John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China • Hacker News Board

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#71

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

ggggtez wrote: post #67

EpicEng wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda just like you can’t call news you don’t like fake. I don't think that's a great analogy. Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is: >information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political ca…

Once again, it seems like people who read dictionaries missed the boat. Propaganda has a specific legal definition which maybe is more relevant than what you found in Webster.

>Once again, it seems like people who read dictionaries missed the boat.

Yes, those darn dictionary readers...

From Black's Law Dictionary[1]:

>A message that is aimed at a specific audience that will try to change their thinking to that of the person releasing such propoganda. It will often contain disinformation to promote a certain view point in politics.

Not sure why they chose to use the word they're defining in the definition, but how precisely is that significantly different? We can debate the level of disinformation in any specific context, but this sounds about the same to me.

[1] https://thelawdictionary.org/propaganda/

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#72

Post by skinnymuch » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #65

ctrl-j wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If any biased claim can be called propaganda - then it seems the word loses it's meaning. Perhaps the word propaganda is losing it's weight over time? Do we need a specific word for state sanctioned biased media? Or perhaps one specifically for attacks on p…

>I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If you define "all media" as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, then sure. Of course it's a spectrum as well. For example I'd consider PBS a _far_ less biased source than e.g. Fox News, but I'm sure they have their moments as well. I'm not sure writing everything o…

PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#73

Post by mc32 » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #65

ctrl-j wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If any biased claim can be called propaganda - then it seems the word loses it's meaning. Perhaps the word propaganda is losing it's weight over time? Do we need a specific word for state sanctioned biased media? Or perhaps one specifically for attacks on p…

>I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If you define "all media" as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, then sure. Of course it's a spectrum as well. For example I'd consider PBS a _far_ less biased source than e.g. Fox News, but I'm sure they have their moments as well. I'm not sure writing everything o…

NPR’s bias/neutrality depends a lot on the reporter in question. Some truly attempt to be neutral, others have bias (within the same program/show). So knowing the personalities help suss things out a lot. David Green is pretty neutral, Innskeep not as much, for example.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#74

Post by nnash » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

ggggtez wrote: post #59

nnash wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda Didn't China do exactly this?

Obviously the point is that the difference between the West and China, is that here we believe that censorship by the government should be illegal. Obviously if you want to live in China, go right the heck ahead.

>Obviously the point is that the difference between the West and China...

Thanks for explaining my comment to the rest of the class.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#75

Post by 394549 » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:22 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #47

amerine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I squint and ignore the fact that personalities like Oliver have been doing their ideological-driven (rightly so IMO) comedy perspective bits for years I can see how how you could naively call that “propaganda”. However, the logical side of me can’t fathom how the reported events are anything remotely “propaganda”. They are legitimate things that free-press nations can discuss how they like, including laughing at…

>You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda just like you can’t call news you don’t like fake. I don't think that's a great analogy. Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is: >information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political ca…

> Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is:

>> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary. Things get into propaganda territory when there's an element of deliberate dishonesty or misdirection or when it occurs in the context of coercive censorship of other viewpoints.

Oliver's segment was not misleading and it was not dishonest, therefore it was not propaganda. In fact, it is an example of the kind of free exchange of ideas that's required for an open society to operate. Examined on certain axes, it's actually the opposite of propaganda.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#76

Post by pvg » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:22 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #63

pvg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a dude with a comedy show on HBO. How is it 'clearly another attempt of propaganda directed at these countries'? It's not like he's on VOA every week.

In a given year, Oliver's content reaches dramatically more than 10x the number of people that VOA does. He has a platform and he's pushing an ideological view. He isn't just a dude with a comedy show on HBO. That same argument was used to try to undercut critics of Jon Stewart, who similarly had a massive reach and was aggressively pushing a specific ideological view, using comedy to do so. It doesn't matter if you'…

Oliver's content reaches dramatically more than 10x the number of people that VOA does.

You think John Oliver reaches 'dramatically more than 10x' people than VOA? Take a look at:

https://www.insidevoa.com/a/a-record-for-voice-of-americas-g...

You're saying John Oliver is reaching a couple of billion people weekly. This strikes me as somewhat unlikely.

As to the other thing, having a viewpoint is not 'propaganda directed at other countries'. 'Propaganda' is not shorthand for 'a thing I disagree with'.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#77

Post by pwinnski » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:23 PM UTC

zeth___ wrote: post #38

EGreg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[[citation needed that it’s needed]]

Is material in China harder to pirate than material in Australia is easier to get legally.

I believe the comparison was between pirating from Australia vs pirating from China.

The answer is yes, it's more difficult.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#78

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:26 PM UTC

skinnymuch wrote: post #72

EpicEng wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If you define "all media" as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, then sure. Of course it's a spectrum as well. For example I'd consider PBS a _far_ less biased source than e.g. Fox News, but I'm sure they have their moments as well. I'm not sure writing everything o…

PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.

>PBS still isn’t 100% unbiased like what you said would have to be the case for not technically propaganda. Seems a bit extreme and ridiculous to define propaganda as that.

You realize that _I_ am not defining anything, right? I suggest you write Webster.

I think the problem is the pedantry of your typical engineer. No one is saying that all propaganda is equal, or that it is all inherently bad. Per a literal reading of the definition I find it hard to accept anything other than a laying out of factual data to not be propaganda, but it can be minor (e.g. PBS), major (e.g. Fox News), or somewhere in between. That's why I said above that I don't think this is a terribly useful discussion.

But if you don't agree with that then maybe we can come to common ground on the "especially of a... misleading nature." Some reporting, even if biased, is far more misleading than the rest. So if Oliver presents the facts (_all_ the relevant facts) and then shares his interpretation of those facts, not propaganda I suppose. However, if anything relevant is left out I don't know how you can call it balanced.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#79

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:27 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #70

ctrl-j wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... under that definition isn't all media propaganda? At that point does it just depend on whether or not you choose to use the term in a pejorative manner? If any biased claim can be called propaganda - then it seems the word loses it's meaning. Perhaps the word propaganda is losing it's weight over time? Do we need a specific word for state sanctioned biased media? Or perhaps one specifically for attacks on p…

The 20th century changed the meaning of the word to be more about manipulation, where as the original definition was neutral. [1] The manipulation suggested deceitfulness on the part of the party creating and distributing it. So it's one of these things where OP can use a politically charged word, and then claim it was used in the neutral voice. Personally, rather than have an argument about what amounts to "propagan…

Sure that's fair. He's been guilty of this part though:

>...often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.

And honestly, what major news outlet today _isn't_? Is that not a huge problem with "mainstream media" (I hate that term) currently? So... still not sure he or others can escape that label.

Re: John Oliver is erased from Chinese internet following segment on China

#80

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

394549 wrote: post #75

EpicEng wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can’t call things that rustle your jimmies propaganda just like you can’t call news you don’t like fake. I don't think that's a great analogy. Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is: >information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political ca…

> Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is: >> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. I think the key word there is misleading . Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaga…

>I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary.

It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously (specifically thinking about some comments he made on the wage gap, but I'd have to hunt for others.)