Mind Trapped by: The age of Propaganda

[MindTrap028]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda

Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. The propagandist has a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these he deliberately selects facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and presents them in ways he thinks will have the most effect. To maximize effect, he may omit pertinent facts or distort them, and he may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people whom he is trying to sway) from everything but his own propaganda.

Today the case in point is the latest attempt to impeach trump. There are several aspects of it that make this narrative fit the idea of "propaganda".
First, it is launched on rumor. In that the originating complaint was hear say and not first hand knowledge(AKA gossip), and even after the original conversation was released, media preferred to talk about the gossip, over the actual transcript.

Secondly, the media is isolating this story over the other facts it brings to light. Specifically how it effects their candidates. This is why a typical response is the kind of "if you think what trump did was bad, what do you think about Biden?". It isn't an argument to defend trump so much as a powerful argument that the propaganda is being focused on a specific party.

Thirdly the entire conversation is being "fast tracked". Before any "facts" were known the decision is made that we must impeach Trump. Based only on a rumor the democratic party and the media has called for the Presidents impeachment. Now all that is left is to twist the facts as they come out to fit the chosen narrative.

We are facing a major problem in our country with an out of control propaganda machine. I think we as a nation are going to have to have a conversation of how to address this issue. In the past we have basically said that the right to free speech was worth the risk and effects of propaganda. I think it is now time to see if there is a way to counter act this trend, without destroying free speech.


Brain storming
Perhaps we can legislate for a kind of disclaimer. Having to tell people we have left the news portion of the program to now bring you individual musing,speculation and gossip. That may require us to define what "news" is.

Perhaps we can legislate fines to be imposed if certain conditions are met and proven in a court of law. Such as if it is said on the news portion that I said XYZ, and I prove that I did not say that, then certain fines could be imposed. Or if proven false stories are pushed and there can be some recovery of the financial gains received by spreading it by those it effected.

[mican333]

Today the case in point is the latest attempt to impeach trump. There are several aspects of it that make this narrative fit the idea of "propaganda".
First, it is launched on rumor. In that the originating complaint was hear say and not first hand knowledge(AKA gossip), and even after the original conversation was released, media preferred to talk about the gossip, over the actual transcript.

Just being second-hand information does not mean it fits the definition of propaganda.

Nor does being second-hand information means that it fits the definition of "gossip". We've had this semantic debate before.

Secondly, the media is isolating this story over the other facts it brings to light. Specifically how it effects their candidates. This is why a typical response is the kind of "if you think what trump did was bad, what do you think about Biden?". It isn't an argument to defend trump so much as a powerful argument that the propaganda is being focused on a specific party.

That's only a legitimate argument if Biden actually did something that is worthy of the kind of scrutiny that is being applied to Trump.

If the media is suppose to report on stories based on their significance and importance and not based on political preference, the only reason to report on Biden's involvement in the story with the same scrutiny of Trump is if the Biden story is as significant as Trump's and as far as I can tell, it's not. When one side has a real/significant scandal and the other side has a fake/minor scandal and the reporting is objective, then one scandal should get more attention. To treat them as equal would be Pro-Trump propaganda.

Thirdly the entire conversation is being "fast tracked". Before any "facts" were known the decision is made that we must impeach Trump. Based only on a rumor the democratic party and the media has called for the Presidents impeachment. Now all that is left is to twist the facts as they come out to fit the chosen narrative.

We are facing a major problem in our country with an out of control propaganda machine.

Begging the question. I disagree that what is going on with the media qualifies as significant "propaganda".

Brain storming
Perhaps we can legislate for a kind of disclaimer. Having to tell people we have left the news portion of the program to now bring you individual musing,speculation and gossip. That may require us to define what "news" is.

I think this is being done already. As in on cable news networks, there are specific shows that are more opinion than news, they are identified as such. I'm thinking shows from Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Laura Ingram, Lawrence McDonald, etc.

Perhaps we can legislate fines to be imposed if certain conditions are met and proven in a court of law. Such as if it is said on the news portion that I said XYZ, and I prove that I did not say that, then certain fines could be imposed. Or if proven false stories are pushed and there can be some recovery of the financial gains received by spreading it by those it effected.

But I should say that even if I were to accept your above arguments, you did not point out any falsities in the reporting of the Trump scandal. Even if the media should focus more on Biden, that does not mean that what they reported on Trump was false and therefore would be subject to penalty under this proposal.

And I would think any legitimate news source would correct itself if it reports something in error. I occasionally hear NPR correct itself on some error it has made earlier.

And if a false report does damage to someone, that person can sue and penalties can be enacted that way.

[MindTrap028]

Just being second-hand information does not mean it fits the definition of propaganda.

That isn't my argument.
My argument is that the level which the media and the dems have covered it and are reacting to it and are treating it, is propoganda.
So this opening point is about proportion. You have mistaken it for being about second hand knowledge= propoganda.
That is an incorrect read.

Nor does being second-hand information means that it fits the definition of "gossip". We've had this semantic debate before.

Yes we have.
But don't confuse those those debates for this one. Here, I am basing my argument on "hear say". I only note that it is also known as gossip.
so if your going to be blinded to an obvious point by a past discussion... this is not going to start off well.

Both those being said, maybe you would like to re-address the point?

That's only a legitimate argument if Biden actually did something that is worthy of the kind of scrutiny that is being applied to Trump.

That is not a rebuttal.
Unless you want to beg the question.

If the media is suppose to report on stories based on their significance and importance and not based on political preference, the only reason to report on Biden's involvement in the story with the same scrutiny of Trump is if the Biden story is as significant as Trump's and as far as I can tell, it's not. When one side has a real/significant scandal and the other side has a fake/minor scandal and the reporting is objective, then one scandal should get more attention. To treat them as equal would be Pro-Trump propaganda.

Also not a rebuttal, but what appears to be begging the question.

Begging the question. I disagree that what is going on with the media qualifies as significant "propaganda".

don't be silly.
It isn't question begging if I have already made the case.
As you haven't rebutted the actual argument, or apparently understood it even, you are not qualified to call this point questoin begging.

I think this is being done already. As in on cable news networks, there are specific shows that are more opinion than news, they are identified as such. I'm thinking shows from Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Laura Ingram, Lawrence McDonald, etc.

I agree that it is being done to some extent.

But I should say that even if I were to accept your above arguments, you did not point out any falsities in the reporting of the Trump scandal. Even if the media should focus more on Biden, that does not mean that what they reported on Trump was false and therefore would be subject to penalty under this proposal.

Go back and read about what makes something propaganda.

And I would think any legitimate news source would correct itself if it reports something in error. I occasionally hear NPR correct itself on some error it has made earlier.

O.k.

And if a false report does damage to someone, that person can sue and penalties can be enacted that way.

What way? Through a retraction? How is that a penalty?

[mican333]

That isn't my argument.
My argument is that the level which the media and the dems have covered it and are reacting to it and are treating it, is propoganda.
So this opening point is about proportion. You have mistaken it for being about second hand knowledge= propoganda.
That is an incorrect read.

I don't see anything about proportion in your first point. It says:

"Today the case in point is the latest attempt to impeach trump. There are several aspects of it that make this narrative fit the idea of "propaganda".
First, it is launched on rumor. In that the originating complaint was hear say and not first hand knowledge(AKA gossip), and even after the original conversation was released, media preferred to talk about the gossip, over the actual transcript."

Looks like it's about the "gossip" to me so I had to assume that second-hand information was the point. But if you want to say that it being that is irrelevant, then okay. So it being second-hand information doesn't matter.

As far as proportion goes, I'm not sure what you mean. I assume you mean the time spent on Trump's scandal (allegedly shaking down Ukraine to seek dirt on a political opponent) versus Biden (allegedly interfering with a foreign government to help his son). And going by any reasonable standard, how much time and attention the media should spend on either story is dependent on how big the scandal is if the allegations are true and how likely it is that the allegations are true. And from what I can tell, the Trump scandal dwarfs the Biden Scandal in all ways (as in there is no evidence the Biden did anything illegal at all - it was already investigated and they found no wrongdoing).

So given that, an unbiased media would be expected to cover Trump much more than Biden in regards to this and therefore one cannot use the disproportionate amount of coverage on the differing scandals as evidence of media preference and therefore propaganda from the media.

If neither of the issues I just addressed was the basis of your claim of media propaganda, then your argument is not clear at all.

Now, as far as the Democratic party goes, OF COURSE they engage in propaganda. And so do the Republicans. It's not exactly a scandal to note that political parties continuously put out propaganda favorable to their side. They would be doing a poor job if they didn't.

don't be silly.
It isn't question begging if I have already made the case.
As you haven't rebutted the actual argument, or apparently understood it even, you are not qualified to call this point questoin begging.

Then I would say that you need to make your actual argument a bit clearer then.

