Fake news and propaganda

Ray9

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2016
2,707
4,472
1,970
There has been a lot in the public discourse lately about “fake news” and it’s a paradigm that should be studied but it’s nothing new. Fake news has another name and it’s one we all know as propaganda. What’s different today is that in order to recognize fake news we must first assume that there is real news somewhere and it’s getting more and more difficult to distinguish between the two. Real news is something that is reported professionally and objectively based on facts and verified sources. Propaganda is disinformation and misinformation used to inculcate the masses with a false notion of reality. The danger here is when the people begin to prefer fake news to real news.


In the wake of our last election a lot of questions are being asked to ensure the credibility and qualifications of the president-elect and his choices for department heads. Everything is under a microscope and journalists are leaving no stone unturned to investigate those qualifications. This appears to be a good thing but it raises a question. Where was all this investigative journalism when a man with seemingly no past appeared on the political scene and ran for president? There are not many humans in this world that can live an entire life of academic achievement and have practically no one who remembers them with scant documentation that can attest to the fact that they even exist but we just had one in the White House for eight years.


So the question we should be asking ourselves is how was this pulled off? The answer is that news reporting organizations in our democracy abandoned objectivity and authentication practices to publicly display an image of an individual that fit the media-friendly narrative of political correctness- a sparkling academic and the first black president. No media investigations were launched into his past and the watchdogs for the people made no efforts to verify anything. In fact legal roadblocks were thrown up and the favorite tools of propaganda, mockery and ridicule, were used to prevent anyone from doing so.


Now we come to the President-Elect who is the antithesis of political correctness presenting himself as an actual person with a verifiable past that fosters a very different narrative -the first “real” president in many years. He is in fact so real that he is treated like a hostile witness by factions in his own party many of whom like the opposing party have spent decades draining the public coffers to personally enrich themselves at the expense of regular taxpayers. The political establishment is replete with backstabbers like John McCain who, like Barack Obama, has never had a real job in his life.


The losing party was so sure that they had fooled the American people with the propaganda of political correctness-the first woman president-that they are unable to come to grips with the fact that the people were not fooled. So they are resorting to another propaganda tool-McCarthy-era politics to discredit and smear the incoming administration with the label of a secret fellow-traveling communist operative that conspired with the enemy to overthrow our election. It just never occurs to them to do it any other way so they have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous which works quite well with the lowest common denominator that eats propaganda like popcorn.


Buzz feed’s absurd reasoning that the people should make up own their minds in the face of character assassination with no evidence would be like one of your neighbors accusing you of molesting children with no proof and no victims. Just the accusation would follow you for the rest of your life and your reputation would be destroyed. But that’s what propaganda is all about. It’s not to disseminate truthful information it’s to destroy and stigmatize someone who doesn’t think like you do.


The American people need to take a long, hard look at their media, their intelligence organizations and their political establishment. In a democracy the people need to see and hear the truth. They don’t need a media that wants the people to believe what it says while they ignore what they actually see. This does present a pretty picture to the rest of the world.
 
They should begin with K-12 american "history", that's where it begins.
 
Propaganda has been a useful tool for thugs and corruption for a long while. It has reached a critical point. The problem is if people determine they may lose some comforts they willingly stay silent as it goes down and truth gets buried. What they do not realize is that in believing or going along lies they won't be able to recognize the truth when it is there in front of them and the shark already has them in its mouth.
 
Last edited:
There has been a lot in the public discourse lately about “fake news” and it’s a paradigm that should be studied but it’s nothing new. Fake news has another name and it’s one we all know as propaganda. What’s different today is that in order to recognize fake news we must first assume that there is real news somewhere and it’s getting more and more difficult to distinguish between the two. Real news is something that is reported professionally and objectively based on facts and verified sources. Propaganda is disinformation and misinformation used to inculcate the masses with a false notion of reality. The danger here is when the people begin to prefer fake news to real news.


In the wake of our last election a lot of questions are being asked to ensure the credibility and qualifications of the president-elect and his choices for department heads. Everything is under a microscope and journalists are leaving no stone unturned to investigate those qualifications. This appears to be a good thing but it raises a question. Where was all this investigative journalism when a man with seemingly no past appeared on the political scene and ran for president? There are not many humans in this world that can live an entire life of academic achievement and have practically no one who remembers them with scant documentation that can attest to the fact that they even exist but we just had one in the White House for eight years.


So the question we should be asking ourselves is how was this pulled off? The answer is that news reporting organizations in our democracy abandoned objectivity and authentication practices to publicly display an image of an individual that fit the media-friendly narrative of political correctness- a sparkling academic and the first black president. No media investigations were launched into his past and the watchdogs for the people made no efforts to verify anything. In fact legal roadblocks were thrown up and the favorite tools of propaganda, mockery and ridicule, were used to prevent anyone from doing so.


