Hacker News Reader

As somebody who has lived in both countries, I don't think this argument holds any water. While the U.S. government does indeed engage in propaganda, it's like comparing a candle to a forest fire.

The Chinese government controls every news organization in China. Every single one. All television is state-run, and shows hours of pure propaganda every day, as well as entertainment programs that push certain agendas. Every book published requires government approval, and many are written for the sole purpose of propaganda. Opposition stances are strictly prohibited, across the board. Virtually every street on every town has large red banners and posters pushing the 'message of the day'.

This digital form of propaganda is no different. Yes, the United States engages in abuses. However, they're not even close in scale, and therefore qualitatively quite different.

Oh, and if anyone wants to see what this digital astroturfing looks like in the wild, I had some of it show up on my personal blog a while back:

http://www.varvel.net/david/?p=9#comment-19

All this means is that the US has managed to achieve a propaganda state without the explicit threat of force...

Do you recall when GWB took office and long time members of the press core were kicked out if they asked tough questions?

This happens all the time which is why you don't find certain stories/angles covered in the mainstream press.

Consider that Tim Russert was considered the most hard nosed journalist because he had the gumption to ask a tough question or two... usually all he did was quote a few things the person had said in the past and ask them to explain their current claims (which usually turned their faces quite red). If this is hard nosed journalism we're all in deep trouble.

Most news today is full of stories that make Americans feel morally superior... stories about how women are mistreated in all sorts of other countries... how politicians are corrupt, and how the economic opportunity stinks (elsewhere).

There is also tremendous deference paid to titles and institutions in the US that should not be -- and would not be paid to titles and institutions of another country.

Why, for example, should we take the term "Chairman of the Federal Reserve" seriously, but take some other country's "Minister of Economic Affairs" less seriously?

All this is part of a media whose purpose is to help Americans feel that they have the moral high ground so that wars can be waged whenever necessary. The media doesn't have to overtly support a war -- in fact it is expected to question it (but by asking the wrong questions).

There are a lot of things you decide not to say/think if you expect to be on a national TV show, quoted in a national paper, be appointed to a cabinet post, etc. Why the voluntary censorship? Because all that stuff is such a downer. Why worry about it when we can just order another burger and get free healthcare and feel good about our google searches because google is taking a stand against horrible china. Why would anyone fight these memes when they make everyone so happy?

In the US the entrenched interests have been so successful, in fact, that we see all of this as perfectly normal and reasonable.... and, of course, we amplify differences with another country (like China) out of moral superiority and righteous indignation... Nothing makes us feel better than feeling sorrry for some poor victim of a propagandizing state, after all.

This isn't a conspiracy (or a conspiracy theory) it's just what you get when entrenched interests flourish in a stable, prosperous country.

    Do you recall when GWB took office and long time
    members of the press core were kicked out if they
    asked tough questions?

Helen Thomas got the cold shoulder for a while, but GWB started asking her questions again to try and gain credibility. The scale is incomparable, which was the point of the parent.

    All this is part of a media whose purpose is to
    help Americans feel that they have the moral high
    ground so that wars can be waged whenever necessary.

If you really meant what you said here, it would indeed be a conspiracy theory, despite your insistence that it's not.

You would need a lot more evidence than you're supplying to support the sort of assertions that you're making.

What the US government does isn't even particularly relevant to the article.

There are two parts to propaganda.

How omni-present it is and how believable it is. In the Soviet Union, propaganda was universal but universally disbelieved since people learned to discount it.

A mechanism which gives people strong incentive to support the official version in their own words creates much more believable propaganda.

If China has mechanism for creating propaganda that is more omnipresent and as believable, then I suppose it has a leg up. But in ways, omnipresence of propaganda can sometimes work against it's believability.

Just much, those states which have a powerful central propaganda mechanism can erode their credibility over time, especially when they use it to attempt to dispel things that are directly visible to ordinary people. The USSR's propaganda naturally became less effective as the country's production system fell apart. China's recent economic growth obviously reinforces the credibility of the state there.

My post was not meant as proof, it was just intended to trigger a thought process in the reader.

We make a lot of arbitrary distinctions about the legitimacy of institutions.

When we see the leader of an Afghan city state traveling around in an SUV with a bunch of guys with machine guns, we call him a "warlord", yet we offer utmost deference to the US presidential motorcade.

