is discoverable, and can be further inferred where the practices and elements of the construction of the messaging correspond to the practices of the propagandist source. I've provided other examples of this with Russian outlays already. Couldn't that also just mean that he's embarrassed by it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:From the article I posted: Yeah the article's pretty disingenuous. They clearly already got other material FOIA'd from the film, and the trade secrets exception applies to IP of the production company, not the military's "most high-value assets." It's really not hard to guess why a trade secrets exception to FOIA may apply to the script of a film that hadn't been released.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah the article's pretty disingenuous. They clearly already got other material FOIA'd from the film, and the trade secrets exception applies to IP of the production company, not the military's "most high-value assets." It's really not hard to guess why a trade secrets exception to FOIA may apply to the script of a film that hadn't been released. The article clearly says the military did the invoking and FOIA blocking. Do you have evidence to support your claim that the article is lying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The entity looking to use stuff from the US military applies to the DoD Entertainment Media Office, usually through a liaison office for whichever branch they're actually planning on using resources from. The governing regulation is 32 CFR §328. The core policy rationale/limits are under §328.4(a): Thank you! This is incredibly helpful. One of the reasons I like posting around you for stuff like this is that you're very familiar with the nitty-gritty procedural stuff that matters to me, too. If I want to talk about something with someone, I'd prefer to be able to describe in a stepwise fashion how we start at point A and progress toward point B. You've got a good handle. The other post of yours I read was in response to my question about "Who is Fauci and what does he do?" which you also answered with a lot of detail. Cease to Hope posted: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. I've never interacted with you before but also much thanks to you. I struggle to articulate things and this is a good template for describing how stuff works in a general sense. I'll take a look at the regulation and Man of Steel/Captain Marvel and see what I get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What would you consider to be hard evidence that the P2 believes something as a result of the secret M1, as opposed to coming to the conclusion on their own or hearing it from some other source and then the P1 realizing that they can use the P2 for their goal because they already believe it? You mean in addition to P2 being directly employed by P1, an entity with the dedicated purpose of propaganda, and a history of doing the same thing? The propogandist, employed by the propoganda company, doing their job? I'm beginning to think the problem with using Rall is that the fact that he's dishonest is too obvious, and that's tripping people up somehow. Koos Group posted:The only thing I can think of is timing, i.e. the P2 doesn't start advocating a certain message until immediately after they meet P1 or come into their employ. We don't know when Rall started working for the Russian government. However, Rall's messaging routinely changes at the same time that other Sputnik messaging changes. An example of this is the column he wrote from a sudden trip to Moscow a couple months ago in which he declared, in the space of a single column, that Western sanctions on Russia were futile, that they were harmful, that they were having no impact on the Russian economy, and that the Russian people were happier and freer than Americans. Or the whole shift in focus, with specific matched messaging, that has occurred both times Russia invaded Ukraine. Maybe a different part is confused here. The point is that the transmission of the message content is secret to the audience. It's sufficient that Rall uses this messaging in material from the propaganda entity where the fact that Rall is part of the propaganda entity is hidden. Rall is used, with a number of others, to legitimize the propaganda entity. Koos Group posted:Couldn't that also just mean that he's embarrassed by it? Except he also wrote and published a column defending it, so if he's embarrassed, his embarrassment is selective and instrumental. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We don't know when Rall started working for the Russian government. However, Rall's messaging routinely changes at the same time that other Sputnik messaging changes. An example of this is the column he wrote from a sudden trip to Moscow a couple months ago in which he declared, in the space of a single column, that Western sanctions on Russia were futile, that they were harmful, that they were having no impact on the Russian economy, and that the Russian people were happier and freer than Americans. Or the whole shift in focus, with specific matched messaging, that has occurred both times Russia invaded Ukraine. Ah, that makes more sense then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:12
