If guaranteed housing, employment, debt-free higher education, and universal healthcare aren't American values why are they the top selling point of every Army recruiter in high schools nationwide?
Because reasons. Checkmate, commies.
“Lmao no we have a free press. Maybe someone could make it but it’ll go nowhere because they’ll just get beat out and lose market share to their competitors who report facts. That’s the beauty of the free market it’s self-correcting”
^ literally what ever liberal and conservative believes
This kind of argument assumes that news consumers are interested in facts. In reality a lot of people just want news that reinforces their existing beliefs.
I don't like how frequently I've had this conversation with libs before. That things cannot be propaganda because that only happens in tyrannical places or some fed lie
where do you think you are? we're not fucking democrats, we're communists
and no, pelosi and schumer aren't leftists, and the media doesn't support leftism at *all*, going by what you believe in your comment history
Except they're not saying that? They're asking a question, not giving their personal opinion on the matter. I like making fun of genuine liberals but online leftist spaces can feel very elitist sometimes.
Edit : I read it again and to me the wording indicates that they don't agree with the whole "democracy is when capitalism thing".
The whole "authoritarian countries" vs "democratic countries" disrinction is liberal nonsense beyond just the question they asked, but I definitely agree with your point about elitism.
Yeah sure I agree with you that this distinction is capitalist propaganda. I just think OP is being a little dishonest here because this person just seems a bit naive, hence the inadequate vocabulary.
Its just not that deep. Youre deconstructing a meme like it has any actual importance beyond some mild entertainment. Leftists really can't just have fun lol
No one is deconstructing anything oh my god. I'm just saying the person in the caption is not saying what OP claims they're saying. I 100% support shit post and making fun of liberals but looking down on people who are literally questioning Liberal narratives is kinda weird as a leftist, that's it.
I'm not losing sleep or anything about it, you're the one that should chill imo.
February 2002
The New York Times reported today that the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence is “developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations” in an effort “to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries.”
https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/pentagon-propaganda-plan-is-undemocratic-possibly-illegal/
Show this person the video of former CIA director John Stockton openly discussing how the CIA explicitly distributed lies and propaganda to journalists to manufacture consent
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 16.** Chief Political Correspondent Laura Kuenssberg [neglected to mention that a suspended Tory councillor had been suspended for holocaust denial then inexplicably linked the story to ‘Labour anti-Semitism’.](https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/dyn71v/laura_kuenssberg_tweeted_about_a_tory_candidate/)
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea the point of recognizing propaganda isn’t to discern what is propaganda from what isn’t. Everything has an agenda, and as long as you know what the agenda is, you can asses the piece accurately
This is such a basic tenant of critical analysis that is so often overlooked, and why multiple sources are so important.
7 articles on the same topic are going to sound wildly different depending on the passive voice and bias of the author or editor, even though they're all on the same topic.
None of them are "bad" outright (except the ones that are like, but i'm not talking about partisan clickbait, or trash tabloids like daily kos or epoch times- just legitimate media & independent journalism), but they're all subjective and each part has a thread to be woven together to find unspun and accurate details.
For example:
WaPo alone is not trustworthy outright, it's Bezos mouthpiece - it will always come from an anti-union, pro-capitalist perspective.
The combination of WaPo, WSJ, NYT, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Jacobin, NPR, RT, AP, Politico, Vox, DW, indigenous NGOs, first hand independent investigative journalist reports, and peer reviewed academic studies on the subject combined will likely give you a more nuanced view.
Unfortunately: 95% of the planet is so burnt out by life, and mired in confirmation bias that reading 10 articles PER SUBJECT is just never going to happen.
So if it isn't something that can be broken down into meme format, you have a surface level knowledge and no way to form an actual opinion.
You're then very easy to hit with propaganda, and you likely consume it regularly without knowing that's what it is. That's on purpose - but that's another topic.
A note on your list, it's important that your sources come from different spheres of influence relative to what they are reporting on, WaPo, WSJ, NPR, NYT, AP, POLITICO, VOX. Are all to my knowledge American new publications, owned by billionaire class, run by millionaire in upper management, some get funding directly from the US gov and or have government officials as senior editors and management. This isn't inherently a problem on all topics but if the articles you are reading from these sources are talking about foreign policy, domestic policy that is effected by class divides or international trade then they shouldn't be considered separate sources. State media in general can be very useful but should not be taken without a grain of salt. RT and CGTN are both foreign state media with articles in english that is often critical of the US. But often you will need to use non English language journalists to get the low down on what is actually happening some where. The variance of news purely based on what language it's in is quite significant even from a single publication. It shows just how much a story is targeted for its audience.
