News Is Propaganda
joshualiu.org
joshualiu.org
Journalism today seems to be less about dissecting a story and looking at it from different angles, and more about using a story to bolster some kind of narrative, often political. I'm not sure what has caused this shift, but I would imagine it has something to do with financial incentives combined with the rate at which stories can be produced and disseminated.
Not sure how we fix this and get back to popular news being more boring and less tabloid, like Reuters or Wall Street Journal (news column, not opinion). I imagine it will require education starting at an early age, teaching people how to consume media with a critical eye, and engage in discourse in a civil manner. With hope, this will create a financial incentive for journalists to publish more objective stories.
But in the last 20 years, every journalist confuses journalism (informing people) with activism (changing people). Perhaps because cut&paste from the internet didn't feel fullfilling enough.
This makes reading news unbearable to me.
One major problem is the total lack of seriousness. The news and journalists don't just have opinions and at time agitate but they tend to not have supporting evidence. They use the lightest and flimsiest evidence and use that to build opinions and agitate. There is no truth seeking, it's as they say, propaganda. At least opinion used to have some reason behind them and they'd lay out their thinking. Now it's more, "take my word, you and I agree on other things, so believe me on this."
My concern with this sentiment is that is glosses over far more nefarious motivations here (which I think are more common than we like to admit).
I have met many many people in the corporate world that are more concerned about "what the rules are" as opposed to applying any sort of ethical mindset. I've seen again and again where people will take advantage of others, throw other people under the bus, and fight to take "what is theirs" (meaning what they want - not actually what makes sense) without any sort of self-reflection. If challenged they gaslight everyone around them, including themselves..
I'm willing to believe that this extends to reporters. I would not be surprised if a large number of "reporters" out there that happily go along with whatever they are told to do in the job (or to keep their job): go after eyeballs rather than report facts and (sometimes) on stuff that matters. Take a look at any sort of news network and you can clearly see that all these news anchors are playing parts in this screwed up version of reporting what's going on. It's bound to extend down to people writing the articles as well.
Anton Chekhov was an activist journalist 160 years ago. This is not at all a novel phenomenon. And news editors who sought to defend the status quo would, of course, be just as biased as activists—they would amplify or suppress narratives according to their ideological allegiances.
The news industry has never been objective and pure. It has always been subjective and biased.
vs.
"It's strange how people seem to think that Good Old Fashioned Journalism was objective"
If journalism isn't completely objective (or even if it can't be 100% objective) doesn't mean journalists should not be trying to be objective.
Code always had bugs - should we give up fixing them?
I am all for journalist activism if it's clearly marked as such. Disguising activism as news is the biggest sin that the modern media have committed and are committing.
That said, even for profit journalism has gained Pulitzer level standing, and can be intrinsically motivated rather than agendistic. There is also a world of difference between direct interference on the newsroom, self-censoring and chasing a story. Beyond that, the 'colour' of the news is pretty much in the eyes of the beholder, which is why media-literacy is so important.
I wouldn't. "Not-for-profit news" usually means public networks, which by definition are controlled by the government or legislature to some degree, and have been propaganda factories since forever.
While completely transparent and unbiased news remains a pipedream, I think this is a matter of degree rather than kind--messages may be coloured by many factors such as education, social circles, personal or shared histories, communicative expectations, editorial style guides, intended audiences and so on.
Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by (but may have happened on occasion). However, I do agree indirect influence can be exerted through lobbying and media conglomeration. It may be more productive to vent in this direction rather than the newsrooms themselves.
Of course it does. Whose bread you eat, their song you sing. "Publicly" funded ultimately means funded by the ruling government, who can decide to increase or cut that funding, and often appoints oversight boards that wield editorial control.
> Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by
You haven't looked very hard then. There have been several scandals in Germany where state ministers called public broadcasting officials and asked them to alter/suppress reporting on specific issues, in some cases for personal reasons (one incident involved a story about the minister's spouse IIRC).
I would be interested to see the percentage of news items interfered/suppressed by third-parties vs stories that are not (specifically in the case of public broadcasters)[1]. As you are right to point out, we need to remain wary of those officials who overstep these bounds.
[1]: I think the World Press Freedom index is a good place to start. https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-fr...
The World Press Freedom Index is based on a questionnaire filled out by journalistic organizations. Simply put, this means that it cannot reflect what those organizations don't know. Thus a good score in the index can mean that a country has high press freedom – or that those in power are very good at keeping such incidents under wraps (or any combination of the two).
