Juxtatarot
Footballguy
My guess is you two have different thresholds on the level of bias/misinformation required for something to be considered "propaganda".
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Trusted Media/Media Bias Chart (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KarmaPolice
- Start date
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
My personal view is that what makes something propaganda (v. merely biased) is the motivation. If a reporter is actually trying to inform readers but has a blind spot due to bias, that's not ideal but is totally understandable and that's why it's good to have a mix of media because different people have different blind spots.
That's not what I see in the OAN article. It does a very poor job of informing readers altogether. It ignores very basic information that is necessary to understanding the story.
What I find odd about OAN on the chart is its placement relative to other more politically right sources. It is less right wing and more reliable than Fox News (tv) and National Review? Maybe I am just unfamiliar with the criteria and such they are using, I can kind of see why Fox News is less reliable because it has so much opinion content rather than news, but I would have assumed you could not get any further right than OAN on the partisan scale. Same with Breitbart, I would have assumed both of those were way more right wing than Fox News. To be fair, I don't watch a lot of Fox News so maybe it is further right than I assumed?
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
I do find the different definitions for what is straight up propaganda super interesting and informative. All good.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
@Joe Bryant - if you are interested in finding out more about OAN I’d suggest you watch the John Oliver segment.
Fatguys article is more nuanced “propaganda“ and honestly similar to what I’d potentially on Fox, CNN. The stuff from the video gets in to what I would hope all of us agree is propaganda and is why I have no interest in ever watching the channel.
Fatguys article is more nuanced “propaganda“ and honestly similar to what I’d potentially on Fox, CNN. The stuff from the video gets in to what I would hope all of us agree is propaganda and is why I have no interest in ever watching the channel.
I think this is a reasonable criterion for considering something to be propaganda, but (a) I think narrower definitions may also be reasonable, and (b) it's not clear that the OAN article about pulling out of the WHO meets even your broader definition.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
We agree that unintentional bias doesn't make something propaganda. But I might argue that even an intentional slant doesn't make something propaganda as long as it doesn't contain outright falsehoods, or at least isn't so intentionally misleading that it might as well contain falsehoods. There are plenty of editorials in the NYT and the Washington Post that emphasize -- seemingly intentionally -- aspects of a story that fit the authors' preferred narrative while downplaying or ignoring aspects that contradict it. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call those editorials propaganda. (I recognize that the OAN article isn't an editorial.)
Also, in the case of OAN's article about the WHO, it's not clear that omitting the views of some health experts (when such views are not held unanimously) is intended to mislead. Maybe the reporters are personally dismissive of so-called conventional expertise, and they genuinely believe their readers are better served by sticking to facts than by highlighting the subjective opinions of elite leftwing Ivy League namby-pamby health professionals.
If somebody showed me the article in question without telling me what publication it was from, I probably wouldn't identify it as propaganda. After I'm told it's from OAN, I'm much more likely to see it as propaganda -- but that's due to my own bias rather than to anything in the article itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Don't you think you're sort of glossing over the issue there? Disguising an editorial as a news article seems to me to be the essence of propaganda. The fact that the NY Times actually identifies articles intended to persuade as editorials is the sign that they're NOT propaganda. At least to me, the comparison you're making here hurts your argument it doesn't help.
If they were just "sticking to the facts" the article would look completely different. If you were going to write an article about the U.S. withdrawing from the WHO, what would you think were the most important facts so that readers could make sense of the story? For me the most important facts would be: 1) What is the WHO and what does it do? 2) Why is the United States leaving the WHO at this time? 3) What are possible consequences of this decision? The OAN article basically ignores question 1 and 3. And I don't see how that could happen by accident.
So I guess my response to you is yes, I can imagine a non-propaganda article that "stuck to the facts" but failed to include criticism from public health experts. This is not that article. What I see is an article that is deliberately withholding important information that is necessary to give readers a better understanding of what happened.
I kinda disagree with this take too. Sure, it's possible that you wouldn't identify it as propaganda if you saw the article in isolation, I might not either. It's hard to pinpoint propaganda from such a small sample size. But we know enough about OAN from other sources to know that what might otherwise be chalked up to sloppiness or bias is not the most likely explanation here. Sourcing is important. Media outlets build trust over a long period of time. That's the way it should be. I think everything OAN puts out should be viewed skeptically. I don't view that as improper bias on my part, I view that as doing my homework.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Extremely good debate going on here.
I would vastly recommend it over those posts that always seem to include laughing emojis.
I would vastly recommend it over those posts that always seem to include laughing emojis.