Now we come to the President-Elect who is the antithesis of political correctness presenting himself as an actual person with a verifiable past that fosters a very different narrative -the first “real” president in many years. He is in fact so real that he is treated like a hostile witness by factions in his own party many of whom like the opposing party have spent decades draining the public coffers to personally enrich themselves at the expense of regular taxpayers. The political establishment is replete with backstabbers like John McCain who, like Barack Obama, has never had a real job in his life.


The losing party was so sure that they had fooled the American people with the propaganda of political correctness-the first woman president-that they are unable to come to grips with the fact that the people were not fooled. So they are resorting to another propaganda tool-McCarthy-era politics to discredit and smear the incoming administration with the label of a secret fellow-traveling communist operative that conspired with the enemy to overthrow our election. It just never occurs to them to do it any other way so they have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous which works quite well with the lowest common denominator that eats propaganda like popcorn.


Buzz feed’s absurd reasoning that the people should make up own their minds in the face of character assassination with no evidence would be like one of your neighbors accusing you of molesting children with no proof and no victims. Just the accusation would follow you for the rest of your life and your reputation would be destroyed. But that’s what propaganda is all about. It’s not to disseminate truthful information it’s to destroy and stigmatize someone who doesn’t think like you do.


The American people need to take a long, hard look at their media, their intelligence organizations and their political establishment. In a democracy the people need to see and hear the truth. They don’t need a media that wants the people to believe what it says while they ignore what they actually see. This does present a pretty picture to the rest of the world.

Lots of words, no real substance. This can all be summarized in one short sentence: "Don't trust the main stream media!"

This belies the fact that there is no singular main street media. That the major networks on Radio and TV are owned privately, usually by a corporation, and the same is true of major newspapers and most national magazines.

With the wide spread and ubiquitous development of the Internet fake news dominates the consciousness of the viewer, reader and listener, who then repeat (echo) on message boards such as this, the propaganda, lies, half-truths, rumors and innuendos as true and factual. In fact the meme one cannot trust the MSM is an example posted in the OP.

Of course the watcher, listener, reader must use his or her judgment, but much of the MSM is not editorial in nature, primary sources are the meat they provide, such sources are first person accounts, photos and video of current events and past. An astute reader does not concentrate their study on contemporary sources, and this is the value of books, written decades or centuries in the past.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Of course the watcher, listener, reader must use his or her judgment, but much of the MSM is not editorial in nature, primary sources are the meat they provide, such sources are first person accounts, photos and video of current events and past. An astute reader does not concentrate their study on contemporary sources, and this is the value of books, written decades or centuries in the past.

That's the inaccurate understatement of the century. The editorial nature of the media is weaved into the delivery so the listener/viewer does not recognize it instead believing it as factual.
 
Of course the watcher, listener, reader must use his or her judgment, but much of the MSM is not editorial in nature, primary sources are the meat they provide, such sources are first person accounts, photos and video of current events and past. An astute reader does not concentrate their study on contemporary sources, and this is the value of books, written decades or centuries in the past.

That's the inaccurate understatement of the century. The editorial nature of the media is weaved into the delivery so the listener/viewer does not recognize it instead believing it as factual.

Not all listener/viewers, but I agree, after review of the comments made on this message board, many only echo's of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, it's clear that the education of American's has for the most part been a failure.

How else to explain the election of Trump?
 
Of course the watcher, listener, reader must use his or her judgment, but much of the MSM is not editorial in nature, primary sources are the meat they provide, such sources are first person accounts, photos and video of current events and past. An astute reader does not concentrate their study on contemporary sources, and this is the value of books, written decades or centuries in the past.

That's the inaccurate understatement of the century. The editorial nature of the media is weaved into the delivery so the listener/viewer does not recognize it instead believing it as factual.

Not all listener/viewers, but I agree, after review of the comments made on this message board, many only echo's of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, it's clear that the education of American's has for the most part been a failure.

How else to explain the election of Trump?
Trump is easy to explain in two words. Hillary Clinton.
 
Of course the watcher, listener, reader must use his or her judgment, but much of the MSM is not editorial in nature, primary sources are the meat they provide, such sources are first person accounts, photos and video of current events and past. An astute reader does not concentrate their study on contemporary sources, and this is the value of books, written decades or centuries in the past.

That's the inaccurate understatement of the century. The editorial nature of the media is weaved into the delivery so the listener/viewer does not recognize it instead believing it as factual.

Not all listener/viewers, but I agree, after review of the comments made on this message board, many only echo's of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, it's clear that the education of American's has for the most part been a failure.

How else to explain the election of Trump?
Trump is easy to explain in two words. Hillary Clinton.

We agree Simon, but not by your claim. Trump is easy to explain:

Demagogue, Charlatan garner votes by hate and fear rhetoric

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote cast for fascism

It is really that simple, you've elected a 21st Century Plutocrat who has already walked back on his promises, appointed cronies & the power elite, lied about the reason for not releasing his tax records and will fail to divest his business interests and place them in a blind trust. You and others were the fools Mr. B. Franklin worried about when he commented on the Constitutional Convention's Model for our government, "You have a Republic, if you can keep it".

