sounds like there's a risk of propaganda being (in your sense of the term) anything you disapprove of, with anything you approve of being not-propaganda?
but I'll play along. What do you think of this analysis that concludes, ". . . why was this a story at all? Short answer: it fit The Narrative of an irrational president making decisions that terrify his own commanders." https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/0...s-a-case-study-of-ignorance-and-manipulation/ Media Coverage Of Iraq Is A Case Study Of Ignorance And Manipulation 'Repercussions mount over U.S. strike, with Iran nuclear deal pullback and Iraq call for U.S. troop pullout,' the Los Angeles Times tells us, waiting 14 paragraphs to explain the resolution is not binding. By Christopher Bedford January 7, 2020 Millions of casual news consumers began their week believing that over the weekend, Iraq expelled the U.S. military from the country. The United States, they thought, now faced the decision to quickly leave or illegally occupy. Had they flicked through many of the cable or network stations, or read a few headlines on their phones or at the gas station, these Americans had heard the president’s decision to kill the general of Iran’s elite Quds force was made with no understanding of the potential reactions. If they read The New York Times or caught any of its parroting on friendly news shows, they might even think the president had “stunned” the Pentagon officials who had only offered the kill option “to make other options seem reasonable.” The problem presented here is none of these three scenarios is accurate. The U.S. military is not currently under any order to leave Iraq, though in America’s interest they should, and they might. Further, the Pentagon does not present a president with military options that’s ramifications have not been considered, nor does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ever present the president a fake option. “For non-Arabic speakers, reporting in the main news outlets [New York Times] and [Washington] Post is so misinformed (either on purpose or because of incompetence) that you might think that the Iraqi State has officially voted for ejecting U.S. forces from Iraq,” wrote Hussain Abdul-Hussain, the Iraqi-Lebanese chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai’s Washington Bureau. The vote, he explained, was a party-line vote by Shia Iran supporters in the parliament. Kurdish and Sunni lawmakers had boycotted the session despite threats from the very same Shia militia that kicked off the current cycle of violence, leading to a barely functioning quorum in the chamber. Of course, to admit threats of political violence from pro-Iranian militia would undermine the media narrative that the parliament, like the militia mob that attacked our embassy, represents everyday Iraqis. What these pro-Iranian lawmakers passed was no United States ouster, but a non-binding, partisan resolution that the United States should leave. The “quorum,” Abdul-Hussain writes, “was 170 of 328 (half + 4, just like Hezbollah designated a [prime minister] in Lebanese parliament with half + 4).” “Iraqi Parliament Passes Resolution to End Foreign Troop Presence,” The New York Times blared. Four paragraphs down into the copy, by Reuters, the reader learns the resolution is non-binding. “Repercussions mount over U.S. strike, with Iran nuclear deal pullback and Iraq call for U.S. troop pullout,” the Los Angeles Times tells us, waiting 14 paragraphs to explain the resolution is not binding, objectively failing the reader. That the president played golf, by contrast, is treated to the fifth paragraph. The Washington Post, which elected to use the Associated Press’s write-up, didn’t include the important non-binding information at all. “Iraqi Parliament calls for expulsion of U.S. troops from the country,” it says. That’s it. Headline, as well as copy. Fine, you might think. Headline space is limited; in today’s digital environment reporters and editors must more than ever grab a reader’s attention in the first few moments; the intricacies of the process can wait further down for the more committed news consumer. Sounds reasonable. Any editor currently in the business is familiar with the struggle. Then, since the purposes of a headline and opening are to inform the reader with reliable information they can use, these outlets failed. “[Either] on purpose,” Abdul-Hussain writes, “or because of incompetence.” So what, you might ask. The United States might actually leave, so what’s the harm? The harm lies in the either the incredible ignorance of journalists or, worse and sadly just as likely, the willing manipulation of readers to serve a political end. more
conclusion: The vast majority of Americans are casual consumers of the news. They have families, jobs, bills — dozens of concerns more pressing and tangible than world news consumption. These news consumers rely on headlines, television chyrons, and brief summaries to stay generally informed on what is occurring in the world, and when those things are misleading they are misled, regardless of if reality is buried deeper in the story. But what about the more committed consumers? Maybe those who have family serving in the military and want to know what’s going on? These readers and viewers might have been treated to The New York Times’ reporting that “top military officials” were “flabbergasted” and “immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region” after the president’s decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani. “Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable,” the story reads. The amazing thing here is it’s almost certainly factually