You start off thinking you’re “countering MSM propaganda” only to discover as you mature that you were just spouting some other kind of propaganda the whole time.
The American public is being informed that twelve militants have been killed in clashes in Sudan. Now what? What are they supposed to do with that information? Is there any possible benefit that can come to anyone by virtue of average Americans being told about that singular event? Did they even actually learn anything?
Propaganda isn't the main problem. Neither is bias, or "fake news", or emotionalism, or framing, or echo chambers. The main problem is that even in its purest, ideal form, (global) news doesn't actually serve any clearly recognizable purpose.
Neural weights updated:
- "There are militants in Sudan"
- "There is violence in Sudan"
- "There is political instability in Sudan"
- "It's probably unsafe to travel to Sudan"
- ...
Every single piece of news can do this.
In consuming news, lots and lots of context gets built up, regularly refreshed, and becomes subconsciously useful across a broad spectrum of tasks. I find the news useful for understanding economics, geopolitics, finance, stock trading, and much more.
You just need to make sure you consider the bias of your news sources and the relevance to the overall picture.
I now know far more about Ukraine and Russia than I ever did before because the news coverage led me to want to learn more.
At least until mushroom clouds dot the horizons and the nuclear winter starts. Then the sun won't rise for a few years.
I agree completely that "news" (especially corporate/government "news) is propaganda, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to keep your head in the sand and pretend everything is going to be okay. There is a very good argument to be made that we are far closer to civilization-ending nuclear war right now than we have been at any time in history.
I wouldn't say there's a very good argument that we're closer to that than we were in, like, October 1962.
Really?
NATO is in a direct proxy war with Russia, who has repeatedly said that they consider this war an "existential threat". The 1962 crisis was resolved when the Soviet Union eventually stood down and agreed not to stage their troops and missiles in Cuba. NATO has insisted it has every right to stage their troops and missiles in Ukraine. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not we are actually closer to the precipice than we were in 1962, but nobody who understands the situation thinks a serious argument can't be made. We are at the point right now where nuclear war can break out at any moment.
First let's have Russia pull its troops out of Ukraine, re-affirm the binding agreements it has already signed to permanently respect its sovereignty (and amend these for additional guarantees as needed), and commit to a timetable for reparations -- with a substantial downpayment. At that point, we can have a discussion about such matters.
Until that happens - Russia has no "legitimate" security needs whatsoever.
Not that this means NATO should start putting missiles in Ukraine willy-nilly. But really, until the above happens -- one needs to just drop the word "legitimate" from one's vocabulary, as it applies to current regime's wants or needs for anything.
I'd also like to see a source for " NATO has insisted it has every right to stage their troops and missiles in Ukraine." The closest I can recalls is pretty clearly, "Ukraine has the right to decide on its own foreign policy" which is somewhat different.
We've been close to nuclear war since the moment the failed Russian state decided military aggression was a substitute for reform. Abandoning support for Ukraine doesn't actually do anything to address the nuclear threat Russia poses - it simply moves the nuclear threat to some other axis of conflict. The danger of nuclear first-use by Putin or some other Russian regime will only end when Russia's internal conflicts are resolved, by reform or collapse.
Ah so Russia can take whatever it wants and do whatever it wants as long as it considers it an 'existential threat', and it seemingly has this right because it has nuclear weapons?.
> We are at the point right now where nuclear war can break out at any moment.
There is literally zero indication that this true, we haven't seen any reports anywhere of a change in nuclear posture indicating that even a nuclear test was going to happen let alone having a weapon launched.
That's more fearmongering though. Nuclear winter doesn't mean blotting out the sun, it would be mostly imperceptible fine particles that might reduce global temperatures by a degree. But it's also pretty speculative and past predictions have over estimated the effect. So it's not a great way to disagree with this point. Global nuclear war would obviously be devastating but nuclear winter would be the least of our worries.
I like how in Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke there were no actual bad guys. Just different groups trying to protect their own. I find it a much closer analogy for the real world than most films with clear-cut heroes and villains.
It's incredible to me that we can vilify our own neighbors as worse than Darth Vader, a fictitious child killer and mass murderer.
What is missing is more publicly-funded news sources with the ethics of Walter Cronkite: to report news as information separate from political, economic, and popularity concerns. Scripps News seems interesting. ProPublica pours a great deal of time and energy into original research uncovering unpleasant and inconvenient facts the public should know.