Hacker News Reader

Comment by coliveira | Hacker News Reader

I don't agree with the censorship decision, but I completely get why other countries don't like Oliver's show. He likes to denounce other countries' politics from the point of view of liberal, first world policy, which may not be in the best interest of other nations. Even though he is doing comedy for the first world market, it comes off clearly as another attempt of propaganda directed at these countries. The way China has decided to deal with this is banning, so I don't think this is a surprising development.

View on HN

If I squint and ignore the fact that personalities like Oliver have been doing their ideological-driven (rightly so IMO) comedy perspective bits for years I can see how how you could naively call that “propaganda”.

However, the logical side of me can’t fathom how the reported events are anything remotely “propaganda”. They are legitimate things that free-press nations can discuss how they like, including laughing at them.

You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda just like you can’t call news you don’t like fake.

John Oliver is correct but the lack of publication of competing viewpoints is what defines US (Democrat) propaganda.

For example I’ve seen him state that the wage gap was 25%, straight face! that’s where the alternative viewpoints are sorely lacking and, when you learn the history of achors who have only questioned the credibility of this statistic, you can clearly say: Censorship is enforced with violence in USA.

>For example I’ve seen him state that the wage gap was 25%, straight face! that’s where the alternative viewpoints are sorely lacking

I can't believe this "alternate viewpoints" bull is really propagating into the ether. He's either wrong or he's right. He either telling the truth, lying or ignorant.

A wage gap almost certainly exists, and can likely attributed to a number of factors backed up by factual research. "Alternate viewpoints" is a laughable reason to let anyone with a soapbox dump garbage into the ether.

The world is full of shades of gray. Saying there is a 25% wage gap may not be technically incorrect, but it also doesn't go into _why_ that gap exists. It doesn't say how that number was arrived at or if it is the best representation we can come up with.

If you think the world is black and white you're going to lack understanding on almost any subject because, in the real world, nuance is a thing.

Are you trying to say that conservative media is a bastion of published opposing viewpoints? Serious question, do you have a reference for that? I’ve not found any in recent times. Not for nothing, it’s a comedy show that reports on the news. How that can be construed as propaganda is beyond me.

For example I’ve seen him state that the wage gap was 25%, straight face

Where? I've just seen his clip on the wage gap[1] and he says no such thing. Is there another clip?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsB1e-1BB4Y

>You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda just like you can’t call news you don’t like fake.

I don't think that's a great analogy. Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is:

>information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Seems fitting. Just because you may agree does not make it any less propaganda. Essentially any narrative which is not 100% fact based and unbiased is technically propaganda.

Essentially any narrative which is not 100% fact based and unbiased is technically propaganda.

So in your world is all news propaganda?

In my world, which is the same as yours, where the word "propoganda" has a definition, I consider all news which fits the definition to in fact be propaganda, yes.

Let me ask you this? Do you consider Fox News propaganda? How about MSNBC? CNN? If not, which shows specifically? I'm fairly certain the _majority_ of what those networks air falls squarely in the propaganda bucket because what they air is primarily dictated by how much money they think it will make them.

An example of news which I would not consider propaganda is PBS Newshour. In general they are pretty good. Not easy to tell though; you really have to do a lot of work on your own to be certain.

> "I'm fairly certain the _majority_ of what those networks air falls squarely in the propaganda bucket because what they air is primarily dictated by how much money they think it will make them."

This explanation seems confused to me.

Is the primary concern of these networks ideology or is it profit? If it's ideology, then profit does not dictate their content. If it's profit, then ideology does not dictate their content. There, of course, is overlap, but there must be one primary goal that ultimately decides content.

Personally, I do not believe those news organizations are propaganda because I do not believe they would forego profit to push an ideological stance. In contrast, I believe that state media in China would forego profits to push an ideological stance.

As a real world example, we can consider how the New York Times pushed the Clinton e-mail story ad nausem in the lead up to the 2016 election, despite this being in opposition to the ideology of the majority of its readers.

It does kind of seem that way. At least, what people generally call "mainstream media.. ;)"

I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner?

If any biased claim can be called propaganda - then it seems the word loses it's meaning.

Perhaps the word propaganda is losing it's weight over time? Do we need a specific word for state sanctioned biased media? Or perhaps one specifically for attacks on political states or policies?

>I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner?

If you define "all media" as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, then sure. Of course it's a spectrum as well. For example I'd consider PBS a _far_ less biased source than e.g. Fox News, but I'm sure they have their moments as well. I'm not sure writing everything off as propaganda (or not) is useful in any way.

PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.

>PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.

You realize that _I_ am not defining anything, right? I suggest you write Webster.

I think the problem is the pedantry of your typical engineer. No one is saying that all propaganda is equal, or that it is all inherently bad. Per a literal reading of the definition I find it hard to accept anything other than a laying out of factual data to not be propaganda, but it can be minor (e.g. PBS), major (e.g. Fox News), or somewhere in between. That's why I said above that I don't think this is a terribly useful discussion.