Go back and read about what makes something propaganda.

Okay. Done. But what's your point.

What way? Through a retraction? How is that a penalty?

If the media owns up to honest mistakes when they make them, there's no need to penalize them for those mistakes. I think admitting to their mistakes is "punishment" enough and likewise demonstrates that they can be trusted to be honest in general.

[mican333]

While I don't retract the content of my previous post, I will start fresh and address the OP. So feel free to address material from my prior post or ignore it.

First, it is launched on rumor. In that the originating complaint was hear say and not first hand knowledge(AKA gossip), and even after the original conversation was released, media preferred to talk about the gossip, over the actual transcript.

As I understand it, the initial whistleblower's complaint was based on what the whistleblower heard from employees and therefore his/her report was based on second-hand information. I don't consider that "gossip" as I don't agree that any and all second-hand information qualifies as "gossip" but either way, I don't see how this "first point" supports that the media is engaging in propaganda. The initial media report was completely factual - as in it's a fact that there was a whistleblower complaint.

Secondly, the media is isolating this story over the other facts it brings to light. Specifically how it effects their candidates. This is why a typical response is the kind of "if you think what trump did was bad, what do you think about Biden?". It isn't an argument to defend trump so much as a powerful argument that the propaganda is being focused on a specific party.

This is pretty vague and I was assuming that you mean that they were unfairly focusing on the "Trump" side of the issue and unfairly ignoring what Biden allegedly did in Ukraine. This assumes that if we were to eliminate political bias, both stories deserve equal attention. If I have that right, I would say that it's not been shown that the "two sides" are equally deserving of attention. I'm pretty sure that the Trump side is much more worthy of attention but either way, the burden is yours if you are arguing that the Biden side is being unfairly ignored in favor of the Trump side (as in it's equally news-worthy based on the situation itself).

And of course if you aren't referring to the Biden side of the story, then I don't know what your point is and you need to state it more clearly to have a coherent point.

Thirdly the entire conversation is being "fast tracked". Before any "facts" were known the decision is made that we must impeach Trump. Based only on a rumor the democratic party and the media has called for the Presidents impeachment. Now all that is left is to twist the facts as they come out to fit the chosen narrative.

The media is not calling for Trump impeachment (I have yet to see a major non-partisan news source recommend impeachment anyway). And as far as I know, the Democrats did have enough information to warrant an impeachment inquiry (like the actual transcripts of the call) before they decided to move forward with the inquiry. So the decision was definitely not based only on a rumor.

The accusation that they will, or have, twisted the facts is utterly unsupported at this point and the charge that they will do that will be ignored until support for it is given.

We are facing a major problem in our country with an out of control propaganda machine.

So far this conclusion is not supported, at least by what's been presented so far.

As far as the rest of the post goes, I'll go with the previous content I provided.

[eye4magic]

Brain storming
Perhaps we can legislate for a kind of disclaimer. Having to tell people we have left the news portion of the program to now bring you individual musing,speculation and gossip. That may require us to define what "news" is.

Perhaps we can legislate fines to be imposed if certain conditions are met and proven in a court of law. Such as if it is said on the news portion that I said XYZ, and I prove that I did not say that, then certain fines could be imposed. Or if proven false stories are pushed and there can be some recovery of the financial gains received by spreading it by those it effected.

Perhaps colleges and schools that offer communications, journalism and broadcasting careers could offer anger and/or hate management training.

[Sigfried]

There is a lot of propaganda in the wold today. It tends to spread in concert with the ability of people to communicate wtih one another. Each advance in mass media has come with an advance in the ammount of propaganda you are exposed to. What remains constant is peoples desire to persuade one another and some people lack of ethical concern about how true or complete the information they use to do it.


But frankly, you have been reeled in by propaganda telling you that the mainstream press are a pack of liars and are in the pocket of political forces. That message is carried to you by propaganda actual outlets. It is true that the media caters to certain demographics and often tells them the kinds of stories it thinks they want to hear, but it is done by pull, not push.

People need to develop media literacy skills. You have to actually read the articles and think about what they say. You need to sometimes dig into the sources or to look at different reporting outlets.

You will find that what most of the mainstream news media does is decent basic reporting. They tell you what happened, who said what, when, and give you some ammount of context. They don't largely tell you if what those people said was acccurate or inacurate. That ccomes from investigative reporting which is not the bulk of what you see reported as news.

All that is entirely seperate from opinion and editorial. That is more or less a free for all of differing opinions and is presented exactly as that. People who have ideas and want to share them. It is not journalism except that the media showcases certain peoples views over others. There are ethics for this process as well, but it is not meant to be a portrial of truth or the view of the organization itself.

Let's check your own bit of propaganda here....

"First, it is launched on rumor. "

This is blatantly false. It is based on a whistleblower who had spoken with collegeues with direct first hand knowledge of what was happening. That is not a rumor. That is called reporting what you have learned from reliable sources. The complaint is very specific about the nature of its sources, their reliability, and when an account was first hand or second hand.

"Secondly, the media is isolating this story over the other facts it brings to light. "

I have had no difficulty learning all about the accusations against Biden, about what Trump believes, or about what Julliani Believes. All have been well documented and reported on if you take just a little time to read.

"Thirdly the entire conversation is being "fast tracked"."

There are two basic kinds of news stories: Reporting, and Investigative. Reporting does not involve fact checking of the claims being reported. You say who said what and you leave it at that. If you do have information that directly contradicts a claim, you may well share it. But you aren't going to try to veryfy what other people claim before you report it. Investigative journalism takes much longer but digs deeply and does research into the claims to find out how much you can verify or disprove. The moder fact checkers, are kind of a light weight version of this dealing with one fact at a time rather than complete stories and they don't usually do a lot of original research beyond internet records.

If there is a whistleblower complaint alledging the abuse of power by the President then you report that it exists, and you report what people in power say about it. You don't just sit on your hands until you personally know if what was in the report is accurate or not. Nor do you say if you think it is accurate or not. You talk about the fact it is there, what it claims, and what other people say in reaction to it. What facts you can find, you report but you don't speculate, opine, or automatically deny just because you don't know.

"We are facing a major problem in our country with an out of control propaganda machine."

Partly true, but you are one of its victims rather than someone fighting against it. You have swallowed a story about what the media should do that is entirely wrong. You have accepted a propaganda narrative crafted by the political proponents of Trump to cast normal reporting practices as abrigations of noral journalistic practice. They have re-framed journalism based on an ignorant world view and you accepted it as truth rather than investigating if that framing is real or not.

Do yourself a favor and read up about how reporting is supposed to be done and why.

Give me a mainstream media news artile that you think is indicitive of propaganda and tell me why. I'll take a look and see if I agree and why or why not.

[Ibelsd]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda


Today the case in point is the latest attempt to impeach trump. There are several aspects of it that make this narrative fit the idea of "propaganda".
First, it is launched on rumor. In that the originating complaint was hear say and not first hand knowledge(AKA gossip), and even after the original conversation was released, media preferred to talk about the gossip, over the actual transcript.

Secondly, the media is isolating this story over the other facts it brings to light. Specifically how it effects their candidates. This is why a typical response is the kind of "if you think what trump did was bad, what do you think about Biden?". It isn't an argument to defend trump so much as a powerful argument that the propaganda is being focused on a specific party.

Thirdly the entire conversation is being "fast tracked". Before any "facts" were known the decision is made that we must impeach Trump. Based only on a rumor the democratic party and the media has called for the Presidents impeachment. Now all that is left is to twist the facts as they come out to fit the chosen narrative.

We are facing a major problem in our country with an out of control propaganda machine. I think we as a nation are going to have to have a conversation of how to address this issue. In the past we have basically said that the right to free speech was worth the risk and effects of propaganda. I think it is now time to see if there is a way to counter act this trend, without destroying free speech.


Brain storming
Perhaps we can legislate for a kind of disclaimer. Having to tell people we have left the news portion of the program to now bring you individual musing,speculation and gossip. That may require us to define what "news" is.

Perhaps we can legislate fines to be imposed if certain conditions are met and proven in a court of law. Such as if it is said on the news portion that I said XYZ, and I prove that I did not say that, then certain fines could be imposed. Or if proven false stories are pushed and there can be some recovery of the financial gains received by spreading it by those it effected.