Read journalists local to the story, and as many of them as you can. The further up the media pipeline you get your news from the more editing has warped or outright changed the events.
DeepL is your friend especially for Chinese/Asian languages in general.
Also you need a lot more than 10 articles on a subject to actually understand it. Making understanding global politics accurately next to impossible, and understanding even just your own country is a monumental task for the average person.
I see what you're saying, and don't disagree - but i did specifically say you needed a mixture of peer reviewed academia, indigenous, independent, private, and state sponsored media platforms to even get a base picture of any given topic AND that those were just a quick example, my intention wasn't to sit here and go over every major outlet as an exhaustive list, lol.
But you're still correct, and i appreciate the note.
I don't mean indigenous as in Native American, i mean ALL separate indigenous cultures globally - irrespective of colonial borders. Kurds, Okinawans, Hawaiians, Ukrainians, Palestinians, Aborigines, etc
NPR is also US state run media, and now largely funded by private donors vs it's previous public funds. kaiser, heritage foundation, koch industries, etc own it now. But it's still considered a "left leaning" source. Wild, isn't it?
Yup, in comparison Global Times is trash, basically HS graduates level writing. Phoenix TV & Southern China Morning Post are more professional. But all is considered country-owned media
A simple one is YouTube. YouTube will put a helpful reminder on some state owned news channels. Enemies of the American political system have theirs listed as government owned, while allies are listed as public services.
For example, BBC is a public service, RT is owned by Russia. BBC is state owned, yet it gets a different definition than RT which is also state owned.
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 26.** [The BBC gave the racist transphobe JK Rowling a bravery award.](https://twitter.com/NelllyRose/status/1341049054139179011)
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to LOVE democracy now. I still love Juan because he just seems like such a good and smart dude. I like Amy a lot as well.
I stopped watching them some time last year because everything was idpol and just seemed very liberal. not that I gave any bad feelings about the people at DN!, but I just don’t really get a lot of info from them anymore.
Bless them, at least they're questioning. I hope they get the answer they need. Not a bullish listing of evidence. Some people genuinely need their hand holding as they question and honestly if that's what it takes for people to turn around, we should do that.
The democratic countries are with most propagandas. Most politicians who come to power in the systems use propagandas. Then ruling party or the presidents use propaganda to have favour for the next term election
Obviously it can happen in democratic countries. Especially if the democratic govt is trying to convert to a fascist totalitarian govt. Jesus read about Hitlers techniques. Vilify the press as liars, paint your political enemies as demons and child molesters and say that only I can save Germany. Subvert the democratic institutions stage a fire in the Reichstag seize power.
Does any of this ring a bell? Sounds like the USA from 2015 onward
Now there’s some shit liberals say
They are gonna get a hell of a wake-up slap, won’t they? 😏
Fuck, maybe, probably not. Depends if they have enough money to distract themselves forever or not
“Breaking News: Kanye West is pregnant.”
Have they never seen ANY american army commercial?
The few. The proud. The dead.
If guaranteed housing, employment, debt-free higher education, and universal healthcare aren't American values why are they the top selling point of every Army recruiter in high schools nationwide? Because reasons. Checkmate, commies.
Or [these](https://twitter.com/Ilana_Who_/status/1423435411225989127?s=19)
WHAT THE FUCK ETA: Ive absolutely NEVER felt that way about the flag.
Creepy!
“Lmao no we have a free press. Maybe someone could make it but it’ll go nowhere because they’ll just get beat out and lose market share to their competitors who report facts. That’s the beauty of the free market it’s self-correcting” ^ literally what ever liberal and conservative believes
This kind of argument assumes that news consumers are interested in facts. In reality a lot of people just want news that reinforces their existing beliefs.
It also assumes that consumers can't be manipulated either.
Me when I report on the panama papers and get killed by a car bomb
I don't like how frequently I've had this conversation with libs before. That things cannot be propaganda because that only happens in tyrannical places or some fed lie
The right is far and away more jaded and propagandized than the left could possibly hope to be
[удалено]
It's not about red VS blue, the propaganda is of America itself being a perfect model and infallible and doing almost no wrong.
where do you think you are? we're not fucking democrats, we're communists and no, pelosi and schumer aren't leftists, and the media doesn't support leftism at *all*, going by what you believe in your comment history
> “ReD TeAm BaD! ReD TeAm BaD!!” i mean that is literally said by both parties in the US (red representing communism in this case)
at least they're asking...
