Language and Propaganda - an example

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

These are the facts presented by politifact that I believe and trust.

Good Cicerone. So you see that the Clinton campaign is engaging in propaganda by the definition that people are using on this thread.

Again, the main point I am making is that the political right isn't the only side that uses propaganda. The left does too.

Many people seem to be blind to the propaganda of their own side.

I don't think it's the same thing, obviously a politician likes to put their best foot forward. I'm talking about the relentless broadcasting of a one sided argument. I accept what you say about Murdoch's influence over here, but it's mostly limited to newspapers. There are laws governing broadcast standards, and a British Fox News would not be allowed. It has to be factual.

We do get Fox News but it gets by because it's so American it's doesn't really affect us. When I flick through it's usually some politician I've never heard of banging on about some proposition or other I've never heard of. It's hard enough getting people to engage with our politics, that's got no bloody chance.

Fair enough.

Apparently that is exactly what this thread is for.

Politics by its very nature is propaganda.

No, it isn't, ci.

What is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

I get the notion you haven't been attending very closely to my argument here.

Politics is many things. One aspect of it is communications designed to convince others that your notion of policy are worthwhile. Not all such communications are propagandist unless you axiomatically define the term in that way. And that obscures far more than it provides any means to think clearly about differences. The NY Times is not Pravda. Are you, writing here, the equivalent of Joseph Goebbels? Is an honest statement in political communications the same as a purposeful deceit?

Well Blatham, you have to separate the communications mean to persuade from the communications legitimately meant to inform. Communications that are legitimately written to inform are not propaganda.

My hypothesis is this (and forgive me, but you have put yourself in the perfect position to be my example)... Of the communication meant to persuade if you disagree with it, it is propaganda. If you agree with it, it is not.

Let's test this hypothesis.

The NRA publishes makes thousands of statements by hundreds of people. I am assuming you disagree with the NRA. Give me a single example of persuasive communication from the NRA that you don't consider propaganda.

Planned Parenthood also makes thousands of statements. Can you give me a single example of propaganda from Planned Parenthood?

Of course, someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you would have opposite results. And that is the point. What you yourself believe is the determining factor on whether something is propaganda or not.

I have you on ignore but I did read this post.

Differentiating communications meant to inform and those meant to persuade is valid. In Canada, for example, before mandatory seat belt use was legislated, research was done on jurisdictions where such legislation had been in place (New Zealand, for example). Those finding showed overwhelming evidence for reduction in deaths and serious accidents. Or, there are countless examples where scientific/empirical studies are done to sort out the facts of some question.

But if one then goes on to say or to stipulate that subsequent communications based on research findings ("You should wear seat belts" or "Therefore we recommend that mandatory seat belt legislation be tabled") is always and necessarily an instance of "propaganda", again this obscures rather than clarifies.

If you wish to take the position that there are actually no means to establish truth or the integrity of a speaker, then your relativism is internally coherent. And I hope you can be happy with it.

This always makes me chuckle. You always end up reading anyway.

The only practical use of the "ignore" button is to give yourself a smug feeling of superiority when you publicly announce who you have on ignore.

No, that was a first for you. And your reply guaranteed it would be the last.

I put people on ignore, and peek in once in awhile. No crime committed. It's a personal choice. How anybody can criticize a personal choice of looking at a ignored poster by choice has gone bonkers. It's not that important an issue. jeeesh!

It's what passive aggressive control freaks do.

Besides that, other posters will copy from the ignored poster, and post them to comment. How are we supposed to ignore them?

On political comment boards, an "ignore" function is an absolute necessity. Robert was far quicker than many to understand this. It took myself along with many others more than five years to convince the I/T people at the Washington Post that they really had to incorporate the function.

Earlier here, I brought up the term, used frequently on the right, "identity politics" with an invitation to analyze/discuss how it is normally used by those who wield it. That invitation remains open.

Quote izzy:

Do you mean the ignorer is a control freak, or the ignoree who is complaining about being ignored is a control freak?

I wasn't having a go at CI.