Isn't it possible that this is more nuanced than either complete B.S. or absolute gospel? The 'whistleblower' may be both biased and truthful. Trump may be both lying and not guilty of an impeachable offense. The media presents news which may be truthful, biased, and misleading. All of the major media outlets have taken ideological sides. And, if one is speaking ideologically, there will be some mix and lie and truth. I did a statistical data mining project many years ago. Politicians tended to be truthful about half the time. Established news sources tended to be truthful slightly more. Lobbying groups were almost completely dishonest all the time. That was over a decade ago. I'd be willing to bet that the honesty of all three groups has gone down. In part, politics is much more ideological than it was prior to Obama. Probably towards the end of the Bush admin it got really bad. And it has just continued to get worse. What separates the major media outlets from a lobbyist? In the past, it was a sense of appealing to reputation. Now? I don't think that's the major concern. Now, the major concern is appealing to a group of consumers based on their ideological position. The stronger you can get those people to attach to their ideology, the stronger they will be attached to the product. You can popup MSNBC, FOX, or CNN and be surprised how on a single day, the selected news stories are just completely different. Something newsworthy on one outlet isn't even mentioned on the others in many cases. And, it almost always breaks down by how that story is viewed by the source's ideology and consumer base. Great economic news. You can bet that Fox will blast it and the other outlets will ignore it. A stupid Tweet from Trump, and amazingly, the opposite is true. What's propaganda?

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

So, if we are going by this definition, then the OP is absolutely correct. All of our media, print, online, and cable are dominated by the point of view of the outlet. Does Maddow typically cover corrupt Democrats? Only if they are too moderate and don't meet her criteria of a good progressive. Does Sean Hannity cover corrupt Republicans? Typically, no. He defends Trump without fail. Maddow attacks Trump without fail. That is propaganda. And the political parties use this. Whether it is pushing or pulling as Sig suggested, I don't know. I think it probably goes in both directions. The media hires political hacks to be their anchors. Cuomo has his own show as one example. Do we expect his show to be anything other than a propaganda machine for progressive Dems? Is this the fault of the consumer? It cannot be explained all with ratings (i.e. something consumer driven). CNN has terrible ratings and continues to veer towards progressive propaganda. You don't think that they could put a Rush Limbaugh on and find themselves much more profitable? I know. Another propaganda voice. My point is that these media sources don't seem entirely driven by consumer which contradicts Sig's argument. And if it isn't entirely driven by the consumer, then it must be something else, right? Obviously, trying to sort that out would be entirely speculative. The end result though is fairly clear. These media outlets are pretty well driven by a leadership which wants to maintain an ideological viewpoint, hence, they are willingly engaged in or being used for propaganda. And if it isn't the consumer driving it, then blaming the consumer seems a bit like victim blaming.

To me, the best way to deal with all of this is transparency. Hosts and contributors on media should be forced to publish their contributions, member organizations, lobbying efforts, employment, etc. When a doctor speaks to an audience about a particular study, he is legally obligated to also tell the audience any conflicts of interests he may have (i.e. the company paid him for the study). This is a legal and ethical obligation. Why shouldn't people in the media have to do the same thing? When Hannity starts a topic, he should say, I am a member of the Republican party, donate to the following groups noted in the story, and have discussed this story with the following people... etc. And this should be done prior to every single new story. The audience should be absolutely clear how the person telling the story is invested in the outcome of the story. That'd be my solution. It is still propaganda, but at least it cannot be pawned off as objective news.

[MindTrap028]

If the media owns up to honest mistakes when they make them, there's no need to penalize them for those mistakes. I think admitting to their mistakes is "punishment" enough and likewise demonstrates that they can be trusted to be honest in general.

Only if the admission is equivilant in kind.
so front page 40pt font ultimatly mistake. Is not really "admitted to" by a page 40 small print (oops).

Actually, just spoke with someone who this sort of thing happened to. she owned Rental properties and one cought fire.
The paper printed a story front page, bold print...names named.(local paper) on a negligent landlord absent any facts (IE just hear say, but it was presented as gospel).
The retration was printed on the burried page.

Now the paper didn't "lie" about her, it just did a very poor job reporting, more of a drive by reporting, and it publically shamed her in an obvious way.
She certainly doesn't feel that the "appology" was a worthy "punishment" for the harm they did her.

It also doesn't follow that just because it is A punishment, that it is a sufficient punishment. (see above). and it certainly doesn't show that they can be "trusted" in general.
But.. then trust is whatever you want, so whatever.
You want to trust the twice conviced pedophile with watching your 10 year old girl. Because he admitted he was "wrong" in court after he was caught?..
That is certainly your perogative. Sorry if we can't agree that it is actually a sign of is honesty on the matter.

As I understand it, the initial whistleblower's complaint was based on what the whistleblower heard from employees and therefore his/her report was based on second-hand information. I don't consider that "gossip" as I don't agree that any and all second-hand information qualifies as "gossip" but either way, I don't see how this "first point" supports that the media is engaging in propaganda. The initial media report was completely factual - as in it's a fact that there was a whistleblower complaint.

I don't really care if you consider it gossip.
You are missing the point because you are hung up on a word you don't like being applied.

This is pretty vague and I was assuming that you mean that they were unfairly focusing on the "Trump" side of the issue and unfairly ignoring what Biden allegedly did in Ukraine. This assumes that if we were to eliminate political bias, both stories deserve equal attention. If I have that right, I would say that it's not been shown that the "two sides" are equally deserving of attention. I'm pretty sure that the Trump side is much more worthy of attention but either way, the burden is yours if you are arguing that the Biden side is being unfairly ignored in favor of the Trump side (as in it's equally news-worthy based on the situation itself).

And of course if you aren't referring to the Biden side of the story, then I don't know what your point is and you need to state it more clearly to have a coherent point.

No, this is not an equivilancy argument. This is an IGNORING RELEVANT STORIES argument.
So, lets say that Trump is guilty of some crime and thus will eventually be impeached.
That is big news in the process and would justify wall to wall coverage. Cool.
but then also assume that Biden was guilty of a crime, that would only justify a few months of general mention as he eventually gets fined.

Point is, that the media is evidently uninterested, even though such a story would still be worthy of coverage.

The idea that the biden angle is simply not news worhty at all, is simply too ridiculous to be taken seroiusly.

The media is not calling for Trump impeachment (I have yet to see a major non-partisan news source recommend impeachment anyway).

What is a "major non partisan news source"? Where is that one at?
And why should that be the standard? I'm addressing the media in general, and you are shifting the goal posts to fit an easier to defend position.
.. no sir, I won't have it.

[QUOTE=MICAN] And as far as I know, the Democrats did have enough information to warrant an impeachment inquiry (like the actual transcripts of the call) before they decided to move forward with the inquiry. [/QUOTE
What are you talking about, there is no impeachment inquiry.
Can you support that there is such a thing going on right now?

So the decision was definitely not based only on a rumor.

That is not a complete understanding of the OP.

The accusation that they will, or have, twisted the facts is utterly unsupported at this point and the charge that they will do that will be ignored until support for it is given.

Who is "they"?
For the part of the media (as they)
They have "twisted" the facts by using the phrasiology "pressured" when the person that was "pressured" said they were not "pressured".
Just because something is asked doesn't mean there is pressure being applied. Specifically in a case where that phrasiology assumes the case to be made. It is question begging and that is a form of "twisting" the facts by inserting assumptions as "facts".

As for the Dems, they are doing the same thing on the same instance.
Let me know if you need links to quotes or something.

Further they have both repeatedly referred to the "wistle blower report" over the actual transcript, and in at least one instance mis-represented the transcript to the point of appolgy.

As far as the rest of the post goes, I'll go with the previous content I provided.

Which I skipped per your first line... so which is it.
you want the cake or do you want to eat it?

------------------

But frankly, you have been reeled in by propaganda telling you that the mainstream press are a pack of liars and are in the pocket of political forces.

Or maybe you have been reeled into popoganda telling you that people who think the media are a pack of liars are being reeled into propoganda.

or.... or...
Maybe I develped media literacy skills, and can take not when quotes aren't used and yet it is referanced as facts. or when quotes are used, but no source is sighted and I can recognize that such things are not actually reporting of news in a "news worthy" fashion.
I mean I hate to say I got that from reading a book mark from the local library regarding rules on how to write a news story... but I kiiinda did.

People need to develop media literacy skills. You have to actually read the articles and think about what they say. You need to sometimes dig into the sources or to look at different reporting outlets.

Holy bat crap man.. that's what I did.

This is blatantly false. It is based on a whistleblower who had spoken with collegeues with direct first hand knowledge of what was happening. That is not a rumor.

Actually, it is not blaitantly false. Because it is not certain that he/she spoke with ANY collegues, in that they complained in the way spoken of.
For all we know it was only one person and not multiple. And for all we know they didn't have a problem with it at all.
That is very much the definition of rumor.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rumor

a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

That is called reporting what you have learned from reliable sources.

It is not known if the sources are reliable, and such a statement can't be supported without knowning the sources to begin with.

The complaint is very specific about the nature of its sources, their reliability, and when an account was first hand or second hand.

Ahh. so you have fallenfor the old "reliable sources have said" propaganda tactic.
So that if a stroy says that a source is reliable.. then it SHOULD be treated as reliable by the reader.. even though the reader doesn't know who the source is, or if they are actually reliable or if they are biased sources?