Keep gloating Simon, for you know not what you and other simple simons' have created.
 
Of course the watcher, listener, reader must use his or her judgment, but much of the MSM is not editorial in nature, primary sources are the meat they provide, such sources are first person accounts, photos and video of current events and past. An astute reader does not concentrate their study on contemporary sources, and this is the value of books, written decades or centuries in the past.
You're full of shit and completely deranged. The problem with you lefties is you fabricate reality in your minds and operate from that vantage point. The MSM is HIGHLY opinionated. It was obvious back in the Reagan years and has only gotten worse.

With better economic and employment numbers Bush was hammered every single day until people thought he was Satan. Romney was routinely vilified as a rich guy that didn't pay his taxes. Reid lied but boy did the leftists love it.

The email revelations this last election removed any possible doubt with their collusion with the Democrat party. You come here selling your filthy propaganda every day thinking it will fly. It doesn't but you keep expecting different results.
 
To think that we should trust any news source is insane.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and questioned.
 
How else to explain the election of Trump?
You.

That's not only a non sequitur and an idiot-gram, it is a testament to the dysfunction of your thought process. When flummoxed by a truth, or anything which disturbs what you believe to be, or might be true, your are struck dumb. What normal people do is offer a rebuttal when exposed to something thoughtful or thought provoking, you (sadly) go blank, and react with emotion.
 
To think that we should trust any news source is insane.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and questioned.

Finally, something that explains you! Of course you didn't quite elaborate that the grain of salt includes a lime and a shot of Tequila. Now I understand you.
 
Fake news is not the same as propaganda. We live in the tower of babble era of folks making up their own definitions to fit their intelligence and knowledge instead of increasing their intelligence and knowledge to learning actual definitions. If something is not understood it is just easier to make up something. Propaganda is often like a glass half empty glass half full debate. Fake news is news that can include no glass whatsoever. Fake news can be used as propaganda, but all propaganda is not fake news.
 
To think that we should trust any news source is insane.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and questioned.

Finally, something that explains you! Of course you didn't quite elaborate that the grain of salt includes a lime and a shot of Tequila. Now I understand you.

So tell us, what news source do you trust implicitly?
 
To think that we should trust any news source is insane.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and questioned.

Finally, something that explains you! Of course you didn't quite elaborate that the grain of salt includes a lime and a shot of Tequila. Now I understand you.

So tell us, what news source do you trust implicitly?

Implicitly? None, in fact (much to my surprise) your post is valid. At heart I'm a historian; I read TIME and The Economist, The SF Chronicle and on line the Christian Science Monitor. When intrigued by a subject/article or editorial I'll do some research, my TIME subscription allows me to read every magazine ever published by them, and many other sources on the Internet provide historical documents.

Your comment was thought provoking and thoughtful, something you ought to engage in more often, IMO.
 
How else to explain the election of Trump?
You.

That's not only a non sequitur and an idiot-gram, it is a testament to the dysfunction of your thought process. When flummoxed by a truth, or anything which disturbs what you believe to be, or might be true, your are struck dumb. What normal people do is offer a rebuttal when exposed to something thoughtful or thought provoking, you (sadly) go blank, and react with emotion.
You're a little monkey parading around in king's cloths. A buffoon projecting his weaknesses. Thought provoking? No, just humor.
 
To think that we should trust any news source is insane.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and questioned.

Finally, something that explains you! Of course you didn't quite elaborate that the grain of salt includes a lime and a shot of Tequila. Now I understand you.

So tell us, what news source do you trust implicitly?

Implicitly? None, in fact (much to my surprise) your post is valid. At heart I'm a historian; I read TIME and The Economist, The SF Chronicle and on line the Christian Science Monitor. When intrigued by a subject/article or editorial I'll do some research, my TIME subscription allows me to read every magazine ever published by them, and many other sources on the Internet provide historical documents.

Your comment was thought provoking and thoughtful, something you ought to engage in more often, IMO.

Wrong answer, only Fox news is fair and balanced. :dance:
 
To think that we should trust any news source is insane.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and questioned.

Finally, something that explains you! Of course you didn't quite elaborate that the grain of salt includes a lime and a shot of Tequila. Now I understand you.

So tell us, what news source do you trust implicitly?

Implicitly? None, in fact (much to my surprise) your post is valid. At heart I'm a historian; I read TIME and The Economist, The SF Chronicle and on line the Christian Science Monitor. When intrigued by a subject/article or editorial I'll do some research, my TIME subscription allows me to read every magazine ever published by them, and many other sources on the Internet provide historical documents.

Your comment was thought provoking and thoughtful, something you ought to engage in more often, IMO.
Time, the mag, has become what People used to be and People's simply a celebrity rag these days. Time's on the Newsweek slippery slope IMO.
 

Forum List

Back
Top