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:The article clearly says the military did the invoking and FOIA blocking. Do you have evidence to support your claim that the article is lying? The article isn't lying about who did the blocking, the article is misrepresenting why the exemption was applied, and to what. The government is the only entity that does the invocation of FOIA exemptions, they're the recipient of the FOIA request. The government can be required to apply a FOIA exemption, including in this case, where they'd be liable to the entity whose trade secret information they hold. This would also apply to, for example, Syngenta's data on a pesticide application. The government can't release that information. The article is misleading its audience by both pretending they didn't already get a response to document requests (which they linked in the article, they got them all the way back to 2018), and by pretending they don't know why the request was denied. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The article is misleading its audience by both pretending they didn't already get a response to document requests (which they linked in the article, they got them all the way back to 2018). How can an article pretend it doesn't have something it links to? This is what it says quote:In the past five years, however, my small group of researchers has acquired 30,000 pages of internal Defense Department documents through Freedom of Information Act requests and newly available archives at Georgetown University and quote:What exact changes did the Pentagon make to the new “Top Gun: Maverick”? We don’t know, and that’s part of the problem. While we have script change details for hundreds of other productions, such as “Godzilla” and “Fast and Furious 8,” the military has repeatedly invoked a “trade secrets” exception to block our Freedom of Information Act requests when it comes to its most high-value assets. "We got these FOIA requests but they blocked others" is literally the truth, as you say, so how are they misleading their audience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:How can an article pretend it doesn't have something it links to? This is what it says Because they are pretending they don't have other documents about that film, and because they pretend not to know why the exemption applies. The script of a film that hasn't been released yet isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military. It is, however, probably going to be trade secret information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because they are pretending they don't have other documents about that film, and because they pretend not to know why the exemption applies. The script of a film that hasn't been released yet isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military. It is, however, probably going to be trade secret information. Do you have any evidence that these assertions are correct, especially your knowledge of what's going on in the mind of the author? Again "they let some FOIA requests but blocked others" does not seem contradictory or confusing to me so yes, I'm having a hard time following your argument that the author is a deceptive liar. Especially cause you haven't shown you know what's going on in his secret thoughts or have any knowledge about that particular foia request.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Do you have any evidence that these assertions are correct, especially your knowledge of what's going on in the mind of the author? Again "they let some FOIA requests but blocked others" does not seem contradictory or confusing to me so yes, I'm having a hard time following your argument that the author is a deceptive liar. Especially cause you haven't shown you know what's going on in his secret thoughts or have any knowledge about that particular foia request. I do not need to read the mind of the author to recognize that the trade secrets exception to FOIA would apply to the script of an unreleased film, that the script of a film isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military, or that an author who represents themselves as a FOIA specialist would also know they're not going to get the script of an unreleased film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I do not need to read the mind of the author to recognize that the trade secrets exception to FOIA would apply to the script of an unreleased film, that the script of a film isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military, or that an author who represents themselves as a FOIA specialist would also know they're not going to get the script of an unreleased film. Why are you pretending to have read the foia request? I'm just going by what the article says, you're saying "Well actually the text of the request was for X, then they lied and deceived people because..." but you haven't shown any evidence that the foia was for what you claim it is ( a request for an entire movie script). Please support your arguments with citations or evidence or something. In terms of how the military works to control the content of the films it helps produce, this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/may/26/top-gun-for-hire-why-hollywood-is-the-us-militarys-best-wingman quote:In the original Iron Man script submitted to the Pentagon, for example, Tony Stark was against the arms dealers, including his own father, complaining that “the technology I’m trying to save lives with is being twisted into some truly destructive weapons”. In the eventual film, Stark becomes an arms dealer to the US military. In the 2014 version of Godzilla, a Japanese character’s reference to his grandfather surviving Hiroshima was excised: “If this is an apology or questioning of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that will be a showstopper for us,” say the Pentagon’s notes. Instead, Godzilla, a monster inspired by US atomic bombing, is revived by a nuclear weapon and wades into battle alongside US military ships and jets. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:And yet people continue to accept and rationalize and defend his framing of these issues, at length, and equivocate or misrepresent or ignore in order to do so. Because he can be a fool and yet still correct. Even an idiot or a shill can make a good point sometimes. If the point he's making in particular isn't good, you should go argue with the people in the thread defending that particular point. "He works for Sputnik!" is a good example of an irrelevant ad hominem attack, unless you can argue more clearly why it matters to that particular case. At the moment, you have a leaky sieve argument that everyone working for Sputnik is a lying propagandist, one that relies more on emotional language and restating your conclusion than sound reasoning. You're probably never going to find a good universal argument to always discard what a compromised person might say, because there isn't anyone who isn't compromised to some degree. We live in a society, bottom text, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