I have had no difficulty learning all about the accusations against Biden, about what Trump believes, or about what Julliani Believes. All have been well documented and reported on if you take just a little time to read.

You mean to tell me you had no idea that Biden had pressured a foreign country to stop investigating a company his son worked for, before giving them a billion dollars of U.S. money that then disappeared in the bank owned and run by the same owener of the comany his son worked for, until Trump and Jilian brought it up?
When did those event happen? 2014ish?.. biden brags about it in 2018.

Are you suggesting you had equal access to that knowledge as you would have if Trumps kid had done it?

There are two basic kinds of news stories: Reporting, and Investigative. Reporting does not involve fact checking of the claims being reported. You say who said what and you leave it at that. If you do have information that directly contradicts a claim, you may well share it. But you aren't going to try to veryfy what other people claim before you report it. Investigative journalism takes much longer but digs deeply and does research into the claims to find out how much you can verify or disprove. The moder fact checkers, are kind of a light weight version of this dealing with one fact at a time rather than complete stories and they don't usually do a lot of original research beyond internet records.

If there is a whistleblower complaint alledging the abuse of power by the President then you report that it exists, and you report what people in power say about it. You don't just sit on your hands until you personally know if what was in the report is accurate or not. Nor do you say if you think it is accurate or not. You talk about the fact it is there, what it claims, and what other people say in reaction to it. What facts you can find, you report but you don't speculate, opine, or automatically deny just because you don't know.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The politicans are "fast tracking" it. The news is doing its normal pace as far as I can tell.
In that it is showing dis-interest in stories that don't fit it's narrative and "reporting" (as opposed to investigating) stories that do.

I don't disagree with what your sayig here... it just doesn't address what the OP was referring to.

Partly true, but you are one of its victims rather than someone fighting against it. You have swallowed a story about what the media should do that is entirely wrong. You have accepted a propaganda narrative crafted by the political proponents of Trump to cast normal reporting practices as abrigations of noral journalistic practice. They have re-framed journalism based on an ignorant world view and you accepted it as truth rather than investigating if that framing is real or not.

Do yourself a favor and read up about how reporting is supposed to be done and why.

Give me a mainstream media news artile that you think is indicitive of propaganda and tell me why. I'll take a look and see if I agree and why or why not.

This doesn't make any sense. If my objection is that the media is a propoganda machine, and you respond yea but your the victim...
Then you can't turn around and then object to a discussion on the solutions.

Further, you are assuming more knowledge about me than you have access too.
For example, you are assuming I formed my opinion by listening to a mouth peace of the right, or some propganda machine against the Main stream media (which you haven't stated who).
In actuality, I first saw the story reported by CNN. (Which I don't know if you count as a main stream media outlet) and formed my opinion on their reporting.
I would write more.. but I have to go to bed now.
Consider this point of yours rejected for lack of any correct assumptions on your part.

I may take you up on the "lets look at a news story and see if we can spot the BS propaganda". That could be educational and useful to others on how to "educate themselves" as you pointed too earlier.

[Sigfried]

Or maybe you have been reeled into propaganda telling you that people who think the media are a pack of liars are being reeled into propaganda.

I came to that conclusion on my own. I know it is n opinion shared by others but I haven't actually read any articles complaining about such. I've only read the articles where people are complaining about the media. They complain about un-named sources, they complain about biased opinions, they complain about a lot of things. Most of those complaints are from a misunderstanding of journalistic practices.

Maybe I develped media literacy skills, and can take not when quotes aren't used and yet it is referanced as facts. or when quotes are used, but no source is sighted and I can recognize that such things are not actually reporting of news in a "news worthy" fashion.

All I can say is I haven't seen you displaying such skill often. That's why I invited you to show me a mainstream article showing what you think is poor journalism and I can judge if you can back up your claim or if you show a lot of misunderstanding for how Journalism is done.

Actually, it is not blaitantly false. Because it is not certain that he/she spoke with ANY collegues, in that they complained in the way spoken of.

See, right here you are already not understanding the way these things work. Let me quote from you from the whistleblowers report.

"Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."

He clearly states that people he knows to have direct knowledge informed him the President used the call to advance his personal interests. This complaint is a formal document attested to by the whistleblower. It is his direct testimony. He claims he received this information from people with first-hand knowledge.

This is a second-hand report of what the call contained. His report is from people with first-hand knowledge having heard the call or seen the transcript. That is in no way a rumor. It is a direct report traceable to the original event being described.

Furthermore....
The report writer is an intelligence official and such officials and their counterparts absolutely do have first-hand access to the president's phone calls and records.
The transcript of the phone call confirms the reported claim. Even if you have a different interpretation the interpretation that he is pursuing personal interests is entirely reasonable. It is not inaccurate in any objective sense.

Finally....
It is not the burden of a reporter to say if what the whistleblower says is true but to report what is claimed and how it is claimed. They can comment on the plausibility of the claim. And frankly, that plausibility is very high. And now, it is in fact confirmed.

Ahh. so you have fallenfor the old "reliable sources have said" propaganda tactic.
So that if a stroy says that a source is reliable.. then it SHOULD be treated as reliable by the reader.. even though the reader doesn't know who the source is, or if they are actually reliable or if they are biased sources?

Journalists use anonomous sources often. This has been part of journalism for a very long time. Of course, they would love if their sources would allow themselves to be identified. But many will only speak under conditions of anonymity for a host of reasons. This is not problematic unless the Journalists are either not checking the reliability of the source, or if they are making them up.

The reader should make up their own mind. They should neither automatically trust an anonomous source, nor should they automatically reject it. Factors to consider include. (How realistic is the claim? How well does the claim fit with other known information? How well do we trust the journalist in question?) If you knew media literacy, you would know the answer to this. But you seem to think the expectation is we should blindly trust such claims. You are wrong about that. Perhaps some people do, but they are not very media literate.

You mean to tell me you had no idea that Biden had pressured a foreign country to stop investigating a company his son worked for, before giving them a billion dollars of U.S. money that then disappeared in the bank owned and run by the same owener of the comany his son worked for, until Trump and Jilian brought it up?
When did those event happen? 2014ish?.. biden brags about it in 2018.

No, I told you, I am well read on the subject. I am aware of the claims about Biden his son both with respect to Ukraine, and Russia, and China. I know enough to clarify your statements and point out what is wrong.
1. Hunter biden started working for Burisima in April 2014
2. The prosecutor in question Shokin, was ousted in February 2016
3. Indeed biden did brag about ousting Shokin in 2018 but that is not the only time he commented on it

Where you are incorrect is that Biden pressured the government to stop investigating the company his son worked for. There is no evidence of that. He in fact was pressuring the Ukraine government to do more to prosecute corruption in the Ukraine. Shokin was famed for not going after people and failing to convict people of corruption charges. They repeatedly cited his office as an impediment to going after people like Zlochevsky (the man who owns Burisma) Shokins office actually helped Zochevsky get millions of dollars impounded by the Brittish as a part of money laundeing investigations. Have you not read about that part of the story yet?

There is plenty to be said about the opportunities afforded the son of a sitting president or vice president. It's the usual game of money for influence. But, there is ample evidence that Bidens intentions, and the intentions of much of the international community at the time were to fire Shokin for failing to prosecute cases, not to stop him from prosecuting Burisima. The overwhelming evidence supports this view. The only person who seems to disagree is Shokin, who by the way in his years in office did jack and squat to actually go after Burisima for the three years he had the opportunity to.

Are you suggesting you had equal access to that knowledge as you would have if Trumps kid had done it?

I'm sure I would have. I've had no trouble learning a great deal about Ukraine, its Politics, or the business dealings of Hunter Biden. I also have no problems finding out about corruption complaints surrounding Jarred Cushner, Trumps son in law. You can also find artticles about Bidne, Shorkin, and even Hunter Biden from the time frame in which these events were happening. I've read them, have you?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The politicans are "fast tracking" it. The news is doing its normal pace as far as I can tell.
In that it is showing dis-interest in stories that don't fit it's narrative and "reporting" (as opposed to investigating) stories that do.

You talk about the news media as if it is a perosn and it has interest or disinterst. There is no shortage of interest on this subject. I've been able to do an awful lot of reading in great detail on the subject.

I don't disagree with what your sayig here... it just doesn't address what the OP was referring to.

It does. You are claiming they are reporting claims without finding out if those claims are true. I am teaching you Journalism 101 that explains that you are supposed to report claims directly, not to determine if they are true or not unless it such veriification is easy to come by and well established.

This doesn't make any sense. If my objection is that the media is a propoganda machine, and you respond yea but your the victim...
Then you can't turn around and then object to a discussion on the solutions.

