This is an older article, but felt it was important enough to share.
There’s “biased” … and then there’s “deliberate lies told to enlist the people who believe them into sacrificing themselves to harm others.”
Bias and obvious bias
Part of the issue and the assymetry we see in US partisan politics? There is not a balanced media diet for those on the right.
If my grandpa watches 7 hours of Fox News a week, only reads the headlines on the Sunday paper, and then spends another 3 hours a week reading the OAN website…
How does that compare to me? If I watch effectively 0 TV news but daily read WaPo, NYT, the Atlantic, Slate, and then aggregators like Fark and Lemmy?
I forget where, but somebody analyzed all the news on the right wing sources and they are all telling exactly the same story, whereas the more mainstream or even left wing outlets are all telling more unique stories through their editorial choices.
Right wing media is a different, insular beast.
Right wing media is fascist now. Centrist/ liberal media is corporate funded to support capitalism. Left wing/ socialist media is scant and constantly derided. Until there is a sufficient voice from average working people, media manipulation will continue to be a problem. Consider the major newspapers and major news networks coverage of climate change and labor organizing/worker’s rights. Until recently, most news downplayed the climate crisis and still barely covers the problems of actual working people. Choosing instead to focus on party politics and “the economy/ Wall Street.” We must demand more and better coverage of topics that affect the average person and disadvantaged communities. If you can’t trust your government and the media of society, you end up with this.
Another key differentiator is that right wing media (generally) is free and left wing media (generally) is paywalled.
There are exceptions, but man, when I hit a WaPo article taglined “Democracy Dies in Darkness…” (paywall), I want to send them an angry note telling them they are part of the problem.
Ever see this nutter site? beforeitsnews.com? Great example and I can’t help but wonder how much of that bullshit is “informing” Facebook, Twitter and YouTube posts.
What a terrible “article” that is. Pathetic.
This dude constantly posts nonsense like this.
This dude thinks these people are his friends. Lol
Fulmination and vituperation with no elucidation?
From the article:
Read between the lines. When Fox News calls a group of peoples an “invading horde”, this is done as purposely as when the New York Times calls these peoples “migrants”.
Understand the truth that everything is propaganda, every organization is capable of propaganda, and you should question every source of media for its bias.
Although this article thus far has been politically focused, apply the ideology to everything, just as you would research something educational to prove its veracity. The internet being at your fingertips means you have the power to seek truth over convenience. Failure to utilize this is a failure to everything you think you stand for.
I see no article here.
I agree with the general premise you present, but let’s be clear: there is a BIG difference between framing this example as “invading horde” and “migrants”. One of these, at least, aims to present an acceptably neutral term, while the other targets a more visceral and inflammatory response. Both sides are not the same.
Also? One statement is factual. Migrants are people moving from one place to another. That’s what these people are doing- migrating in search of a better life.
“Invading Horde” is not factual. They aren’t Mongols leading a massive and blooding military incursion into most of Central Europe.
deleted by creator
When Fox News calls a group of peoples an “invading horde”, this is done as purposely as when the New York Times calls these peoples “migrants”.
Bullshit. One of those terms is dripping with agenda, and the other simply isn’t. “Migrants” describes the people without making a value judgment. If not making a value judgment is propaganda, then yes, everything is, including “grass is green” and “the sky is blue.”
Just because two people hold different positions on something doesn’t always mean “tHEy’Re bOTh RIgHt!” or “tHEy’Re bOTh WRoNg!” Sometimes - and I bet you can think of some pretty universal cases - one person is right, and the other is fucking wrong.
Edit: Oh oh wait, fucking wait. Then the article goes on to talk about reporting on Tiananmen Square being propagandist because a large portion of the killing “ackshually happened outside of the ackshual sqaure.”
Go fuck yourself.
You read it. Thanks.
I’m not sure why people are getting so hung up on the example that they can’t see the message.
It makes sense to me. Just because Fox’s bias is showing now doesn’t mean they won’t both be telling you about how corporations getting tax cuts is good for you in 10 minutes.
Be critical of everything you read, watch and hear. Everyone has an agenda, and it usually involves money.
It’s more fun to pick sides tbh
Relevant username .
Read between the lines. When Fox News calls a group of peoples an “invading horde”, this is done as purposely as when the New York Times calls these peoples “migrants”.
This is like saying referring to someone on trial as a “murderer” or as a “defendant” are just two different forms of bias. Lol, not at all. One implies guilt while the other is neutral.
The Backfire Effect is the theory that when given contradicting evidence against these predetermined beliefs a person acts to further entrench themselves in their beliefs in open rejection of the facts. Although this is considered a rare phenomenon instead of a common occurrence, the ideas are still embedded within the principles of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
This you?
Seems the bias lies with the poster if you think “invading horde” and ‘migrants” are synonymous.
That legitimately makes no sense and is not based on the article or the author’s intentions. Gold ⭐️ for trying though.
I’m convinced you’re a troll at this point. Because you’re going well out of your way to not understand anything anyone is saying to you. Many people have pointed out this error in judgment to you- and you side-step it without a thought.
Blocking you now.
Okay
Subject to bias? Yes. Propaganda?
Propaganda is biased + an agenda.
If someone writes a 20 page screed on why X is bad and Y is superior, that may be an inflection of bias, it’s not propaganda unless there’s a larger agenda at play.
It would be like saying all violence is terrorism. No, not quite. Terrorism is violence + an agenda.
Capitalism perpetuates itself through propaganda. Corporations own media companies for profit to serve capitalism. Media personalities and writers display bias unconsciously for their corporations under capitalism. Therefore, all media is propaganda. They don’t even know they are doing it.
In media throughout capitalist countries, such as the United States, “socialist views are excluded from American public discourse” and capitalism is portrayed as an economic system that is simply “equated by definition with political democracy, freedom, and patriotism,” writes media studies scholar Donald Lazare.[14] Capitalist propaganda is “reinforced by the mantra that there is no alternative, [which] ensures that any questions concerning (alternative) economic realities are considered as secondary, incidental, indulgent, and ultimately redundant.”[15] As scholar Jason Lee describes, “the propaganda of capitalism has worked so well that most people, of the left and the right, find it inconceivable that any other system should exist, and this is the aim of the ideology.”
the term terrorism, itself, is loaded language.