BTW here's a good example of what military/movie copromotion looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agWOW5uy3TA
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 06:03
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:BTW here's a good example of what military/movie copromotion looks like: Illustrative. Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsdwvgxLpE quote:An inspirational 30-second commercial titled "Origin Story," timed to coincide with the film's release in March, was the most popular piece of social media promotional content published by any service in 2019, Lt. Col Jacob Chisolm, deputy chief of strategic marketing at the Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS), told the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) during its December meeting. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/05/captain-marvel-effect-air-force-academy-sees-most-female-applicants-5-years.html So yes we can see how that diagram from the other page applies here, in terms of P1 and M1 and M2 and legitimizing. Helpful diagram: 
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 06:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Because he can be a fool and yet still correct. Even an idiot or a shill can make a good point sometimes. Again, "but the authoritarian propaganda has a point" isn't how good faith argumentation works. If it's a good point, you can find other people to make it than the propagandist. Cease to Hope posted:"He works for Sputnik!" is a good example of an irrelevant ad hominem attack, unless you can argue more clearly why it matters to that particular case. At the moment, you have a leaky sieve argument that everyone working for Sputnik is a lying propagandist, one that relies more on emotional language and restating your conclusion than sound reasoning. You're probably never going to find a good universal argument to always discard what a compromised person might say, because there isn't anyone who isn't compromised to some degree. We live in a society, bottom text, etc. The people working for the propaganda outlet are, in fact, propagandists- and the propagandist which we've been discussing is specifically engaging in propaganda in the narrowest and most pejorative sense. It continues to be harmful to equivocate between the authoritarian propagandist and all other sources of information. "everything is biased" does nothing to rehabilitate Ted Rall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 06:33
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Why are you pretending to have read the foia request? I'm just going by what the article says, you're saying "Well actually the text of the request was for X, then they lied and deceived people because..." but you haven't shown any evidence that the foia was for what you claim it is ( a request for an entire movie script). The author said that they were requesting information from the script. I've already explained this multiple times. It's in the article you cited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The author said that they were requesting information from the script. I've already explained this multiple times. It's in the article you cited. Discendo Vox posted:The script of a film that hasn't been released yet isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military. It is, however, probably going to be trade secret information. Which one do you mean? The script itself or information from the script? And why do you keep using "film" singular when that's not what they say? I'm going to read this quote closely because I don't understand where you get the assumptions about what the foia requests say. You keep talking like you know the contents of these foia requests but you haven't provided any sources yet?  I'm curious about the "talking points" they wanted included though. Discendo Vox posted:The people working for the propaganda outlet are, in fact, propagandists- and the propagandist which we've been discussing is specifically engaging in propaganda in the narrowest and most pejorative sense. If this is about Top Gun II, then yes I agree. I don't know who Ted Rail is. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Which one do you mean? The script itself or information from the script? Both would be covered by the trade secret exemption. Sharkie posted:And why do you keep using "film" singular when that's not what they say? I'm going to read this quote closely because I don't understand where you get the assumptions about what the foia requests say. You keep talking like you know the contents of these foia requests but you haven't provided any sources yet? The quote says they tried to get script changes from Top Gun Maverick, a film that was not released at the time the article was written, and which they then refer to as "high value assets", which it is not. It's information subject to the trade secret exemption to FOIA. I don't need other information, because the thing you are quoting says that they tried to get script material, and says that the military asserted the trade secret exemption, and the author acted as if it was a surprise, which it is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Both would be covered by the trade secret exemption. So you haven't seen this foia request, right? It doesn't seem very media literate for me to accept the claim "that author is duplicitous" without any sort of evidence? And without evidence of what the foia says and what laws require what you say is required? If you choose to provide evidence to support your claims I will be happy to review it but unfortunately I must, at the moment, rate your claims as Media Analysis: Unsupported.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 07:44