I think you are talking about the mainstream media organizations in our country. AKA: Fox, ABC, NPR, CBS, NYT, etc... and that they are propaganda

I am saying you are influenced not by those, but by editorialists, facebook posters, show hosts, and sites like Breitbart or others that are channels not for news but for opinion and propaganda designed to persuade and to influence people's actions.

Further, you are assuming more knowledge about me than you have access too.
For example, you are assuming I formed my opinion by listening to a mouth peace of the right, or some propganda machine against the Main stream media (which you haven't stated who).

So you don't watch/listen to/read any conservitive punditry or talk to people who are conservitive minded?
Perhaps you came up wtih these ideas yourself, but I've seen countless headlines from such sources making your claim, and they are pretty much always full of crap and short on evidence.

I may take you up on the "lets look at a news story and see if we can spot the BS propaganda". That could be educational and useful to others on how to "educate themselves" as you pointed too earlier.

Please do.

Keep in mind, I rarely if ever watch news on TV. I don't even own a TV these days I'm strictly a news reader with occasional bouts of listening on the radio.

[MindTrap028]

See, right here you are already not understanding the way these things work. Let me quote from you from the whistleblowers report.

Great.. lets evaluate that...

He clearly states that people he knows to have direct knowledge informed him the President used the call to advance his personal interests.

Now lets talk about how this works.
First, an unknown person has made a claim. Specifically that MULTIPLE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS.
Do we KNOW that to be true? No we do know that to be true?
No we do not. This is hear say evidence being presented as fact.

He clearly states that people he knows to have direct knowledge informed him the President used the call to advance his personal interests. This complaint is a formal document attested to by the whistleblower. It is his direct testimony. He claims he received this information from people with first-hand knowledge.

This is the definition of hear say.

This is a second-hand report of what the call contained. His report is from people with first-hand knowledge having heard the call or seen the transcript. That is in no way a rumor. It is a direct report traceable to the original event being described.

No it is not. Not in any way.
for example. The call is not QUOTED by the source. So it isn't about the phone call, but what people THINK about the phone call.

Lets give a contrasting example.
Suppose I told you that a good friend of mine in the white house says he heard trump say "I am going to nuke China in 10 days unless they buy my house for a billion dollars".

Now you have the kind of information you are claiming is occuring here.
Now compare that to me saying.
I heard a friend of mine in the white house say that trump colluded with china over the phone to rig the next election.

In the second instance, you don't know ANYTHING about the original phone call. In the first instance, you actually do.

Furthermore....
The report writer is an intelligence official and such officials and their counterparts absolutely do have first-hand access to the president's phone calls and records.
The transcript of the phone call confirms the reported claim. Even if you have a different interpretation the interpretation that he is pursuing personal interests is entirely reasonable. It is not inaccurate in any objective sense.

That depends on what you consider accurate. And considering you are already off track with what a calls means verses the FACTS of the call is going to be an issue.
No the transcripts do not confirm the reported claims...
If you are going to make that claim, then you need to support it.
First quote the complaint, then quote the transcript. You will quickly see the problem.

For example. From the report.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...complaint.html
[QUOTE=WHISLTE BLOWER]Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid. [/QUOTE

This is a the start of the meat of the accusations. You should note that this an enterpritation of motives, that the call itself doesn't specifically say. Saying this is shown to be "true" by the transcript is to confuse facts with opinions.
That is the first step in recognizing propoganda. You have to be able to seperate actual facts Like Trump spoke to so and so, and said such and such. With opinions such as "he intended to do X or Y".

Journalists use anonomous sources often. This has been part of journalism for a very long time. Of course, they would love if their sources would allow themselves to be identified. But many will only speak under conditions of anonymity for a host of reasons. This is not problematic unless the Journalists are either not checking the reliability of the source, or if they are making them up.

False, and you are missing a very impotant aspect here.
It doesn't have to be "fasle" to be a problem.. it can also be "partial and incomplete". There was an example of some closed hearings and the dems would "leak"..err I mean "report" the information that they wanted out. (same with republicans) and reporters deutifly "reported" these "Leaks".
Ultimatly the problem was that it was all propoganda, because it was only partial information that obscured the real truth.

The reader should make up their own mind. They should neither automatically trust an anonomous source, nor should they automatically reject it. Factors to consider include. (How realistic is the claim? How well does the claim fit with other known information? How well do we trust the journalist in question?) If you knew media literacy, you would know the answer to this. But you seem to think the expectation is we should blindly trust such claims. You are wrong about that. Perhaps some people do, but they are not very media literate.

You have already made the error I am talking about like twice in your response.

Suppose there is a closed door trial about the murder regarding two very high profile people.
Reporters are clamoring for information as the trial is sealed.. only to be released in full on it's completion.

But there is a reporter with great connections.. he knows someone |close" to trial.
The first information he gets is that the victim was shot. And being a famous victim, should he report that the vicitim was shot?
The second day, the information comes to him that the defendant owned a gun like the one used on the victim. Should the reporter report this?
the third day, the information comes to him that the defendand is recorded in a home video angrly declaring he would shoot the vicitim the first chance he gets. Should the reporter report this?

I am going to assume you are going to say "yes". This is like an O.J. trial, all the information is titilating and interesting to people.
Now can you see any possible problems?
Now applying what you have said so far, there is nothing "wrong" with the reporting. Anonymous sources are quoted all the time. it isn't the job of the reporter to know the ultimate truth of those claims.

The problem I am pointing to is that the above is an example of "propoganda". The example the source is the prosecutor, and the information is one sided. When the trial comes back with a not guilty, because the defense side of the story was that He was in another country giving a public reading at the time of the murder.
Then the whole picture comes in and changes the perception of the information.
Imagine the effect of such propoganda if the final conclusion gets a bi line and a page 30 notation?
That is how propoganda works.

Finally....
It is not the burden of a reporter to say if what the whistleblower says is true but to report what is claimed and how it is claimed. They can comment on the plausibility of the claim. And frankly, that plausibility is very high. And now, it is in fact confirmed.

There is actually no context to this so as to give it value.
What is confirmed.. that Trump spoke to a specific person? sure.
that it had the meaning that the "wisple blower" said it had? No so much.
in fact.. that is what is specifically up to debate and in many cases more evidence shows it false then true.

No, I told you, I am well read on the subject.

So.. this is about the media not your personal reading.
What is the media saying.. when did they say it.. how did they say it. That is stuff that matters.

To be clear, part of what I say is a parody of how the media would cast this stuff if it were trump.

I'm sure I would have. I've had no trouble learning a great deal about Ukraine, its Politics, or the business dealings of Hunter Biden. I also have no problems finding out about corruption complaints surrounding Jarred Cushner, Trumps son in law. You can also find artticles about Bidne, Shorkin, and even Hunter Biden from the time frame in which these events were happening. I've read them, have you?

I get that this is the new world of information, and that one can go and find whatever information is out there. For example I can find the actual documents of the whisle blower complaint, and the actual trasncripts of trump.
That is not the same as what is being addressed here. And you seem to be missing that point.

You talk about the news media as if it is a perosn and it has interest or disinterst. There is no shortage of interest on this subject. I've been able to do an awful lot of reading in great detail on the subject.

So.. I was specifically making a clarification about the "fast track" point of the OP.

[QUOTE=SIG] It does. You are claiming they are reporting claims without finding out if those claims are true. I am teaching you Journalism 101 that explains that you are supposed to report claims directly, not to determine if they are true or not unless it such veriification is easy to come by and well established. [/QUOTE
no.. it is reporting opinion as though it is fact.
A mistake you have fallen victim to in your own responses.

I think you are talking about the mainstream media organizations in our country. AKA: Fox, ABC, NPR, CBS, NYT, etc... and that they are propaganda

Sure.

I am saying you are influenced not by those, but by editorialists, facebook posters, show hosts, and sites like Breitbart or others that are channels not for news but for opinion and propaganda designed to persuade and to influence people's actions.

And you don't know me, so that is worth about squate.
Look you want to develop an opinion about me and news? Let me give you some facts.
1) I don't have cable. So If I see CNN or Fox or anything like that it has to be put in my face like by a restaurant or I have to seek it out specifically.
2) My general opinion was formed years ago regarding the trustworthiness of media. Things like how pro-life rallies were covered (or not covered) years.. and years ago. are the kind of things that solidified my perception of the media at large.
(in that instance the media would show video of an ultimately small crowd of pro choice protestors, and ignore and not show thousands of pro-life protestors at the same events).
3) I don't engage in Facebook, and you are more likely to find what my children write on my page then me personally.
4) The only thing I really do listen to now is Ben Shapiro Podcast, and on this particular topic.. I had to catch up with 10 days of podcasts after my first exposure to it.
5) In general I ignore the news cycle other than hurricane tracking. Every time they reference a poll..I basically shut it off. (polls aren't news).
6) I used to follow the news cycle a lot closer. Especially during the Bush erra tapering off during Obama erra.
7) During the Bush erra, I tried to take note of how Bush was treated by the media. Like the kind of questions he would be asked... Like "Mr president what has been your biggest mistake" that question came in the middle of one of his terms.
Then when Obama became president, I tried to take note of how he was treated and if there was any contrast. ... I noticed a few differences.
8) Listened to Rush off and on.. mostly during run up to elections. Caught Glen Beck for a while... (both radio because of work scedule at the time). listened to NPR in the morning for thos years.