true while also deeply misleading: The four reporters on the byline found at least two “top military officials” who said they were “flabbergasted” by the president’s call. Notice the information here isn’t sourced. It’s not “according to Pentagon officials involved in the decision process,” “Pentagon officials involved in the drafting of options,” or even Pentagon officials “with first-hand knowledge of the presentation.” It’s what we call “Voice of God”– it is simply said, and so it is. No decent editor would let that pass without digging in deeper, and the Times’s editors certainly did. “Who are your sources?” “What is their knowledge of the situation?” “Why aren’t we naming them?” “Do you have confirmation?” These were all asked as a matter of basic practice, yet none of the answers are even hinted at in the article. Even descriptions of the officials’ level of involvement or reason for request for anonymity were excluded. This, to be clear, requires a level of comfort with displaying an incredible disdain for the reader. Further, is the outlined scenario at all plausible? Keep in mind this is a president the Times has repeatedly and breathlessly warned is crazy, impulsive, callous, vicious, and constantly feared by patriotic government employees doing their best to restrain him. Still, these reporters are willing to believe the career military and civilian leaders of the Pentagon float ideas they consider dangerous or stupid? Of course not, but disbelief is routinely suspended in the face of bias-confirming story lines. Were any of these people in the room or involved in the planning process? Certainly not, or they would not have been surprised by the call. Additionally, they would have reviewed the potential repercussions. “The options that go to the executive are vetted through the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense before they are presented to the president,” Alex Plitsas, who served for a time as chief of sensitive activities for the assistant secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama, told The Federalist. “Legal counsel reviews them, as does everyone else [in the chain].” “You don’t,” he stated emphatically, “do throwaway COAs [course of actions].” There is also zero reason to believe Join Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley or Secretary of Defense Mark Esper were doing any of what The New York Times reported. So why was this a story at all? Short answer: it fit The Narrative of an irrational president making decisions that terrify his own commanders. A Narrative, in this case, teed up for reporters by Obama’s own Iran man. But often, The Narrative is false. Or, as President Donald Trump prefers, “fake news.” Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.
You can make a case for deceptive headlines or confusing headlines, but that is an issue throughout the news media, Fox News does it, and you yourself post contentious and misleading headlines. I don't think the headlines in these cases are false, they are factually true. I can see how some people will believe a resolution or vote by a parliament may be absolute as they don't know how gov't works, but this happens all the time on both sides. It's not clear that headlines from which people draw the wrong conclusion because they don't read the article is propaganda as the intention isn't clear. What is propaganda is the claim that Soleimani killed millions of innocent people or that Democrats like Pelosi are mourning his death. Those are clearly false statements.
got it. so here's one. I stopped reading at "James M. Inhofe, a Republican" . . . as you should, too. Clearly as a Republican everything he writes here is simply campaign disinformation (propaganda) for Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/07/iran-cannot-afford-an-all-out-war/ Iran cannot afford an all-out war In a photo released by the official website of the Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader, mourners attend a funeral ceremony for Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Tehran on Monday. (AP) (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/AP) By James M. Inhofe Jan. 7, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. EST James M. Inhofe, a Republican, represents Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate and is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. With only about four days’ hindsight, it is fair to say that President Trump’s decision to authorize the airstrike against the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, is the boldest defense policy decision of his presidency. In a single strike, the president defended American troops and diplomats against attacks, held Iran accountable for killing a U.S. citizen in Iraq and reframed the U.S.-Iran relationship by making it clear the Iranian regime cannot act with impunity. Soleimani was only a “general” according to Iran’s brutal regime. The international community saw him for what he was: a thug. The United Nations sanctioned Soleimani for proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities in 2007. Despite a travel ban, he still made frequent trips to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. There, his Quds Force oversaw the funding and training of terrorist groups acting as Iranian proxies. These groups killed more than 600 American servicemembers in Iraq, wounded thousands more, threatened U.S. diplomats, kidnapped U.S. citizens and spread chaos throughout the region. They also aided the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and were responsible for attacks against Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Multiple administrations attempted