I'm glossing over the difference between news articles and editorials because I don't really want to go on a tangential rant. IMO, the standards for factual accuracy shouldn't be relaxed for editorials -- they should be the same for news and opinion alike. Tucker Carlson, through his attorney, recently argued that the audience has no reasonable expectation that his entertainment show will be factually accurate. I disagree with the philosophy underlying that argument. I think news infotainment, news reporting, and editorial opinions should all be held to the same standards with regard to fact-checking. I recognize that's not how things actually work. In any case, I don't think whether an article constitutes propaganda depends on whether it's labeled news reporting or something else. To me, whether it's propaganda depends on whether it intentionally promotes falsehoods to serve some political end.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
A better article would have covered at least the first point. The third is less certain because there will be "experts" with opposing views, a situation that often causes journalists -- even (or especially) ones trying to avoid bias -- to give equal credibility to both views, even if one is kind of stupid. There's an argument for skipping that part. In any event, I'm much more receptive to calling something propaganda if it contains false statements than I am if it merely leaves some true ones on the cutting-room floor (as all articles must). There can be exceptions if the omissions are especially egregious, but I wouldn't hold this article up as a strong example.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don't really know all that much about OAN. (I saw the John Oliver segment, but it's been a while.) The article quoted in this thread is the first from it I've read.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I'm pretty much in agreement with you that editorials should have factual standards, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. In any case I think your definition is too narrow if it hinges on "falsehoods." I think the intentional promotion of misleading information to serve a political end is plenty, even if there are no technical falsehoods.
Oh I wouldn't have chosen this article as the best example either. Joe posted it and seemed to be suggesting that the whole "OAN is propaganda" narrative was wrong and that this article was somehow evidence that they were not. I took the bait.
First for me too and my knowledge of OAN is also fairly limited. But I think I know enough to make a fair assessment.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Sort of like these links and with movies/shows, maybe there should a news rating system so people aren't confused and think if they are watching something like Carlson it's factual and/or news.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
No media outlet is worthy of my trust
I guess this counts as propaganda:
G. Elliott Morris @gelliottmorris
Why are polls sponsored by One America News some of Trump's best? I spoke to Gravis Marketing, their pollster, who said that OAN has only been releasing the polls Gravis sent them that turned out best for Trump. (Gravis says they have since told OAN to "cut it out.")
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1283066700859084800
G. Elliott Morris @gelliottmorris
Why are polls sponsored by One America News some of Trump's best? I spoke to Gravis Marketing, their pollster, who said that OAN has only been releasing the polls Gravis sent them that turned out best for Trump. (Gravis says they have since told OAN to "cut it out.")
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1283066700859084800
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
How so?
Seems like a pretty weak move - if the claims she makes are accurate.
She would have a much louder voice by writing from within, and being critical, than she will by quitting and saying its too hard.
If she is being honest here, NYT will go an and never miss a beat. They will bring in a new conservative voice, and that will be the end of the story.
Boston
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
I did not read the FoxNews piece. I did read her resignation letter on her site.
She thinks NYT has created a hostile work environment for her, and her views. She might be right, I am not there. But, she has a unique position to raise her voice as an Op-Ed writer/editor. If she was really interested in forcing change at the NYT, it seems that the better approach would to call them out in their own pages and/or force the NYT to push her out over the differences in opinions.
I would guess that most people have no clue who Bari Weiss is before this, and won't have any idea who she is after this. Her resignation will not change that, nor will it put pressure on NYT to change its environment.
The Gator
Footballguy
I am not saying she should do anything.
The original claim was "powerful stuff"
I disagree. No more, no less.
Boston
Footballguy
A few cuts about a paper about 1/2 the country feels is the paper of record:
In her resignation letter, Weiss noted that her own “forays into Wrongthink” have made her the subject of “constant bullying by colleagues” who disagree with her views.
“They have called me a Nazi and a racist,” she wrote.
“I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers,” Weiss added. “My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in.”
“Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired.”
She then bashed the process that unfolded over Cotton’s op-ed, noting that nobody cared to amend other editorials, such as “Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati."
Boston
Footballguy
So because she has a potential new job means she made all of this up? Do you have more proof?
The Gator
Footballguy
I am not saying she made any of it up.
I think she has probably been subject to more than a few inappropriate comments.
You suggested this was somehow "powerful"
Its not. its barely a ripple.
What this has done, is create some publicity for her new venture with Andrew Sullivan. Again, I find nothing wrong with either the venture, nor seeking publicity in advance of the launch.
If her allegations are true and not made up, they are powerful in the sense of being alarming and scary.
Boston
Footballguy
Exactly...if this allowed in any corporate setting it is a big story...the fact that it is the New York Times which is probably the most powerful newspaper in the US makes it that much bigger.
The Gator
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
Weiss spends a paragraph of her public resignation letter outlining a hostile work environment, before launching into her primary concern:
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
She wants the freedom to express her views, even if they conflict with popular public sentiment - and she feels she does not get that chance at the NYT. She thinks that she and Sullivan have the opportunity to create that platform now - and she may be correct. She is not leaving because some colleagues or other staff spoke poorly about her or called her names. She is leaving to better express her views.
I don't read the NYT op-eds often enough to really care how they choose to edit, or pick the opinions they print.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
She wants the freedom to express her views, even if they conflict with popular public sentiment - and she feels she does not get that chance at the NYT. She thinks that she and Sullivan have the opportunity to create that platform now - and she may be correct. She is not leaving because some colleagues or other staff spoke poorly about her or called her names. She is leaving to better express her views.
I don't read the NYT op-eds often enough to really care how they choose to edit, or pick the opinions they print.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Every journalist gets a tremendous amount of crap on social media for anything that they write these days. Cry me a river for Ms. Weiss. She didn't like that she was criticized by her co-workers. Boo hoo.
Similar threads
- Poll
