> Fact-checking will struggle to counter propaganda, then, because it will either focus on the wrong thing (facts instead of the bigger picture), or it will focus on the right thing and risk becoming propaganda itself.
In my opinion, this entire essay is the author struggling with their own cognitive dissonance that fact checking as it plays out in American media smells a lot like propaganda, but it surely can't be propaganda, because it's done by the good guys and for good intentions. But the American propaganda arm is very old and well established.
There is no informational authority and there never was or can be.
its important to remember propaganda doesn't mean false. Aslong as its trying to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda its propaganda.
Although I've got to say, people believing completely nonsensical conspiracy theories and other nonsense are definitely on the rise in Europe. I noticed my son's school is giving attention to how to judge the credibility of news.
Which bit of the test of the world? I varies a lot.
The broad answer is badly.
One thing I find in the UK is that while most people say they distrust journalists and the media most people's worldview is clearly formed by the media they favour. This works both ways, of course.
Social media does allow some crazy conspiracy theorists, but they are a minority and most people use social media (at least outside personal stuff) to share both media stories and little snippets and quotes which back the same views and narrative they favour.
It is also very common for people to despise people who take a different view to despise those who believe the obviously false/propagandised/repugnant view of the other side. I think the "left" are worse (quotes, because IMO it is now more of a tribal badge than actually meaningful), but that may be because most people I know in IRL and connect to on social media are from a narrow group (affluent, Guardian reading type of left wing). I have known a broader range of people (in different countries too) but do not see that much of their attitudes at the moment and the biggest group (Sri Lankans) mostly comment on problems specific to their own country (and obviously I do not see them face to face as I do not live there now) so only social media, chats and phone calls).
I couldn't entirely tell if you were being sarcastic so I just figured I'd reply as though not. But, why can't the "truth" be propaganda? The presentation and presenter of a truth are just as significant for steering discourse and mass understanding of a given fact as the fact itself.
This introduces a complex view of truth and then just kind of gives up.
I agree that fact checkers can't do much against people putting too much emphasis on specific true facts and ignoring others to build a narrative.
But, they became a thing because people were just making shit up about things that did not happen. Quotes that were not said. Social media posts that totally misrepresented something.
We now have even better tools for faking images, audio and video.
So, they'll not singlehandedly save the world from itself, but they have a vital role.
Not only do they let you look up a bit of surprising news and find out whether it is false they'll generally give a bit of context.
It not perfect but it's useful, and the people doing it don't need to solve every problem.
Imagine trying to counter a narrative when basic reality can be manufactured at will.
The author is dismayed by the fact that a lot of the things Israel’s critics are saying are indisputably true and so can’t be ‘debunked’. Maybe we shouldn’t be so worried about ‘debunking’ true things people say and instead should stop Israel from doing the very deplorable things it has done for its entire existence.
Agree, it is crazy how Americans are falling for Israeli propaganda. I dont even mean evangelical crazies but also normal human beings who I talked to seem to still view Israel as a democratic state that has right to commit genocide. In Europe it is way less common to support Israeli crimes now, even my baby boomer colleagues are more pro Palestine than before.
This article is equally applicable to the 2016 and 2020 US elections. If the current wars are too hot to discuss, then pick something from years back. You both are going off topic with this. Please don't interpret this reply as a put-down.
To which propaganda? Hamas shoots rockets on civilian cities and murdered hundreds on 7/10 and keep hostages – this is true, and many of us know it for sure. I know it because my relatives live there, and one of them was on that damn rave party.
We saw these video when Gaza celebrated 7/10 murders – is it "Israeli propaganda"? Or maybe elimination of Israel in Hamas charter is?
Americans not "falling for propaganda", we just can differentiate between good and evil.
I’m sorry your relatives were affected by Hamas terrorism. I hope they all made/make it out unscathed.
I also saw plenty of people (on Reddit, etc.) celebrating the bombing of Gaza, including incidents where innocent civilians were killed, or were certainly going to get killed. (Because “they all support Hamas anyway.”) Nothing about a group of people in Gaza celebrating terror makes them monsters or even especially unique. Unfortunately, once an enemy is sufficiently dehumanized, we are all susceptible to this sort of behavior.
Attacking a nation state that attacked you first isn't committing genocide. Its also funny that you think the EU(the world champs at enslaving and colonizing the world) has some how evolved past the same shit they literally did in the 90's.
Genocide is defined by intention to remove population or preventing their breeding. It has nothing to with who attacked who first or whether something ia nation state or not.
EU as in European Union came to be long after colonization and have member states that were colonies of someone else.
Did France give up its colonies already? Minister of the Interior and Overseas Territories is a title in France. What about the Dutch? Those don't count, I'm guessing, because the colonies have been subdued and don't show up in the news feed.
So basically, EU did not actively enslaved or colonized anything. But, past colonies of some EU member states mean that there can not be genocide anywhere outside of Europe.
Are we going to go all the way back to the partition of the Ottoman Empire? I think i might agree with you we should give all the land back to Turkey aka NATO.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I never once said or implied anything about giving any land to anyone.
I'm actually of the opinion that both groups need to figure out how to live together peacefully instead of fighting each other. It seems quite unlikely that will ever happen. There's too much hate on both sides.
"It's not genocide, it's just mass-scale war crimes" is a soulless pedantic argument that that convinces no one, and ignores numerous statements of intent from Israeli ministers, politicians, and military leaders.
could you explain the Jaffa riots or the 1929 riots to me? Since I'm sooo uneducated. Or shit the Black Hand org... you know the one that called for jihad against immigrants.
The western liberal sentiment is irrelevant. They cared about the Uighurs, Kashmere, Hong Kong, and Ukraine for upvotes, shares, and likes. When those didn’t generate enough interest they moved on. Hamas is their new shiny bauble.
The Gaza strip will be completely leveled. A bunch of noise on the internet will not change that. There will be a new topic in less a years time. We shall see what it is.
> the most effective propagandists have insisted that propaganda should tell the truth. In his Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, French sociologist Jacques Ellul observed that propagandists on either side of World War II were as truthful as they could be.
Hamas and pallywood don't even bother. I guess their workbooks say something like "Just show some people that start crying when camera turns to them, or mention children, it will be enough for western useful idiots".
> observed that propagandists on either side of World War II were as truthful as they could be.
Lying all the time still fits the limits of "as they could be" if there are serious constraints on truth (as was the case in WWII)
> The manual for the American and British expeditionary forces warned that “when the listener catches you in a lie, your power diminishes.… For this reason, never tell a lie which can be discovered.”
There's a manual, then there's reality of people ignoring manuals
What's the point of going so shallow all the way to WWII when you can observe in real time how much outright and easily discoverable lying there is in the current batches of propaganda?
It's also worth noting that they're not going to publish a manual that says "the policy of our propaganda department is to lie as often as we think we can get away with". If that leaks, it undermines trust in an obvious way.
In my opinion, this entire essay is the author struggling with their own cognitive dissonance that fact checking as it plays out in American media smells a lot like propaganda, but it surely can't be propaganda, because it's done by the good guys and for good intentions. But the American propaganda arm is very old and well established.
There is no informational authority and there never was or can be.