But if you don't agree with that then maybe we can come to common ground on the "especially of a... misleading nature." Some reporting, even if biased, is far more misleading than the rest. So if Oliver presents the facts (_all_ the relevant facts) and then shares his interpretation of those facts, not propaganda I suppose. However, if anything relevant is left out I don't know how you can call it balanced.

You’re the one who went out of their way to call all news technically propaganda. The definition quoted doesn’t necessarily say that.

NPR’s bias/neutrality depends a lot on the reporter in question. Some truly attempt to be neutral, others have bias (within the same program/show). So knowing the personalities help suss things out a lot. David Green is pretty neutral, Innskeep not as much, for example.

The 20th century changed the meaning of the word to be more about manipulation, where as the original definition was neutral. [1] The manipulation suggested deceitfulness on the part of the party creating and distributing it.

So it's one of these things where OP can use a politically charged word, and then claim it was used in the neutral voice.

Personally, rather than have an argument about what amounts to "propaganda" in the 21st century, let's just admit that Oliver is not deceitful, yet biased.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Sure that's fair. He's been guilty of this part though:

>...often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.

And honestly, what major news outlet today _isn't_? Is that not a huge problem with "mainstream media" (I hate that term) currently? So... still not sure he or others can escape that label.

That's usually called "rhetoric", which is fine because Oliver is arguing for a particular point of view, he's not a news source, as it were. We make distinctions between John Oliver and Rush Limbaugh say vs. The New York Times.

> using loaded language

You mean like using a loaded word like "propaganda" to describe "rhetoric" and "honest debate"?

You seem to be arguing exclusively from simple textual definitions of the term "propaganda" from the dictionary and Wikipedia. I don't think that's a fruitful approach because it fails to account for the nuances in meaning between different words and the contrasts and distinctions that those different terms are used to illustrate.

I think Oliver's segment is more accurately classified as an op-ed piece with some satire, it's not propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

I agree. I started with the definition and, honestly, I had no idea it was so broad. In reality most would not consider this stuff propaganda until it crosses over into seriously misleading territory.

I agree with most of your statement, but Oliver is most certainly deceitful, while also being biased. His deceit may not be deliberate (and we could come up with yet another term to denote deliberate deceitfulness), but it is often evident. His deceit is most evident on foreign affairs, which is not surprising given his devotion to orthodox, bi-partisan DC establishment foreign policy. His clips about Venezuela and Syria could easily have been produced in-house at Langley or Foggy Bottom production studios (if they had better writing). In many ways the evolution of John Oliver mirrors the evolution of Howard Dean, who began as a rational, reasonably moderate progressive voice for change but got captured by the neo-liberal establishment that gave him millions of dollars and a position of "respectability".

What clips on Syria are you talking about?

Once again, it seems like people who read dictionaries missed the boat.

Propaganda has a specific legal definition which maybe is more relevant than what you found in Webster.

>Once again, it seems like people who read dictionaries missed the boat.

Yes, those darn dictionary readers...

From Black's Law Dictionary[1]:

>A message that is aimed at a specific audience that will try to change their thinking to that of the person releasing such propoganda. It will often contain disinformation to promote a certain view point in politics.

Not sure why they chose to use the word they're defining in the definition, but how precisely is that significantly different? We can debate the level of disinformation in any specific context, but this sounds about the same to me.

[1] https://thelawdictionary.org/propaganda/

> Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is:

>> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary. Things get into propaganda territory when there's an element of deliberate dishonesty or misdirection or when it occurs in the context of coercive censorship of other viewpoints.

Oliver's segment was not misleading and it was not dishonest, therefore it was not propaganda. In fact, it is an example of the kind of free exchange of ideas that's required for an open society to operate. Examined on certain axes, it's actually the opposite of propaganda.

>I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary.

It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously (specifically thinking about some comments he made on the wage gap, but I'd have to hunt for others.)

> It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously

Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda?

Oliver's recent Xi Jinping segment wasn't propaganda, it was an op-ed/satire that was obviously produced under length constraints.

If your operational definition of propaganda allows you to label all expressions of opinion as propaganda unless they're ponderously lengthy (so as to never omit a thing that some critic might want to see), then I think your definition is flawed.

>Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda?

Do you not think the standard should be higher for someone on national TV with an audience of millions?

> Do you not think the standard should be higher for someone on national TV with an audience of millions?

Yes, but he should not be held an impossibly high or unreasonable standard, which I believe is what EpicEng is doing. Bear in mind that he's made no specific claims in this thread that Oliver has made misleading omissions, just vague, unsupported accusations.

John Oliver is a comedian. He should strive to be as accurate and complete as that format allows, and I think he satisfies that standard. That entails leaving some things on the cutting room floor in the name of focus, clarity, brevity, and rhetorical impact. This is something we all do because it's required to communicate effectively. He can't reasonably be expected to create ponderously long segments that cover every point and counterpoint that someone from the internet peanut gallery may care to see. This means he's a man expressing an opinion humorously, not a "propagandist."