Look at it this way, society has winners and losers. Winners generally want to continue being winners, so they end up in control of coercive force (guns, military, etc.) and they end up with the tools of propaganda at their disposal (newspapers, puppet officials).

What differentiates one nation's winners from those of another is far less than we tend to think, since much of our "consent" to the status quo is built upon our belief in certain doctrines and institutions.

Surely our democracy is worth something, and many of our institutions are worthy of some deference and respect, but so are China's and Mexico's and Iran's...

There are a variety of other fallacies which add to our distorted view of the rest of the world, which I could also go into detail about.

> Do you recall when GWB took office and long time members of the press core were kicked out if they asked tough questions?

In what universe does asking the president provide any unique/useful information?

Press conferences are for stroking reporters' egos. Any information is in the press release.

Uh, do you think a president should be able to so easily avoid having to answer questions from the public (via reporters) directly?

Yeah. The article certainly IMPLIES that the US government does not do this. That's a little shady, but that's the way all these types of articles are written.

A while ago, when I first got comfortable with Mandarin, I saw an article that mentioned the University of Wisconsin. Being an Alum, I decided to read through it. Now they characterized the UW, as an American university with 'ties to the American Military'. I thought '...WHAT?' Well I did a little research and found out what these 'ties' were, the ROTC program.

ROTC? REALLY Chinese Nationalists? REALLY? Is that the best you can do?

Anyway, you see how the Chinese Nationalists and their Government twisted that around. The same thing happens in the US. I was reading an article about how they tracked the Google Hackers to a University in China with . . . you guessed it . . . 'ties to the Chinese military'. I thought . . .'Oh lord, here we go again.'

I think that popular causes with centralized leadership typically have a mix of grassroots and astroturf support; the question is how much support is of which type. For Slashdot, or the Tea Party movement, or the Daily Kos, my guess is that the grassroots-to-astroturf ratio is _very_ high in favor of grass. I would be surprised if Russia doesn't employ a lot of astroturfing, but they also enjoy a lot of support from their population -- cf. http://www.slate.com/id/2197514/, and I've heard the rumor that Vladimir Putin is the only force keeping Russia from going Neo-Nazi.

China, though, probably has a lot more astroturf than grass. I've had trouble determining how much of the passionate defense of China on the Internet is real (with the same mentality as the defenses of the late 1800s and early 1900s, probably -- a somewhat grating but thoroughly justifiable one), and how much is less than real... it looks like most of it, or at least most defense of the PRC government, is in the latter category. You don't see crowdsourced counterattacks and a memetic "Ode to a Grass Mud Horse" when the opposition is small.

There are multiple documented cases of congressional staff doing whitewash edits in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Congressional_staff_actions_prom...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Just...

And there was fallout from it. It happens here, yes, but it is very much frowned upon.

Every modern american political campaign has an 'online action team' that will get flash alerts and talking points to help shape public perception of the news. Any news site will have people who are known partisans for points of view who are regularly involved and regurgitating the party line at every opportunity. We also have a huge contingent of people who promote commercial interests through social media. If you add up the shills, the various different formats of political astro-turfing and the subtle but universally understood sanctioning of some points of view as 'unserious'. I am not so sure that the Chinese are ahead of us in that game. We have a greater surface diversity of opinion, but those who step out of the bounds of the acceptable range of opinion are sanctioned in recognizable ways.

It is true that there exists an entire spin machine for every campaign or cause. And yes, pundits do work for the news organisations. Same goes for every major corporation in the world.

* gasp *

The key here is that we all know who they are, and know that they represent a particular view that they are pushing. It's all about transparency.

It isn't astroturfing unless you're pretending to be grassroots in the first place.

Confront any member of one of the online shouting societies and they will tell you they are speaking from deeply held personal beliefs, even if it's on an issue that they knew nothing about or held diametrically opposed views just a few hours before.

But, I did find this part entertaining in the beginning "imagine how much worse it would be if the US government employed a couple hundred thousand people to "shape the debate" among online political forums. Crazy, right? What government would ever attempt it?"

Political parties do this. ("Talking points") Even industry consortiums get into the act. How is this worse than distributing talking points and having your local lackeys span talk radio call-in shows? It's not. It's all horrible dreck.