to counter Soleimani’s activities with sanctions and surveillance. That wasn’t enough to stop the increasing wave of Quds Force-sponsored aggression and violence. The Obama administration signed a nuclear agreement with Iran, which released more than $100 billion to the Iranian regime and helped fuel, rather than halt, the Quds Force’s support for terrorism, something then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry admitted could happen. Over the past eight months, Iran escalated its asymmetric aggression — it directed attacks against our partners’ oil tankers, downed a U.S. drone and struck a major Saudi oil facility. In response, the Trump administration ramped up sanctions, bolstered force protection in the region and worked to deepen Iran’s diplomatic isolation. Still, the president did not respond militarily to Iran’s provocations. Like previous administrations, the Trump White House was concerned that Iran would react to a military escalation by directing Soleimani’s Quds Force proxies to attack U.S. diplomats, troops and facilities in the region. However, the killing of a U.S. citizen in Iraq last week, and Soleimani’s role in planning and directing attacks against U.S. troops and diplomats, showed that restraint was not keeping Americans safe. One day before the strike on Soleimani, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, tweeted at President Trump, “You can’t do anything.” The regime believed it would never face consequences for its aggression. The president’s bold decision shocked Tehran, and upended the supreme leader’s assumption that Iran could decimate international norms of behavior without consequence. Moving forward, we must prepare for the unfortunate probability that Tehran will choose escalation and bloodshed over diplomacy and negotiation. The administration should work with Congress to enhance the protection of our troops and strengthen embassy security in the region. The administration is already scheduled to brief Congress this week, so all members can have a full understanding of the specific threats Iran poses. I encourage the administration to share the maximum amount of intelligence possible without jeopardizing our sources. This will foster a greater bipartisan appreciation of the context in which the president is acting to save American lives. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have provided constant updates. I look forward to maintaining this communication as we work toward deescalation in one of the most volatile parts of the world. We should also be prepared for a political reaction from countries where the Quds Force is most active, and respond cautiously. Key example: the Iraqi parliament’s vote to expel U.S.-led coalition troops. After Iraqi leadership did nothing to protect our Embassy in Baghdad from Iranian-backed militias, it’s easy to worry that Iraq is lost to Tehran. The removal of coalition troops from Iraq would be shortsighted and self-defeating. Nearly half of Iraq’s parliament boycotted the vote, and Iraqis have been protesting Iran’s corrupt presence for months. The United States still has partners in Iraq. We still have the opportunity to maintain our presence, which is vital for combating the Islamic States and countering Iran. The administration should also ensure that the door for deescalation with Iran remains open. Indeed, the president has repeatedly stressed his willingness to negotiate an end to the stand off, if not a broader agreement that would address all of Iran’s nefarious behavior. When cooler heads prevail, Tehran might conclude that deescalation is its best option, if only because Iran is strangled economically by sanctions and beset by domestic protests. Simply put, Iran cannot afford an all-out war, and we don’t desire one either.
more on the Warren wag-the-dog accusation: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/elizabeth-warrens-baseless-wag-the-dog-accusation.php Elizabeth Warren’s baseless “wag the dog” accusation Posted on January 7, 2020 by Paul Mirengoff There have been plenty of misguided takes on President Trump’s decision to kill Gen. Soleimani. Elizabeth Warren’s is perhaps the most egregious. Warren claims that Trump hit Soleimani to distract America from his impeachment. She states: Actually, there are probably several reasons, none of which has anything to do with impeachment. A month ago, Iranian-backed militias hadn’t attacked our embassy in Baghdad, nor had terrorists killed that American contractor. In addition, it’s not clear that we had intelligence indicating that Soleimani was planning major attacks against the U.S.. For that matter, we might not have had the opportunity to take out the terrorist general a month ago. Moreover, if Trump wanted to distract America from his impeachment through an attack on the enemy, the time to do it would have been in late November. At that point, impeachment was dominating the news, as witnesses presented evidence that made it clear Trump had withheld military aid to Ukraine for the purpose of pressuring the Ukrainians into investigating Joe Biden. At the present time, by contrast, few Americans are paying attention to impeachment, and with good reason. Nancy Pelosi hasn’t presented the Senate with articles of impeachment. “A month from now” would also probably be a better time than the present to “wag the dog.” By then, Pelosi may have gotten around to presenting the impeachment articles, and the Senate might be holding a trial (or some sort of proceeding). In sum, last week was precisely the wrong time for Trump to take out Soleimani if his goal was to divert attention away from impeachment. For the time being, Pelosi has already done that for him.
