In the UK for example, people will just say 'Fox' or 'RT', as though it is a default confirmation of propaganda or an agenda. I'm not saying they can't have one, but it's the relative self-satisfaction about here that irritates. Is there really any objective, rational reason why those countries would be subject to it and not us? Do we really believe we are so much more biting in our critical thinking skills, or do we simply see it as less likely here, questioning the source less because it falls in line with our more 'enlightened', benign social liberal beliefs, whereas Russia and the US contain beliefs more offensive to the gentile Western European? It does go on in a similar way on the cultural left, or more accurately the neoliberals, where the source is the arbiter of all morality. 'The Daily Mail' quoter vs 'The Guardian' quoter immediately has a default, moral high ground status. Before you pillory me, I'm no great fan of the DM, but it might be worth noting how much the likes of the Guardian supported bloodthirsty wars in the ME when the Mail did not, and how the Mail was notably concerned about the David Kelly affair and went after New Labour on it. just some examples of how tribalism and virtue signalling is a feature of this phenomenon that blinds people, seemingly, to more objective analysis of fact.
x Turn on thread page Beta
Why do we assume only the East, or alternatively, the Americans are propagandized? watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by SaucissonSecCy; 25-07-2016 at 16:41.
- 25-07-2016 16:21
- 25-07-2016 16:23
Which moral truths do you think people are blind to?
- 25-07-2016 16:37
Fox isn't mainstream news in the US, to be fair. It is further to the right as an alternative to other media, but most news outlets are left-leaning even here. Read the New York Times or the Huffington Post. Listen to CNN or NBC.
Here's a breakdown of this issue I read once...
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...eology-2014-10Last edited by jeremy1988; 25-07-2016 at 16:38.
- 25-07-2016 20:07
All media of course has an agenda. One just has to take that into account. Some media is also more reputable than others. See framing.
Also consider that press such as RT are state owned and in states which do not have the liberties we do- such as a free press and where political opponents are murdered.
I'm not necessarily saying to ignore these outlets, but consider why they take the viewpoints they do- eg why would Russia highlight why it would be inadvisable for he west to remove Assaad.