> Oliver's segment was not misleading and it was not dishonest,

The number of times he has been misleading and intentionally dishonest has turned me off for good. It was funny and all with friendly jabs at Obama and eviscerating lesser Obama officials, but the agenda in interpreting or even leading the discussions into uncomfortable ground (re: Trump) broke into propaganda before the election was over. e.g. Trump's speaking tactics are dangerous.

Oliver will sacrifice his professed values or even critical thinking to steer a narrative for a laugh (or no laugh). It just stopped being funny.

> You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda

Didn't China do exactly this?

Obviously the point is that the difference between the West and China, is that here we believe that censorship by the government should be illegal. Obviously if you want to live in China, go right the heck ahead.

>Obviously the point is that the difference between the West and China...

Thanks for explaining my comment to the rest of the class.

I completely agree except for the part about what John Oliver does being comedy. It's just not funny. IMO this whole genre has devolved into being mostly not actually comedy anymore. Stewart and Colbert were both hilarious, but I feel like that was a primary goal of their content. Now it seems like it's gone from comedic and satirical opiniomated news/talk show to just a comedian doing an opinionated news/talk show.

> opioniomated

Welp. Wish I saw that one while edit was still an option.

He's done a lot (most?) of his shows in the same fashion denouncing US-based companies, policies, etc. It's about issues, not countries.

This exactly.

The top 1 or 2 post on HN right now is about civil forfeiture in the US, a policy I’d guess most people familiar with it today had never heard of before the Oliver segment on it a few years back.

I can watch John Oliver a lot more easily than Stephen Colbert. Oliver at least does his homework, presents facts, and produces episodes on issues that actually matter to him.

Colbert just seems like the democrat equivalent of Fox News... putting a leftish spin on whatever issue crosses his desk without any regard for journalism.

Even when he speaks on lefty issues that I care about, he seems disingenuous. Like he’s just trying to get brownie points for being progressive. I think he’s so scared of being lumped in with other white men he just goes along ideologically with whatever the lefty zeitgeist tells him to do.

His interviews with people of color are like pulling teeth for me to watch. He’s trying to pander to them, but you can tell he doesn’t actually understand racism or black experience with any depth. He is looking for the “right” thing to say without necessarily caring why it’s right or wrong.

It’s awkward because someone like Jay-Z doesn’t care if you pander to him. He’s dealing with actual politics and actual discrimination and I think people like that are often insulted when someone like Colbert comes at them with the “look at this, aren’t I saying right things?” song and dance.

I loved him while he was in character on The Colbert Report. Now...not so much. FWIW I can't sit through Trevor Noah or John Oliver either though. And I'm a liberal. It reminds me of being forced to sit through church as a child.

It's a dude with a comedy show on HBO. How is it 'clearly another attempt of propaganda directed at these countries'? It's not like he's on VOA every week.

In a given year, Oliver's content reaches dramatically more than 10x the number of people that VOA does.

He has a platform and he's pushing an ideological view. He isn't just a dude with a comedy show on HBO. That same argument was used to try to undercut critics of Jon Stewart, who similarly had a massive reach and was aggressively pushing a specific ideological view, using comedy to do so. It doesn't matter if you're getting your point across with comedy or non-comedy as the means.

Edit reply to pvg below (my replies are throttled):

Reach isn't necessarily consumption. Oliver actually has massive consumption, VOA does not. VOA's political propaganda doesn't have the implied consumption that is claimed there. Not even remotely close.

If you want to see just how weak VOA actually is, check out their YouTube channel. 187,000 subscribers, hardly anybody is watching their content. Where is the massive audience? Where is the epic demand implied by 236 million? There is blatantly minimal interest in VOA. They're lucky if they get 1,000 views on a video. That's after ten years on YouTube and publishing numerous videos per day (which, again, nobody is watching).

https://www.youtube.com/user/VOAvideo

Last Week Tonight has 6.2 million subscribers. 1.6 billion views in just four years. A typical video is getting three or four million views (3,000x+ of what VOA is seeing on their YouTube channel).

https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Oliver actually has vast media consumption, VOA has reach with a small amount of consumption.

I also never said that having a viewpoint is propaganda directed at other countries, nor did I say that propaganda is shorthand for what I disagree with, you're inventing all of that.

Oliver's content reaches dramatically more than 10x the number of people that VOA does.

You think John Oliver reaches 'dramatically more than 10x' people than VOA? Take a look at:

https://www.insidevoa.com/a/a-record-for-voice-of-americas-g...

You're saying John Oliver is reaching a couple of billion people weekly. This strikes me as somewhat unlikely.

As to the other thing, having a viewpoint is not 'propaganda directed at other countries'. 'Propaganda' is not shorthand for 'a thing I disagree with'.

You can just click on the time stamp of a comment and reply there. Should probably remove this edit because the whole thing is then completely unreadable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com