Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Tang speaks of propaganda and disinformation and how historic propaganda by the government is more or less indistinguishable from disinformation at least by a significant segment of the population.

...But she says that to combat disinformation campaigns the government ministries are in charge of pre-empting disinformation by disseminating their version of information...

But that seems like a contradiction. Government was a source of misinformation in the past, but now is the source of truth (as in the past). How is that reconciled? How does one know when the government is being truthful versus being propagandists?

Now, I get that the PRC has definite identifiable goals so it might be easier to suss out here, but what about other areas?

View on HN

That's why the free press is imperative. It sort of "lends confidence" to anything the government puts out. It keeps them honest, because they know they'll be torn a new one if they put out falsehoods.

The USA technically has this as well but the existence of entertainment shows billing themselves as news, such as "Fox News," has found a way around this system - foment distrust of everyone BUT "your side" for a full generation, and no amount of fact checking will unseat your viewers' biases.

Taiwan doesn't have this problem yet, but it is a very small place compared to the USA, and as the article indicates its free press is very young. I'm very curious how they'd handle the uprising of an organization like Fox or Breitbart.

To be fair, "entertainment as news" covers the spectrum— The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight are absolutely in that category as well. Of course, those are also a few hours a week rather than a 24hr barrage, and I suspect that a greater proportion of their viewers understand that their mission is to generate laughs, if necessary at the expense of a total commitment to the facts.

"Entertainment as News" fits a lot of what people consume.

News Business contains overlapping elements of Show Business. Production, post-production, dramatization, acting, advertising, storytelling, actors, agents, a whole lot of money, etc. Both are sometimes owned by the same networks and parent corporations too. There's a difference between "news as a business" and just "news".

If a news business were to broadcast plaintext news with only raw pictures, videos, and audio, and bare-minimum graphics to the masses, then their broadcast would be super boring to the layperson and not grab people's attention the same way explosions, special effects, and hypothetical opinions would. As the saying goes, "it's just business". (Imagine a content comparison of 'weather.gov' vs. 'The Weather Channel' for context).

Entertainment is the sauce businesses add on top of the pasta that is the news to make their product more appealing to consumers.

Now, politics is the most popular flavor addition to news (and has been for the last few years). News Businesses have self-politicized their news products because that is the "entertainment" trend of news that is a hot seller. This is more than just "news" - it's finding ways to innovate facts and opinions to sell a particular "product" to a particular demographic.

Whether it's the government or a corporation, someone in a suit sitting in an armchair at the top is going to favor pushing the version that benefits themselves the most. Don't just hate or like sources blindly because they say "we are the good guys!"[1]

[1] "Are we the baddies?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

Well, to be honest, the free press is often its own source of misinformation, often simply parroting the government / big business position, for a variety of reasons - since way before stuff like Fox or Breitbart.

There is sadly no simple answer to the problem of obtaining The Truth...

"propaganda (n.) information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

If the Taiwanese government ministries were putting out information _of a misleading or slanted nature_ in their official capacity, the press and public would rightly call them out on it.

But the minister herself indicates the government did just that in the past

Beside, if the press and public could and would call out government propaganda (which according to the minister is pretty much indistinguishable from disinformation) why would they need the government to pre-empt and counter it if it's easy to spot?

I think because the Taiwanese government is taking the "responsible for public safety and security" role to a natural conclusion for the 21st century - fake news is dangerous, the government is doing its role to combat that.

The free press still exists and can fact check away. And, since Taiwan is democratic, if a minister takes the piss, the press can report on it, and the public can elect someone else.

> But the minister herself indicates the government did just that in the past

In that more autocratic era, the people who called out the government would have been arrested and imprisoned. That has now changed and that the public and press are now more freely allowed to challenge what is being said by their government.

In the "past" that the minister is referring to, Taiwan was a military dictatorship; other than a few brave souls sitting in jail, there was no political opposition, and there was no free press. There was no (legal) alternative to government propaganda. Even publications from overseas were censored (by ink and scissors) as they entered Taiwan.

The article suggests that today's government, under the careful supervision of the opposition parties and the independent press (both of which now exist), has resources that allow it to detect propaganda, and preemptively respond to it, in a way that individuals cannot.

Let’s just say the KMT (blue) and the DPP (Green Party) have differing takes on some things.

KMT being basically pro unification means the PRC is more Chiang Kai-Shek style than DPP I guess?

Conservativism trumps historical rivalries.

I think it's dangerous to assume that one side are the good guys who never lie while the other are the bad guys who always do.