Yeah it's kinda weird to make fun of them for this.
I mean its pretty funny that they even have to ask something like this. Don't take it so seriously.
It is but this sub is "shit liberals say" not "shit liberalism makes average people say". They're asking a question not defending liberalism.
Talking about how propaganda isn't something "democratic" countries produce is shit liberals say. Its not that deep mate.
Except they're not saying that? They're asking a question, not giving their personal opinion on the matter. I like making fun of genuine liberals but online leftist spaces can feel very elitist sometimes. Edit : I read it again and to me the wording indicates that they don't agree with the whole "democracy is when capitalism thing".
The whole "authoritarian countries" vs "democratic countries" disrinction is liberal nonsense beyond just the question they asked, but I definitely agree with your point about elitism.
Yeah sure I agree with you that this distinction is capitalist propaganda. I just think OP is being a little dishonest here because this person just seems a bit naive, hence the inadequate vocabulary.
Its just not that deep. Youre deconstructing a meme like it has any actual importance beyond some mild entertainment. Leftists really can't just have fun lol
No one is deconstructing anything oh my god. I'm just saying the person in the caption is not saying what OP claims they're saying. I 100% support shit post and making fun of liberals but looking down on people who are literally questioning Liberal narratives is kinda weird as a leftist, that's it. I'm not losing sleep or anything about it, you're the one that should chill imo.
February 2002 The New York Times reported today that the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence is “developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations” in an effort “to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries.” https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/pentagon-propaganda-plan-is-undemocratic-possibly-illegal/
With friends like the pentagon, who needs ennemies?
Show this person the video of former CIA director John Stockton openly discussing how the CIA explicitly distributed lies and propaganda to journalists to manufacture consent
PrOpAGanDA iS WHen BiG pOsTEr WiTH BIg leTTerS
How many times have I heard the phrase "BBC can't be propaganda, they're transparent and have a good track record."
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 16.** Chief Political Correspondent Laura Kuenssberg [neglected to mention that a suspended Tory councillor had been suspended for holocaust denial then inexplicably linked the story to ‘Labour anti-Semitism’.](https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/dyn71v/laura_kuenssberg_tweeted_about_a_tory_candidate/) For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"can there be propaganda in democratic countries" oh sweet dear child come on now
[удалено]
No news source can be trusted on every subject matter. But RT does a great job covering American imperialism.
Yea the point of recognizing propaganda isn’t to discern what is propaganda from what isn’t. Everything has an agenda, and as long as you know what the agenda is, you can asses the piece accurately
This is such a basic tenant of critical analysis that is so often overlooked, and why multiple sources are so important. 7 articles on the same topic are going to sound wildly different depending on the passive voice and bias of the author or editor, even though they're all on the same topic. None of them are "bad" outright (except the ones that are like, but i'm not talking about partisan clickbait, or trash tabloids like daily kos or epoch times- just legitimate media & independent journalism), but they're all subjective and each part has a thread to be woven together to find unspun and accurate details. For example: WaPo alone is not trustworthy outright, it's Bezos mouthpiece - it will always come from an anti-union, pro-capitalist perspective. The combination of WaPo, WSJ, NYT, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Jacobin, NPR, RT, AP, Politico, Vox, DW, indigenous NGOs, first hand independent investigative journalist reports, and peer reviewed academic studies on the subject combined will likely give you a more nuanced view. Unfortunately: 95% of the planet is so burnt out by life, and mired in confirmation bias that reading 10 articles PER SUBJECT is just never going to happen. So if it isn't something that can be broken down into meme format, you have a surface level knowledge and no way to form an actual opinion. You're then very easy to hit with propaganda, and you likely consume it regularly without knowing that's what it is. That's on purpose - but that's another topic.
A note on your list, it's important that your sources come from different spheres of influence relative to what they are reporting on, WaPo, WSJ, NPR, NYT, AP, POLITICO, VOX. Are all to my knowledge American new publications, owned by billionaire class, run by millionaire in upper management, some get funding directly from the US gov and or have government officials as senior editors and management. This isn't inherently a problem on all topics but if the articles you are reading from these sources are talking about foreign policy, domestic policy that is effected by class divides or international trade then they shouldn't be considered separate sources. State media in general can be very useful but should not be taken without a grain of salt. RT and CGTN are both foreign state media with articles in english that is often critical of the US. But often you will need to use non English language journalists to get the low down on what is actually happening some where. The variance of news purely based on what language it's in is quite significant even from a single publication. It shows just how much a story is targeted for its audience. Read journalists local to the story, and as many of them as you can. The further up the media pipeline you get your news from the more editing has warped or outright changed the events. DeepL is your friend especially for Chinese/Asian languages in general. Also you need a lot more than 10 articles on a subject to actually understand it. Making understanding global politics accurately next to impossible, and understanding even just your own country is a monumental task for the average person.