So you don't watch/listen to/read any conservitive punditry or talk to people who are conservitive minded?
Perhaps you came up wtih these ideas yourself, but I've seen countless headlines from such sources making your claim, and they are pretty much always full of crap and short on evidence.

As above, I don't generally consume news anymore. Ben Shapiro's pod cast is the only one I regularly consume, and I almost don't have time for that. When I say i work a lot.... .I work a lot.
It has all been written off in my mind. The general practice I have is to check Fox web page for the headlines.. then check CNN web page for headlines.. and note the differance. If they happen to cover the same story I try to read both.

Not sure what Ideas your talking about specifically. I mean, i don't live in a bubble so the idea that the media is biased is not original to me.
If you asked where the first time I was exposed to the idea of Media bias and how it worked. It was through a "Jello Biafra" spoken word CD.
Where he railed against the religious controlled media, and noted how corporations ownership effected news coverage.
His point at the time directed at nuclear power and GE's ownership of news corporations coverage of basicaly GE owned a bunch and so their news organaztion wouldn't cover it the same as others.. it's all really fuzzy now as..I'm old.

Please do.

Keep in mind, I rarely if ever watch news on TV. I don't even own a TV these days I'm strictly a news reader with occasional bouts of listening on the radio.

This is the thing about me. I'm patient. I don't need "news" right now. What I mean is, I am not interested in hearing about a story first, but hearing about it in its completion.
So I see the general format of news today as flawed. It's focus is on "facts as we know it" and "what is going to happen". That is the deal with polls, it's all about what is going to happen and predictions.

I don't get to read papers. I would much prefer that, because then I could really take notes.

[Sigfried]

Now lets talk about how this works.
First, an unknown person has made a claim. Specifically that MULTIPLE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS.

Incorrect: The person is unknown to us, but they are not unknown. The whistleblower process is vetted. It requires someone to identify themselves to specific authorities and those authorities make a judgment if the whistleblower is in a position to know what they claim to know. They also evaluate the seriousness of the claim and its plausibility and look for any known inaccuracies or fabrications.

Do we KNOW that to be true? No we do know that to be true?

We know that this person is a member of the intelligence committee. We know that their complaint was vetted by other members of the intelligence committee. We know many of the claims are corroborated by independent sources.

No we do not. This is hear say evidence being presented as fact.

No it is not presented as fact. This is where you are misunderstanding what a report in the media is. A report is when you say "There is a whistleblower report, this is what it says." It does not go on to say that everything in the whistleblower report is an established fact. They may present other information that corroborates or supports the report, but they don't claim the truth or fiction of the report or its claims. If you can find a news report on the whistleblower claims that is presenting it as a verified fact, show me.

AKA: SUPPORT your CLAIM that it is claimed as fact in mainstream news media reports. My guess is you are misunderstanding the language of journalism and mistaking reporting for truth claims.

This is the definition of hear say.

Hearsay: information received from other people which cannot be substantiated

The whistleblower report can be substantiated. Its whole purpose is to report something so that it can be investigated. Congress has the power to subpoena records pertaining to the claims in the report and to find out if they are true and what other information there may be related to these matters. And indeed, much of it has been substantiated.

Let's give a contrasting example.
Suppose I told you that a good friend of mine in the white house says he heard trump say "I am going to nuke China in 10 days unless they buy my house for a billion dollars".

OK

Now you have the kind of information you are claiming is occuring here.

Yours is more outlandish but OK.

Now compare that to me saying.
I heard a friend of mine in the white house say that trump colluded with china over the phone to rig the next election.

OK

In the second instance, you don't know ANYTHING about the original phone call. In the first instance, you actually do.

The difference is a matter of specificity and interpretation. The first is specific, the second is a more general claim. Both could have been from the same phone call and phrased differently. Neither impacts the varsity of the claim, only the content of the claim.

No the transcripts do not confirm the reported claims...
If you are going to make that claim, then you need to support it.
First quote the complaint, then quote the transcript. You will quickly see the problem.

OK

The Report: "Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid."

Transcript: In the conversation, there are 2004 words (including some titles and extras) Of that the part where Trump talks about what he wats Zalasny to do covers 1190 words, considerably more than half.

Trump: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike…"

This is based on a right-wing conspiracy theory that Crowdstrike invented the Russian hacking of the DNC and is owned by a Ukranian oligarch who still has the original DNC servers. He's interested because it would mean the Democrats colluded to influence the election in 2016

Trump "I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine."

It's pretty clear Trump wants to try and discredit Meuller and the report as much and in as many ways as he can.

Trump: "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. "

This very good prosecutor is Shokin Whom the US and EU found to be constantly blocking prosecution of corruption cases. This is the guy that Biden bragged about getting fired. Trump wants to paint Biden as having done this for corrupt reasons because Biden is a leading potential opponent in 2020.

Trump: "The other thing, here’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. "

Yes, please investigate my leading opponent and his son for me. Thanks!

From here he reiterates the same three issues he is interested in: DNC servers, Mueller Report, and Biden. All three of these are domestic political items surrounding criticism of Trump or his political opponents in the next election.

End of part 1

---------- Post added at 02:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 AM ----------

Part 2
This is a the start of the meat of the accusations. You should note that this an enterpritation of motives, that the call itself doesn't specifically say. Saying this is shown to be "true" by the transcript is to confuse facts with opinions.[/QUOTE]

It is not really about motives. Things eiter are or are not in the Presidents interest for the Election in 2020. The whistleblower lists three...

"initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;"

That is indeed in the phone call.

"assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine , with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016; and"

That is also in the phone call.

"meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem."

That is also in the phone call.

It is not a matter of motivation to say these things are in the President's political interest. They are all hotly talked about political topics related to Trump, his political opponent, and investigations against him. Not only that but he's having his personal lawyer, who is not a government employee, conduct conversations on these topics with the foreign leaders and diplomats.

That is the first step in recognizing propoganda. You have to be able to seperate actual facts Like Trump spoke to so and so, and said such and such. With opinions such as "he intended to do X or Y".

A whistleblower report is not probaganda, its not even news coverage. Its when you think someone in your office is commiting a crime or unethical act and you want to report on it. It requires a judgement that the act being reported is criminal or unethical and that requires some sense of what people's intentions are. If there were no ill intentions, there would be no need to make a report blowing the whistle.

That is entirely separate from journalistic reports about the whistleblower and what he said. In that instance, the journalists report what it is he claims without themselves claiming it is true or not true beyond what other information they can provide that corroborates or casts doubt on it.

False, and you are missing a very impotant aspect here.

Are you saying that journalists don't commonly used un-named sources for their reporting? Seriously? Have you ever heard of deep-throat? There are articles about ethical guidelines surrounding these kinds of sources...
https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

So unless you can show me that it is not a common practice, you can't say "Falsee"

It doesn't have to be "fasle" to be a problem.. it can also be "partial and incomplete". There was an example of some closed hearings and the dems would "leak"..err I mean "report" the information that they wanted out. (same with republicans) and reporters deutifly "reported" these "Leaks".
Ultimatly the problem was that it was all propoganda, because it was only partial information that obscured the real truth.

That is not the medias fault. When they have someone report something, they report it was said. They don't say it is true, they say that an anonomous source provided the information to them. It is for you, the reader to decide if you think it is true or not. By reporting it was said, they are not reporting it is true.

Suppose there is a closed door trial about the murder regarding two very high profile people.
Reporters are clamoring for information as the trial is sealed.. only to be released in full on it's completion.

But there is a reporter with great connections.. he knows someone |close" to trial.
The first information he gets is that the victim was shot. And being a famous victim, should he report that the vicitim was shot?

No, he should report that a source in the outroom claims that during the trial it was said that a famous victim was shot.

The second day, the information comes to him that the defendant owned a gun like the one used on the victim. Should the reporter report this?

Sure, He could report that his source in the courtroom claims that in trial it was revealed that the defendant owned a gun like the one used to shoot the victim.

the third day, the information comes to him that the defendand is recorded in a home video angrly declaring he would shoot the vicitim the first chance he gets. Should the reporter report this?

Again, provided the reporter accurately provides the context for this information: Its from an anonomous source and was presented as evidence in a trial. Yes he can report on it honestly.