|
|
|
I've seen this before in a lot of contexts, a seemingly exclusively liberal obsession with 'good faith' and 'bad faith' and reading the tea leaves to try to tell the difference. It seems awfully convenient given it always seems to line up with trying to discredit people they don't like- and thus is almost exclusively used to punch left (albeit because that's where it may have actual impact for some reason, while the right is immune to hypocrisy) and to try to rehabilitate figures who have supposed good intentions despite a legacy of nothing but disaster. It's all just attempts at guilt and/or innocence by association while completely ignoring every bit of context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, "but the authoritarian propaganda has a point" isn't how good faith argumentation works. If it's a good point, you can find other people to make it than the propagandist. This post is a good example of what I mean about restating your point. It's propaganda, they're propagandists, he's a propagandist, it's harmful because it's authoritarian propaganda. It's always important to not mistake repeating the conclusion over and over again for a well-supported argument. In this case, it's to distract from the unanswered question: how do we deal with propaganda that is true? "You can find other people to make it than the propagandist" isn't relevant to the argument you're obviously importing from the other thread, where someone brings up Ted Rall, someone else says "huh he has a point," and you... are mad at that I guess idk. They don't need to "find other people" because the example you're using is someone talking about Rall in particular. Nobody's citing Rall randomly except the policomics thread and you, here, in this thread. He toils in obscurity, and there's no risk of anyone with any sense citing him for factual claims because he's an editorial columnist and cartoonist, not a reporter. This does bring up another common and important question for any piece of reporting or commentary: who gives a poo poo? It sounds flippant, but it's not. It's always helpful to recenter yourself and ask if there's anyone who really cares about the subject of the piece, and especially whether it actually matters to you or affects anyone's life for better or worse. Lots of outlets, both propaganda and merely self-aggrandizing, seek to play on your emotions, to get you to engage with them or encourage you to hate-share things or maybe just because they're assholes. Does it affect your life at all if there's a Mx. Potato-Head? Do you really have any reason to care about a retired actor's opinion about Ukraine? Is there any evidence at all that the fringe left-leaning cartoonist that you're mad about has any impact on the world other than starting forum arguments that annoy you? Ghost Leviathan posted:I've seen this before in a lot of contexts, a seemingly exclusively liberal obsession with 'good faith' and 'bad faith' and reading the tea leaves to try to tell the difference. It seems awfully convenient given it always seems to line up with trying to discredit people they don't like- and thus is almost exclusively used to punch left (albeit because that's where it may have actual impact for some reason, while the right is immune to hypocrisy) and to try to rehabilitate figures who have supposed good intentions despite a legacy of nothing but disaster. It's all just attempts at guilt and/or innocence by association while completely ignoring every bit of context. Not wanting people to lie to you and assuming that anyone who is compromised is always lying are both common, and not in any way specific to liberals, punching left or otherwise. If you think it is, it probably has more to do with the natural tendency to be more critical of people you disagree with. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
If I post a post in bad faith, then change my mind and decide the post is right, does it retroactively become good faith? More importantly, how would anyone know it has switched from good faith to bad faith (or vice versa), so they can do media analysis of it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This post is a good example of what I mean about restating your point. It's propaganda, they're propagandists, he's a propagandist, it's harmful because it's authoritarian propaganda. It's always important to not mistake repeating the conclusion over and over again for a well-supported argument. As I already explained, the point of the whole exercise was to discuss how disinformation sources are obscured. The facts are that a) Russia's an authoritarian state b) RT and Sputnik are propaganda entities operating on behalf of that authoritarian state c) Rall works for those propaganda entities, directly. d) Rall appears in material distributed by those entities without disclosing the fact that he works for them. These are sufficient to apply the two models in the original post. Cease to Hope posted:In this case, it's to distract from the unanswered question: how do we deal with propaganda that is true? As I already explained, I chose Rall because he's a straightforwardly bad faith actor with a known employer and is so incompetent that even his target audience usually doesn't wind up accepting his messaging (with some obvious exceptions). The forums also generally know who he