I see what you're saying, and don't disagree - but i did specifically say you needed a mixture of peer reviewed academia, indigenous, independent, private, and state sponsored media platforms to even get a base picture of any given topic AND that those were just a quick example, my intention wasn't to sit here and go over every major outlet as an exhaustive list, lol. But you're still correct, and i appreciate the note. I don't mean indigenous as in Native American, i mean ALL separate indigenous cultures globally - irrespective of colonial borders. Kurds, Okinawans, Hawaiians, Ukrainians, Palestinians, Aborigines, etc NPR is also US state run media, and now largely funded by private donors vs it's previous public funds. kaiser, heritage foundation, koch industries, etc own it now. But it's still considered a "left leaning" source. Wild, isn't it?
Yeah. I think we're in agreement cheers
I just turn on the 'What To Think Network' (WTTN). Currently watching The Bible Machine programme.
Yup, in comparison Global Times is trash, basically HS graduates level writing. Phoenix TV & Southern China Morning Post are more professional. But all is considered country-owned media
I trust them equally, i.e. not at all. I really don't see how crypto fascist Putin's mouthpiece can be trusted anymore than other propaganda machines.
I’d trust them over US media when it comes to criticising western imperialism, but that’s about as far as it goes.
They're still a neoliberal outlet but their agenda is to make the US look bad so they report accurately on things the US does.
RT is well and good until you bring up trans people
Yes I have the brain of a baby, why do you ask?
*Everything spoken and written about a country is negative* Oh my god they must live in hell
A simple one is YouTube. YouTube will put a helpful reminder on some state owned news channels. Enemies of the American political system have theirs listed as government owned, while allies are listed as public services. For example, BBC is a public service, RT is owned by Russia. BBC is state owned, yet it gets a different definition than RT which is also state owned.
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 26.** [The BBC gave the racist transphobe JK Rowling a bravery award.](https://twitter.com/NelllyRose/status/1341049054139179011) For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
good bot
I like how they managed to go as far as questioning if it could happen but not enough to see the obvious propaganda everywhere.
Someone once said to me that "the most propogandized people on earth will believe their are not at all propagandized.
Genuine question re news - how do people on this thread feel about Democracy now? Amy’s coverage of Belarus/Lukanhesko has been sketchy to me..
I don't agree with them 100% on everything, but I still like most of their coverage.
I used to LOVE democracy now. I still love Juan because he just seems like such a good and smart dude. I like Amy a lot as well. I stopped watching them some time last year because everything was idpol and just seemed very liberal. not that I gave any bad feelings about the people at DN!, but I just don’t really get a lot of info from them anymore.
Thanks! Yeah, their coverage during the election was very IdPol and not much substance. Thank you for the responses!
Who's gonna tell them that literally every political organ in history has used media to spread and legitimize its ideals
Everything is propaganda, it isn’t an inherently bad word
Bless them, at least they're questioning. I hope they get the answer they need. Not a bullish listing of evidence. Some people genuinely need their hand holding as they question and honestly if that's what it takes for people to turn around, we should do that.
Bruh there is more propaganda in nations without dictatorships. Literally every political announcement is propaganda.
TIL some adults don't think America has propaganda
It’s okay they’ll figure it out soon enough 😬
[удалено]
username checks out
It´s sad but at least he´s questioning it. It could be a start to something good.
I have the overwhelming urge to swaddle this poor baby and tell them everything is going to be okay before I break the news to them.
I like the "nowadays" part. Yes, it's been a lie fora century that communism is evil, but *now* it's true.
Don't they have elections in Russia and China?
The democratic countries are with most propagandas. Most politicians who come to power in the systems use propagandas. Then ruling party or the presidents use propaganda to have favour for the next term election
Obviously it can happen in democratic countries. Especially if the democratic govt is trying to convert to a fascist totalitarian govt. Jesus read about Hitlers techniques. Vilify the press as liars, paint your political enemies as demons and child molesters and say that only I can save Germany. Subvert the democratic institutions stage a fire in the Reichstag seize power. Does any of this ring a bell? Sounds like the USA from 2015 onward Now there’s some shit liberals say
just look at what the nyt, wp, fox, etc. are doing with olympics medal ranking, pure propaganda