I am going to assume you are going to say "yes". This is like an O.J. trial, all the information is titilating and interesting to people.
Now can you see any possible problems?

Sure, there are always a lot of problems when it comes to reporting on ongoing criminal cases but lets see what you have to say about it.

Now applying what you have said so far, there is nothing "wrong" with the reporting. Anonymous sources are quoted all the time. it isn't the job of the reporter to know the ultimate truth of those claims.

Correct.

The problem I am pointing to is that the above is an example of "propoganda". The example the source is the prosecutor, and the information is one sided. When the trial comes back with a not guilty, because the defense side of the story was that He was in another country giving a public reading at the time of the murder.

The ethics for anonomous sources inlude evaluating bias and the effort to use the news media to manipulate public opinion for unethical purposes (such as trying to throw the results of a trial). The Journalist knows who their source is so they are responsible for evaluating that. In this case the reporter should not allow the source to have anonymity. They should either report who the source is, or not report on what is shared with them by the source.

Then the whole picture comes in and changes the perception of the information.
Imagine the effect of such propoganda if the final conclusion gets a bi line and a page 30 notation?
That is how propoganda works.

Not much I think. It's a nice example of what can happen if Journalists don't do their job and allow a prosecutor to influence public opinion in this way, but it is not a good example for the kind of propaganda you say you are seeing in the news. Do you have a real-world example?

So.. this is about the media not your personal reading.
What is the media saying.. when did they say it.. how did they say it. That is stuff that matters.

Indeed and so far you have given us no real world examples to hold up your claim.

And you don't know me, so that is worth about squate.

We've known eachother for quite some time MT. But its true I didn't know your exact media habits until you just told me.

Honestly, they don't seem to contradict my view. Shapiro, Rush, and Beck are all essentially right-wing pundits and propagandists. You don't consume very much mainstream news or pay close attention to it. When you do, you focus on a-political news.

Not sure what Ideas your talking about specifically. I mean, i don't live in a bubble so the idea that the media is biased is not original to me.

I agree you are not in a bubble, but you do focus you time on right wing pundits rather than mainstream journalism.

If you asked where the first time I was exposed to the idea of Media bias and how it worked. It was through a "Jello Biafra" spoken word CD.

An interesting detail, thanks for sharing it.

This is the thing about me. I'm patient. I don't need "news" right now. What I mean is, I am not interested in hearing about a story first, but hearing about it in its completion.

For a guy who doesn't read much news or care about it you have a lot of strong opinions about why its no good.

[Vandaler]

I would have been impressed if this thread would have been started by a so called conservative to call out Fox News commentary shows and label them as propaganda.

Hersay? The hersay defense make me sick.

The biggest hersay in the whole impeachment debate comes from Trump in accusing the Biden's of corruption.
Does Trump have first hand knowledge of wrong doing by the Biden's?
Does he have second hand knowledge of wrong doing by the Biden's?
Does he have third hand knowledge of wrong doing by the Biden's?
Any knowledge at all ?

That, sir, is propaganda based in hersay... and FOX megaphones blairs it without shame.

I do admire your combativity though in arguing for a loosing side.

[MindTrap028]

I would have been impressed if this thread would have been started by a so called conservative to call out Fox News commentary shows and label them as propaganda.

Why? Fox is propaganda too. How does that relate to this thread?
Or is your comment just spam about your personal opinions devoid of any relevance to the actual topic of the thread?

Hersay? The hersay defense make me sick.

Why.. is it not hear say? Do you love to listen to hear say and gossip? Or are you just offended by hearsay that goes against your side?

The biggest hersay in the whole impeachment debate comes from Trump in accusing the Biden's of corruption.
Does Trump have first hand knowledge of wrong doing by the Biden's?
Does he have second hand knowledge of wrong doing by the Biden's?
Does he have third hand knowledge of wrong doing by the Biden's?
Any knowledge at all ?

Really? are we supposed to read Biden in only the best possible light, but read the Donald in the worst?

That, sir, is propaganda based in hersay... and FOX megaphones blairs it without shame.

I do admire your combativity though in arguing for a loosing side.

Seems like you just got a bad case of it.

[Vandaler]

Why.. is it not hear say?

To qualify as hearsay, a claim must be from second hand and cannot be fully substantiated.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hearsay

First... the whistleblower complaint was blend of first hand knowledge and second hand knowledge.
Secondly, the outlined facts have been fully substantiated, both by Whitehouse transcripts, President Trump's statements and Guliani's television interviews and more and more daily new evidence.

Also, the ICIG (appointed by Trump) came out with a rare statement rebuking claims such as yours and repeated by Trump.

In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docum...Complaints.pdf

Really? are we supposed to read Biden in only the best possible light, but read the Donald in the worst?

In any case, to be credible, claims need to be substanted. It's also an ODN policy on which you are a moderator so you are most likely aware of how that works.

Almost all the whistleblower's claims have been subtantiated... (Possible involvement of AG William Bar is still not certain)
None of the claims by Trump on the Bidens have been substantiated in any shape or form.

I expect claims to be subtantiated PERIOD. Who ever makes the claim.

[Ibelsd]

You talk about the news media as if it is a perosn and it has interest or disinterst. There is no shortage of interest on this subject. I've been able to do an awful lot of reading in great detail on the subject.

I think the media is an interested party to politics. Conservative interests and liberal interests are both represented to varying degrees by various media outlets. This is an example from the NYT which seems to show an egregious amount of bias:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-story-1500256

"The two New York Times reporters who revealed a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh blamed the paper’s editors for a critical piece of information not appearing in their original story."

The writers blamed it on process, but we would have to take them out their word when, in their book, they clearly stated they were not unbiased in how they saw this story. The editor refused to be interviewed by Politico for this story. While the author's blame the editor, one of them actually put out a Tweet which identified the new alleged victim who didn't want to be named, refused to be interviewed, and has told friends she has no memory of the event in question.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/kavanaug...had-to-delete/
"The New York Times Review essay originally included a key detail about a previously unknown, alleged sexual assault victim of Kavanaugh’s — that the woman tells friends she does not remember the incident — but that it was subsequently removed by the Times during the final editing process."

Our media is highly politicized. It is highly ideological. Let's look at this a.m.'s three main online media news sites. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

Fox leads with story about Rosenstein and a book that names cabinet members willing to use 25th amendment to oust Trump. Basically, a deep state story.
CNN leads with story about impeaching Trump
MSNBC leads with story about impeaching Trump

Everyday the headlines are follow the same basic pattern. Some regularly undermine Trump. Some boost him. Fox reports on a Warren lie. AS best as I can tell CNN and MSNBC ignore it. And it goes on and on and on. Of course our media is just propaganda. Again, I ask a simple question, if CNN's ratings are in the tank, why wouldn't they bring in a known ratings booster? Someone like a Rush Limbaugh, if not the man himself? The answer is an indictment. They are not objective media outlets. The Atlantic, a high brow magazine, known for publishing critically acclaimed writers, hired a Conservative writer. Finally. Then, within a week, the man was fired. Kevin Williamson was quickly ushered out after Media Matters brought attention to some old podcasts where he supported the death penalty (hanging specifically) for women who have an abortion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...iamson/484052/
This article, written by an Atlantic writer, explains why the Atlantic was wrong to have fired him. Basically, he noted that viewpoint. Or, as he explained of his critics, To render him toxic was their purpose.

And to that end, they succeeded. And the Atlantic gets to continue to be ideologically isolated from everyone but the most left-wing progressives. And this is how our media operates. My guess is that CNN wouldn't dare bring in someone like a Limbaugh for fear of the backlash. Execs wouldn't be invited to their liberal friends' cocktail parties. Jake Tapper's head would explode, causing a huge mess to clean up. Perhaps, just as importantly, why would a conservative go work someplace where they would be reviled and made to feel uncomfortable, and as demonstrated by the Williamson example above, have their character assassinated.

[Sigfried]

I think the media is an interested party to politics. Conservative interests and liberal interests are both represented to varying degrees by various media outlets. This is an example from the NYT which seems to show an egregious amount of bias:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-story-1500256

"The two New York Times reporters who revealed a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh blamed the paper’s editors for a critical piece of information not appearing in their original story."

The writers blamed it on process, but we would have to take them out their word when, in their book, they clearly stated they were not unbiased in how they saw this story. The editor refused to be interviewed by Politico for this story. While the author's blame the editor, one of them actually put out a Tweet which identified the new alleged victim who didn't want to be named, refused to be interviewed, and has told friends she has no memory of the event in question.

It's a great example of bad reporting showing a bias. But its also just a great example of bad reporting. It concealed information very important to the story, information that probably should have killed the story altogether. But, it was widely condemned, called out, apologized for and acknowledged as bad. It was not the norm and is not the norm. It is the exception that demonstrates there are rules, and that when you break them people get pissed off and call you on it.