I do not believe I have been ******** on this thread. I do, however, think there are a couple of problems with the idea of this thread. I find the thread title humorous: the fact that 'propaganda' is in parentheses, as if the OP felt the need to either define or explain more fully what 'disinformation', is almost an insult to the audience. Who is the arbiter of Truth capital T when it comes to disinformation (propaganda)? so far it seems like it is OP. I on the other hand do not actually believe there is an exact demarcation between "information" and "disinformation." I strongly suspect (and some of my ******** on the thread has tended to bear this out) that what OP had in mind by 'disinformation (propaganda)' are things he doesn't approve of, said by people he doesn't approve of. But more research is needed. There are philosophical problems with disinformation (propaganda). These are inherently slippery terms, open to interpretation. As such they may be examples of what Morris Weitz in another context calls "open concepts", i.e., terms that are either logically impossible to define or fundamentally ambiguous. (One way around this essentially ontological problem is to use ostensive definition--i.e., point to examples of what is to be defined to see what different examples share in common.) In short, one man's propaganda is another man's opinion piece. OP has so far been reluctant to provide a definition of what he means by the term--insofar as such a definition is possible. My ******** on the thread has been an attempt to probe that lack of specificity. Even a simple link to the wikipedia entry on "propaganda" might have been helpful, because there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda we learn in the second paragraph that "In the 20th century, the term propaganda had often been associated with a manipulative approach, but propaganda historically is a neutral descriptive term." So do we mean the manipulative kind of propaganda? (as OP suggests in post #23) but if so, why limit ourselves in such a way? why not discuss propaganda in the historically more neutral and descriptive sense of the term? The best part of this thread so far for me has been when Lou described some of the problems he had with satire--or at least the example of satire I presented. Without having shitted on the thread, we might not ever have heard Lou's thoughts on that topic. So I disagree with @JuanValdez that this thread has been worthless.
and as luck would have it excerpt: "So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period."
Yeah, I think he successfully derailed it with his machinations. I give him credit, he's pretty good at using semantics and spin to distract from the actual issue
on the philosophy of propaganda: https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/why-propaganda-matters excerpt: https://www.kalw.org/post/philosophy-talk-why-propaganda-matters#stream/0 trailer: extended version on itunes ($1.99 for the entire 59 minute episode): https://music.apple.com/us/album/375-why-propaganda-matters-feat-jason-stanley/1001783604 Jason Stanley's book:
thinly-disguised "U.S. registered voters are dumb" propaganda discussing this article: https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/can-you-locate-iran-few-voters-can/
He has been one of the most disingenuous posters for some time. I can't remember the last time I actually read one of his "interesting" articles or clicked on one of his links. Unfortunately, his sheer volume of threads makes it impossible to put him on ignore.
Rep. Paul Gosar who posted a fake picture of Obama with Iranian President Rouhani. Who then doubles down when caught on it. https://news.yahoo.com/congressman-...e-said-this-wasnt-photoshopped-221729914.html Congressman defends posting fake Obama photo: 'No one said this wasn't photoshopped' A Republican congressman who tweeted a picture of former President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Monday defended it as making a valid point after commenters pointed out that the two had never met in person. In his original post, Paul Gosar proclaimed, “The world is a better place without these guys in power.” Rouhani is still Iran’s president. Gosar, a former dentist who now represents Arizona’s rural Fourth District, defended posting the doctored image, writing, “no one said this wasn’t photoshopped.” But his original post did not indicate that it was faked. CNN's Andrew Kaczynski reported that the original photo showed Obama shaking hands with India's prime minister, Narendra Modi. The doctored image appears to have first been used in 2015 by a super-PAC supporting Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. Gosar accused Obama of having “coddled, appeased, nurtured and protected the worlds No. 1 sponsor of terror.” That has been a Republican talking point ever since the Obama administration — together with the United Kingdom, Russia, France and Germany — signed a pact with Iran that lifted economic sanctions in return for a pledge that Iran halt sensitive nuclear development and allow international inspections. “If the goal is to avoid a war, it would be wise to reject this fundamentally flawed agreement that all but guarantees a nuclear Iran,” Gosar wrote in an op-ed for the Prescott Daily Courier. Gosar became briefly notorious in 2018 when his own family made an ad urging people to vote for his opponent. In 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, though Tehran indicated it would abide by the terms as long as the other world powers honored it. Following the American drone strike last week that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, however, Iran reversed that decision, saying it would no longer abide by the agreement.
hey, as luck would have it!! https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2020/01/weaponizing-principles-and-methods/ excerpt: Somewhere around week 2 or 3 of introduction to philosophy, you learn a basic methodological principle in philosophy: When a person offers an argument against or an objection to some position P, you have to ask whether that objection also applies to that person’s own position and their own argument. For instance, suppose some crackpot English professor says, “There is no Truth and no one can claim objective knowledge!” After you’re done laughing, you then point out that by hypothesis, the professor’s claim is not the true, does not describe how things are, and is merely his or her subjective opinion for which she cannot claim knowledge or justification. In political philosophy, it seems that people frequently fail to ask whether the objections they offer against other positions apply to their own positions. I refer to this as “weaponizing” their principles. They bring up a principle to use a weapon against others, but it does not occur to them to ask whether that principle applies to them and their own ideas. Or, alternatively, it does occur to them, but they don’t take that point seriously. more at the link! enjoy!!
