[FRIAM] Freedom of opinion or fascist trap

[Steve Smith]

all-

---I composed most of this BEFORE I joined FriAM this morning but
reflects the questions I directed to Tom---

> GEPR> I disagree somewhat. I think propaganda is closely related to fake news. 

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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media#Media_Bias_Chart

I'm sure I've seen others... but on minor inspection, this seems like a
"go to" for a lot of people.

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".

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.

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.   

I read the Wikipedia Article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
) and appreciate the high-level view and introduction of multiple
dimensions but it felt somewhat incomplete as a summary?

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.

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?

How do serious skeptics and/or journalists make these judgements?   A
well-trained associative memory across sources, journalists, era, ???

> 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.

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)?

- Steve

>
> 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:
>> When does an opinion become propaganda? I think this happens when you repeat one-sided opinions. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200605/b14f7a88/attachment.html>