Disinformation comes from all sides and one has to be critical of everything.

Yeah by making your own counter-message, you're being humble with respect to that possibility. Let there be two propagandas dropped at the same time and hopefully the truth will tip the scales.

If the truth was self-evident fake news would not exist...

Often there isn't even one truth.

And of course when you have two competing versions there is no guarantee that one is true, or that one is not true for that matter.

I'm just saying to people should use caution and not take anything at face value.

> If the truth was self-evident fake news would not exist...

Note I saw saying "if there are two narratives". The "fake news" situation is often just one narrative. (US cable news has no narrative. Or brain.)

The government shouldn't assume it's correct. But if there is a wide variety of narratives it should be less difficult for the populace.

Mainstream press doesn't like to call the government out on bald-faced lies, because then they get cut off from government information sources.

This is currently happening with the White House. Nobody has enough of a spine to be sufficiently critical of the firehose of garbage that it broadcasts, because their press correspondent credentials will be revoked.

It doesn’t even have to be adversarial. Sometimes you have a fawning press. or the premier, President, prime minister, etc., can be very charismatic.

> How is that reconciled? How does one know when the government is being truthful versus being propagandists?

If there are multiple conflicting narratives, at least some people will be motivated to do more research to resolve the contradiction. If the government is being more truthful, its statements can point to resources that provide independent verification, accelerating the process. At a minimum that will blunt the effect of the lies.

What happens when the misinformation is coming from inside the government? A problem in, for example, the UK, where there is an internal conflict within the Cabinet over Brexit, and where ministers are willing to spout some things that are, frankly, bullshit.

It really looks like some people does not have the minimum idea about the magnitude of the concerted misinformation campaigns. Tang is the first one that offers effective ways to counter attack these efforts. This is the best article that I read about the subject. There is a great menace to the democratic world. Everyone should take it seriously.

It is ultimately up to the people to decide which side of the story to believe. All the usual heuristics apply: Do they have a history of lying? Are they acting as if they're trying to save their own asses? Did they just casually forget to mention a piece of information that happens to contradict their argument?

Governments are often so awful at passing this test that even when they're telling the truth, a lot of people would rather believe crazy conspiracy theories. This is especially problematic in countries with a recent history of dictatorship like Taiwan and South Korea. If Ms. Tang can instill in her ministry a culture of responding quickly, effectively, and earnestly to current issues, that would be a major contribution to the public discourse even if the government isn't always truthful.

Also, this is Taiwan, not PRC. Very different government.

I don't agree, I think this approach is completely legitimate. Because it is prominent politicians who are spreading this message, it is clear where it is coming from and what the motivations are. It isn't manipulation, like seeding articles with a subtext of some idea or another. It is just, here's the governments view of this issue. And then it seems like the idea is for people to think about that, and they will compare to the other idea.

So everyone, including government leaders, get to share their thoughts, people get to choose what is best. If what was described is actually what happens. In the past, the government ideas would be the only ideas shared.

In fact, Taiwan has suffered from DPP for many years. The president Tsai has spent quite bit of funding to control the social media. They organize and spread rumors to attack other political figures. Double standard has become the new standard for the government. The laws, the judges, the elections, are controlled by DPP. People in the government, in the media do not care about the truth. They only care about the ideology, the party. Very typical results of the bipartisan politics.

It's going to be a turning point for Taiwan next year. They need a leader to pull the society out of this ugly bipartisan fighting.

Why do you say the laws, the judges, the elections, are controlled by DPP?

Absolutely, it is simply fighting the adversary's propaganda with your own.

Plus ca change...

I would posit that this differs _significantly_ as it's being done with transparency and the motives for it are being clearly expressed by those pursuing the efforts. This stands in stark contrast to the assumed and obviously nefarious motives of those responsible for the disinformation. What better approach, I wonder?

You don't seem to really be contradicting my point. You're just assuming that the 'good guys' don't lie while the others are the 'bad guys' who obviously do lie.

There are indeed fighting propaganda with counter-propaganda, which is an age old strategy. They do seem to have adapted it for our era of instant communication and social media.

Now, working out the facts in any given situation is not always easy. Everyone tends to spin things, or to omit things, or to simply make things up...

One difference is that they can be held accountable for their actions, something that doesn't apply to freedomeagle69.facebook any more than it applies to people working at the PRC ministry of "cultural well-being."

Doesn't that make a difference?

I sure believe so :)

It does not, as we can experience every day...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com