<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>all-</p>
<p>---I composed most of this BEFORE I joined FriAM this morning but
reflects the questions I directed to Tom---<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3aa7e8f5-a1a2-18d2-608b-dd3a775f4cda@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">GEPR> I disagree somewhat. I think propaganda is closely related to fake news. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I personally feel bamboozled by the question of media bias and
how it convolves with my own personal bias(es) and/or convolves
with the bias of my various communities which I am
embedded-in/informed-by. I really appreciate that some have
made the effort to map the major media sources out like this: <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media#Media_Bias_Chart">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media#Media_Bias_Chart</a><img
src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Second-Edition-News-Chart.V2.jpg"
alt="" width="981" height="810"></p>
<p>I'm sure I've seen others... but on minor inspection, this seems
like a "go to" for a lot of people.</p>
<p>I think there are more than 2 dimensions (quality vs
left/right). While I lean/list left, I have some sympathies
toward what is normally considered "Right".</p>
<p>While this is roughly 2D, I see that the vertical dimension has
an inflection point just below CNN and right through the middle of
FOX... there is an abrupt qualitative difference at that point
IMO.</p>
<p>This also treats each news source as a point source whilst they
are more of a distribution. Some reporters/editors/opinioners
will fall within a spectrum around that point. Mike Wallace vs
Sean Hannity vs Judge Jeanine or Joe Scarborough vs Rachel
Maddow vs Brian Williams. <br>
</p>
<p>I read the Wikipedia Article ( <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias</a>
) and appreciate the high-level view and introduction of multiple
dimensions but it felt somewhat incomplete as a summary?</p>
<p>I should probably revisit Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" which
sits on my shelf but mostly serves me as the source of an
easy/trivial cliche. <br>
</p>
<p>I am a modest fan of Public Radio/TV to which I tend to think of
BBC and Al Jazeera as members of, though I'm not sure why for AJ,
maybe because like NPR/PBS and BBC it is State Funded (Qatr).
Why do these seem "fair and balanced" when the trope of "State
controlled media" seems just the opposite?</p>
<p>How do serious skeptics and/or journalists make these
judgements? A well-trained associative memory across sources,
journalists, era, ???</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3aa7e8f5-a1a2-18d2-608b-dd3a775f4cda@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">And the disruption scheme the Russians use involves fake news about all candidates (e.g. Trump donating his plane to help people). The propaganda *also* "treats both sides". My suggestion is that propaganda is distinguishable from conspiracy theory through the inclusion of *detail*. Propaganda seems a bit light on detail, whereas conspiracy theories are detail rich. Both are false.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I think it is also worth adding "intentions matter" to "words
matter". Some Conspiracy Theory IS propaganda, or at least
crystalizes around propaganda and is groomed by propaganda
machines. Many participants in conspiracy dissemination are
likely unaware that they are part of (or responding to) a
propaganda campaign. I think this is what distinguishes "willful
ignorance" (blind to the propaganda one is participating in
through willfulness) and "ignorant willfulness" (having an axe to
grind and being unwilling to look at anything that might undermine
that axe-grinding)?</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3aa7e8f5-a1a2-18d2-608b-dd3a775f4cda@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The tricky distinction is between conspiracy theory and credible detail-wading. Rachel Maddow is a good foil for that distinction. Sometimes she looks like a dork just doing a good job. And sometimes she looks like a wacko spouting (very detailed) conspiracy theories ... still a dork, of course, which is why I love her.
On 6/5/20 8:10 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">When does an opinion become propaganda? I think this happens when you repeat one-sided opinions. </pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>