Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#41

Post by dlcarrier »

brickfaced wrote: post #22

Strikes me as odd how one flavor of commenters who've long called for the "end of the American Empire," reductions in our "overseas military imperialism," and closure of the VoA "propaganda outlet" now stand by the institutions of said Empire to the death.

Either party will argue against what the other is doing, while they do it, but it's what happens as the parties swap leadership that makes it clear what the party actually dislikes.

They don't discontinue everything the other party implemented, even when it's easy to do so, and that's the true indicator that the party is okay with something, regardless of the partisan complaints made when it was initially implemented.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#42

Post by throw0101d »

grandempire wrote: post #8
hermitcrab wrote: post #2

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

> What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good?

A report from the American Enterprise Institute:

> To improve the US government’s response to the exploitation of youth by terrorist groups, the report recommends (1) adopting clear criteria to be used in weighing young peoples’ vulnerability to radicalization and recruitment and in creating and targeting terrorism prevention programs, (2) fostering both attitudinal and behavioral change to build youth resilience to recruitment, (3) moving beyond a traditional focus on young men to confront the radicalization and recruitment of girls and young women, and (4) engaging the family as a potential site of radicalization and recruitment.

* https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa...

For example:

> Cuts to health and food programs that wind up costing lives will embitter affected populations and be exploited in propaganda by anti-American groups. This will have at least a moderate effect in boosting recruitment by terrorist organizations.

* https://www.newsweek.com/islamic-state-will-capitalize-after...

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#43

Post by mike_d »

brickfaced wrote: post #22

Strikes me as odd how one flavor of commenters who've long called for the "end of the American Empire," reductions in our "overseas military imperialism," and closure of the VoA "propaganda outlet" now stand by the institutions of said Empire to the death.

I don't hold that view point, but if even the critics can see this as something evil, that should tell you something.

You can not like your neighbors partying and playing music until 3 AM, but also have the moral compass to know that setting fire to their house is not the solution.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#44

Post by tigerlily »

snovv_crash wrote: post #25
lkrubner wrote: post #7

Here in the USA we currently have a regime that is focused on destroying all forms of American power: they are destroying our economic power, they are destroying our cultural power, they are destroying our military power. They are destroying the idea called "America." They have gone to war against each of our traditions and values. Some critics ascribe this to rational motives, such critics claim that the goal here i…

Don't attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#45

Post by XorNot »

Aloisius wrote: post #28
grandempire wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.

Because getting what you want through persuasion is cheaper and less bloody than through coercion.

Also the world is not a zero sum game and cooperation generally produces much greater rewards then hostile competition.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#46

Post by krapp »

hoseyor wrote: post #34
hermitcrab wrote: post #2

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

What I find the most interesting is that to me at least it seems like there has been some strange inversion over the course of my adult life, where the same people that used to lament things like the COA VOA propaganda, warfare, instigating and stoking and orchestrating coups, subverting democratic elections, etc. are exactly the ones doing and supporting all those things they used to decry. I get the sense that I’ve…

You're confusing "liberal" with "leftist," I suspect intentionally. Liberals supported the Iraq war.

And the conservatives don't want to stop wars, they're literally the pro-war, pro military industrial complex party, and nothing they're doing is actually limiting profligate spending or corruption.

Nice bit of propaganda and misidrection though. I can tell you worked hard on it.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#47

Post by seydor »

It's difficult to understand the american strategy here , and even whether there is one. A state must have a strategy, it cannot be ran like a corporate, or else someone else with a strategy will become more successful.

Imagine if the roman empire went "on holiday" sometime around 100AD and just declared "Rome first!" but withdrew from the known world and let the chips fall where they may. "America first" is not some revelatory slogan, america was already first, but if it wants to be alone , that's their prerogative. But then the rest of the world is not ready to deglobalize nor does it want to. The great powers of the 19th century are no longer, so by necessity the world will have to remain globalized with an increasingly closed off america. This would be a loss for the USA - why would a scientist go to work in america if her work might eventually be subject to restrictions of collaboration.

On the other hand, the US launched an attack against the Houthi terrorists, which is a clear sign that the US is interested to maintain the world's essential trade and oil routes. So maybe america is not alone yet.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#49

Post by ckemere »

hoseyor wrote: post #34
hermitcrab wrote: post #2

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

What I find the most interesting is that to me at least it seems like there has been some strange inversion over the course of my adult life, where the same people that used to lament things like the COA VOA propaganda, warfare, instigating and stoking and orchestrating coups, subverting democratic elections, etc. are exactly the ones doing and supporting all those things they used to decry. I get the sense that I’ve…

I don’t think this in quite fair. Since the time of Reagan, I think that liberals have consistently upheld the possibility of non-military government service being of value in contrast to the Reagan-ite generalization that only military service was generally honorable.

(E.g., VOA, diplomatic service, DOJ)

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#50

Post by mantas »

leptons wrote: post #14
grandempire wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

America provides copious amounts of aid all over the world. That's soft power. It's not "propaganda", it actually helps people survive.

A lot of those money went to pushing US cultural wars themes worldwide. And many parts of the world don’t exactly share modern US (or democrats party voters) values. Then US soft power is closer to waging cultural war.

Not exactly USAID, but similar topic. In my country US ambassador openly pushed for law that more than half of population is against for cultural reasons. That feels more like attempt of soft colonialism than soft power tbh.

Another example I recently noticed. When looking for kids cartoons online, I realized I try to stay away from recent US content. Why? Too much of a chance of blatant cultural propaganda. Meanwhile asian, even Chinese, stuff feels fine in the back of my mind. I guess PLC is pushing its own propaganda too, but I don’t even notice among the dragons and all that jazz.

IMO US soft power went south a good decade ago.

Post reply on HN