is, so I don't have to spend a lot of time reintroducing him. This makes him a good way to study how some kinds of propaganda can obscure its sources. The mapping how how his use as a source of disinformation propaganda is very obvious. Cease to Hope posted:This does bring up another common and important question for any piece of reporting or commentary: who gives a poo poo? It sounds flippant, but it's not. It's always helpful to recenter yourself and ask if there's anyone who really cares about the subject of the piece, and especially whether it actually matters to you or affects anyone's life for better or worse. Lots of outlets, both propaganda and merely self-aggrandizing, seek to play on your emotions, to get you to engage with them or encourage you to hate-share things or maybe just because they're assholes. Does it affect your life at all if there's a Mx. Potato-Head? Do you really have any reason to care about a retired actor's opinion about Ukraine? Is there any evidence at all that the fringe left-leaning cartoonist that you're mad about has any impact on the world other than starting forum arguments that annoy you? I used Rall as an example of how disinformation propaganda obscures its point of origin. The models I provided from O&J are useful for providing a conceptual framework that can be applied to other media, and illustrate the importance of specific forms of source scrutiny. This is, again, in the original post. I also introduced those models to begin establishing the framework for a much more complicated post on social network analysis. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I used Rall as an example of how disinformation propaganda obscures its point of origin. The models I provided from O&J are useful for providing a conceptual framework that can be applied to other media, and illustrate the importance of specific forms of source scrutiny. It wasn't a very good example of those frameworks. Nobody anywhere in the world, Sputnik included, is using Rall as anything but an example of some guy's opinion. "Read the original post!" is another one of those examples of restating the conclusion instead of making any supporting argument, btw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Ah, that makes more sense then. The way DV rephrases it helps. I think focusing on Rall as an example is hurting DV's argument and is now making we want to know why that example since it's lead to a lot of embellishment like the idea that the legitimacy model requires secrecy or a clandestine element since that's what's going on with Rall. But it doesn't. It just requires that a message be seeded in a way that it can then be repeated by a legitimate source for the propagandist to then repeat. The model just requires it to be "secret" in that the larger audience can't know about the message being seeded. The legitimizing source doesn't need to be in on the conspiracy which is the implication from the Rall example because Rall personally probably is if you make some not very hard assumptions. But they're still assumptions so they're not very useful as an example of a model which doesn't require you to make those assumptions. If I can trick the NYT into publishing that nukes exist in Iraq and I then include "according to the NYT" in my propaganda we're following the model without the NYT actually being privy to any of the secret. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Actually to throw in another example, would someone like Shep Smith during his fox new run be a good example of legitimizing? The persona he had in the wider public, and by his own words the way he saw himself, was as one of the last honest voices pushing back on all of Fox's opinion pieces and obvious propaganda. Yet was also the legitimizing voice they used when all those propaganda shows needed a legitimate voice to point to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The way DV rephrases it helps. I think focusing on Rall as an example is hurting DV's argument and is now making we want to know why that example since it's lead to a lot of embellishment like the idea that the legitimacy model requires secrecy or a clandestine element since that's what's going on with Rall. But it doesn't. It just requires that a message be seeded in a way that it can then be repeated by a legitimate source for the propagandist to then repeat. No. The point of the legitimating source model is that the message is used to legitimate the propaganda outlet as a mediator. Again,  With Legitimating Source propaganda, the propagandist (still P) secretly places the original message (M1) in a legitimating source (P2). This message (now M2), as interpreted by P2, is then picked up by the propagandist (P) and communicated to the receiver (R) in the form M3, as having come from P2. This legitimates the message and at the same time dissociates the propagandist (P) from its origination. In this model, Sputnik is P and Rall is P2. Sputnik uses a lot of propogandists in its materials, whom they routinely present as independent and/or not affiliated with Sputnik. Rall is useful because unlike a lot of the others, we know he isn't. That allows us to understand how the outlet uses this method of obscuring sources, and what other sources are likely used in the same way. While Shep Smith might be used as a figleaf of moderation for Fox News, he's still affiliated with the network; the fact that his statements bear their mark isn't hidden. