Hacker News Reader

Comment by ImJamal | Hacker News Reader

Not who you are responding to, but Merriam Webster has the definition of "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person".

A news article is spreading information so it meets that criteria. The article is critical of Modi and his government to the point you could argue it is attempting to injury him (a person), his government (an institution) and his ideology (a cause).

Seems like it is textbook propaganda. Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda.

View on HN

> Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda.

Based on the standard you are suggesting, yes. But not based on the Merriam-Webster definition you're quoting.

Criticism -- even the harshest criticism -- is not inherently for the purpose of injury.

According to Merriam Webster's definition of injury: "hurt, damage, or loss sustained".

Do you think this article is not attempting to damage the reputation of Modi?

Dictionary.com has an interesting definition "Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made."

Seems like it could possibly apply since there is an attempt to damage Modi's reputation.

Do you really think Vox, a left leaning news outlet, is not intending to harm the reputation of Modi, a right leaning politician?

If you are a notable person and I have video of you kicking a puppy, and I publish it because you are a notable person and kicking a puppy is wrong, what would damage your reputation is kicking a puppy. Not me publishing it.

This act of expanding the definition of propaganda to include the simple publication of harsh critical journalism is unbecoming.

If nobody knows you kicked the puppy, then your reputation has not been harmed by you kicking the puppy. Once it becomes public, then your reputation has been harmed. I'm a bit confused how you think doing something that nobody knows about could cause reputational damage?

To be clear I am not blaming the media for causing the reputational harm in this situation. The blame falls on the person who kicked the puppy, but it doesn't change the fact there was no damage until it was published.

I think the problem we are having is we are starting with different core assumptions about propaganda. I believe it is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. You appear to believe it is always bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com