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. The point of the legitimating source model is that the message is used to legitimate the propaganda outlet as a mediator. Again, Right, but P2 doesn't need to be in on the conspiracy for the model to work. Koos appears to have gotten confused on that because of the example. M1 needs to be secret from R but it doesn't mean P2 needs to be aware that they're acting as a legitimizing source which seems to be Koos original confusion. The secret in this case isn't any implication of conspiracy between P and P2, it's that M1 is secret from R. Actually WMDs in Iraq is a good example with multiple legitimating sources in the chain since you had politicians feeding things to different organizations who fed them out to media as legitimate sources who then fed it to the public as an additional legitimate source and then allowed those original politicians to use those reports as legitimate proof for things that they knew were lies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Right, but P2 doesn't need to be in on the conspiracy for the model to work. Koos appears to have gotten confused on that because of the example. M1 needs to be secret from R but it doesn't mean P2 needs to be aware that they're acting as a legitimizing source which seems to be Koos original confusion. The secret in this case isn't any implication of conspiracy between P and P2, it's that M1 is secret from R. The legitimating source P2 is usually an entity created or under the control of the propaganda source P. If P is somehow manipulating information into P2 who is repeating them unwittingly, then that usually would require more nodes in the information network. Gumball Gumption posted:Actually WMDs in Iraq is a good example with multiple legitimating sources in the chain since you had politicians feeding things to different organizations who fed them out to media as legitimate sources who then fed it to the public as an additional legitimate source and then allowed those original politicians to use those reports as legitimate proof for things that they knew were lies. That's closer to, circumstances depending, false consensus, circular reporting or false confirmation networks, which I'll be covering in the SNA post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
The definition of what constitutes a propaganda outlet seems very squishy and subjective. I've perused the thread but I don't see a firm definition of the term being offered, and would be curious to see it succinctly stated. Another question I have, primarily for DV, is whether propaganda is definitionally false, or if correct and accurate information can also be described as such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, "but the authoritarian propaganda has a point" isn't how good faith argumentation works. If it's a good point, you can find other people to make it than the propagandist. I don't really understand the logic here. If people are only discussing the point being made, and not the person who made it, then why does it matter who made it? It would be one thing if someone said "this point is correct because the authoritarian propaganda said so" or "the authoritarian propaganda is right about this issue, therefore it's also right about other issues", but that's not what's being stated here. I think it's possible to discuss the merits of a particular point in good faith regardless of the source. I also don't understand why you would need to find another person to make the point. If you are capable of articulating why the point is correct, couldn't that other person just be you? I guess this ties in to my other objection with your argument, which is that you seem to be assuming, when people agree with propaganda that happens to be correct, that they are using the propaganda as their sole source and logical foundation for agreeing with the point. Obviously that can be the case sometimes, but it is not a good general assumption. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What would you consider to be hard evidence that the P2 believes something as a result of the secret M1, as opposed to coming to the conclusion on their own or hearing it from some other source and then the P1 realizing that they can use the P2 for their goal because they already believe it? The only thing I can think of is timing, i.e. the P2 doesn't start advocating a certain message until immediately after they meet P1 or come into their employ. Could mean that but RT et al habitually stopped having their contributors put RT on their profiles because they realized it was having a negative effect as RT's reputation is, to put it very lightly, lower than dirt and the people that they're seeking to influence are not the people who are already on board with RT (or related outfits). Btw if anyone can track it down, I recommend reading Packaging the Contras : A Case of CIA Disinformation by Edgar Chamorro which discusses primarily the efforts to get favorable pieces published by foreign media and the various ways to launder stories via intermediary newspapers/news services and occasionally manipulative interviews or scripted tours. Obviously what he writes about is several decades old, but the core principles of what they're trying to do, and I'd emphasize that this applies to a lot more than just the US, despite being a case study of a CIA-backed effort. It actually makes for an interesting foil to Russia's struggles to get an international message going wrt it's war in Ukraine and how those efforts repeatedly get derailed by indiscriminate violence against civilians and warcrimes. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Nov 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Could mean that but RT et al habitually stopped having their contributors put RT on their profiles because they realized it was having a negative effect as RT's reputation is, to put it very lightly, lower than dirt and the people that they're seeking to influence are not the people who are already on board with RT (or related outfits). Strong recommendation for The Mighty Wurlitzer: How The CIA Played America for a deeply-researched look at CIA propaganda, infiltration and use of American media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:13
|
|