[/FONT][/COLOR]Our media is highly politicized. It is highly ideological. Let's look at this a.m.'s three main online media news sites. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

Fox leads with story about Rosenstein and a book that names cabinet members willing to use 25th amendment to oust Trump. Basically, a deep state story.
CNN leads with story about impeaching Trump
MSNBC leads with story about impeaching Trump

But that doesn't make it propaganda. Here is a definition I feel matches with what I see propaganda being. It comes from a historian on the subject "Richard Alan Nelson"
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."

So you really need a mission, aka, what you want people to think and it has to be in service to something beyond just education. Then you need to attempt to persuade them. Then you need some measure of a deliberate effort to control this message and get it to people on a mass scale.

The mainstream news media may well cater to people's own biases, but it's not trying to get people to believe a specific idea or message. It often gives contradictory messages and overall isn't pushing just one idea at anyone. It doesn't have a specific political aim or ethos it is promoting. It is not carefully controlled and targeted the way a true advocate blog or single mission publication is.

I ask a simple question, if CNN's ratings are in the tank, why wouldn't they bring in a known ratings booster? Someone like a Rush Limbaugh, if not the man himself?

Because most of their audience hates him.

The Atlantic, a high brow magazine, known for publishing critically acclaimed writers, hired a Conservative writer. Finally. Then, within a week, the man was fired. Kevin Williamson was quickly ushered out after Media Matters brought attention to some old podcasts where he supported the death penalty (hanging specifically) for women who have an abortion.

Well, again, their readers don't want to read articles from a guy who wants to hang women who get abortions. That does not mean they are propaganda, it means they have standards and an audience they cater to.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...iamson/484052/
This article, written by an Atlantic writer, explains why the Atlantic was wrong to have fired him. Basically, he noted that viewpoint. Or, as he explained of his critics, [FONT="]To render him toxic was their purpose. [/FONT]And to that end, they succeeded.

Again, it is not the Atlantic that is leading this crusade. They decided to hire him, and others dug up this information and weaponized it. The Atlantic caved to the pressure from their readers. I agree with the article, it was not a good decision for journalism. It was a decision to avoid hurt on the bottom line and alienating its audience. If they do that to much, they die. It's sad, but understandable. They should have kept him I think, but my job doesn't depend on them making their fans happy. (I do sometimes subscribe to the Atlantic. I think they have the best investigative journalism around today.)

And this is how our media operates. My guess is that CNN wouldn't dare bring in someone like a Limbaugh for fear of the backlash. Execs wouldn't be invited to their liberal friends' cocktail parties. Jake Tapper's head would explode, causing a huge mess to clean up. Perhaps, just as importantly, why would a conservative go work someplace where they would be reviled and made to feel uncomfortable, and as demonstrated by the Williamson example above, have their character assassinated.

All true, but not propaganda. If the Atlantic is Propaganda then they must have a driving mission they want to persuade people is the truth. They have to make a concerted effort to get everyone to believe what they want them to believe. That is not what's happening. It is instead a matter of tailoring their content to please an audience while doing the work of journalism to tell people what is happening in their world.

The combined effect may be self reinforcing, but it is not a propaganda effort by a controlling force to change the way people think.

Finally, in defense of "The Atlantic" This is from the article you posted where one of their writers disagrees with their decision....

"As ever, the work that appears in our pages will be the truest test.

But in my experience as a writer who, while certainly not a movement conservative, departs frequently and vehemently from what might be called woke consensus progressivism, I’ve always had the freedom to write about what I want; and I have never been pressured to take, alter, or soften any viewpoint whatever, full stop.

Indeed, from the time I was a junior staffer, when the political landscape was utterly different, Goldberg himself, Jim Fallows, Andrew Sullivan, and other senior figures encouraged me even in my sharpest disagreements with them; before the 2016 election, it was made explicitly clear to me that if I disagreed with the magazine’s decision to endorse Hillary Clinton, the third endorsement in its history, and wanted to dissent, or even to make a case for Donald Trump, I was welcome to follow my ideas wherever they led. Last week, Goldberg went out of his way to affirm that I could write about Williamson’s firing, regardless of whether I took issue with his decision. “You have to come down where you come down,” he said. “You already know this, but I want to make it clear that you have my full support.”

Goldberg is earnest in his desire to publish ideologically diverse voices at The Atlantic—remember, no one made him go and hire Williamson in the first place. That Williamson was fired, for better or worse, does not render The Atlantic a small tent. It remains depressingly difficult to find many bigger tents in American media."

Does that sound like a propaganda magazine that only wishest to appeal to the most extreme progressive end of American politics?

[Ibelsd]

It's a great example of bad reporting showing a bias. But its also just a great example of bad reporting. It concealed information very important to the story, information that probably should have killed the story altogether. But, it was widely condemned, called out, apologized for and acknowledged as bad. It was not the norm and is not the norm. It is the exception that demonstrates there are rules, and that when you break them people get pissed off and call you on it.

Not sure it is exactly the exception. I cannot prove it is the norm per se. Just wondering, did anyone get fired? You say it was widely condemned, but I'm not sure the word widely is correct. It was condemned by those who you'd expect to condemn it and ignored by those you expect wouldn't. In fact on Sept 16, while the Washington Examiner was claiming "Ooopise" on its coverage of the NYT story, CNN was having none of it. CNN, chose to cover the NYT times error a different way. By different I mean they didn't even acknowledge an error had been made
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/polit...ion/index.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...anaugh-details

One of these stories aren't like the others... So, while the right-leaning Examiner was quick to jump on the NYT, CNN chose to bury it. When you can predict the coverage of a story based on the publisher's name, it is pretty obvious that the publisher is playing to a crowd. In fact, while the NYT kinda, sorta admitted it had erred, it would be almost partisan behavior to pretend that the error hadn't occurred at all. To pretend or merely convince yourself that CNN's behavior isn't considerably similar to propaganda is naive. To pretend that the decisions made by the NYT were merely innoncent mistakes is equally naive.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...adline-changed
A little pressure from Dems and the paper changes its headline... hmmm. I know. You won't be convinced this rises to the level of propaganda and would prefer to see it as the NYT times correcting a mistake. The funny thing is that I couldn't find a prior instance of the NYT changing a headline unless we go back to 2017 where the NYT again changed a headline which was deemed to be too pro-Trump.
https://wild1063.iheart.com/content/...to-bash-trump/
In fact, it was the 2nd time in three days that the paper had done this. Now, I am not claiming the NYT only changes headlines to oppose Trump, a politician. I am claiming that when the NYT changes a headline, it is usually about Trump and the change will always put Trump in a more negative light. Some may call this propaganda.

But that doesn't make it propaganda. Here is a definition I feel matches with what I see propaganda being. It comes from a historian on the subject "Richard Alan Nelson"
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."

Isn't this what I have been describing?
Systematic: Via use of liberal social media, the Times formalized its editorial process to directly respond to Tweets and messages from its readers.
Purposeful Persuasion: The NYT has consistently changed its stories in order to convince the reader that Trump is worse than a neutral observer would presume. When a headline isn't deemed hostile enough, the NYT will readily adapt per the feedback system it created in order to increase negativity. It readily prints stories that are misleading in an attempt to persuade. The example I cited, the authors admitted to their bias.
Attempt to influence: I think it is pretty clear that the NYT wishes to influence its audience that Trump is a bad person and opposed to the views of the NYT and its desired readership.
One-side message: Again, it seems pretty obvious that the NYT is presenting a single side and isn't concerned with being factual.

[Sigfried]

Not sure it is exactly the exception. I cannot prove it is the norm per se. Just wondering, did anyone get fired? You say it was widely condemned, but I'm not sure the word widely is correct. It was condemned by those who you'd expect to condemn it and ignored by those you expect wouldn't. In fact on Sept 16, while the Washington Examiner was claiming "Ooopise" on its coverage of the NYT story, CNN was having none of it. CNN, chose to cover the NYT times error a different way. By different I mean they didn't even acknowledge an error had been made
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/polit...ion/index.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...anaugh-details

What about this CNN story?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/m...ugh/index.html
Headline reads: New York Times' botched Kavanaugh story the latest in series of blunders from the Opinion section

That to me kind of sounds like criticism. Perhaps even condemnation, and look, it's from CNN. It took me about 30 seconds to find it. They also had a bunch of videos on the subject, but I don't usually watch news videos. The article even takes a dig at other stories from the Times opinion section over the years.

And let's remember, as noted this is about an opinion article, not a news story or an investigative piece, it was from Opinion. That doesn't entirely let them off the hook, not at all, but the fact they put a correction out shows they care that they made a real mistake and are rather embarrassed by it.

One of these stories aren't like the others... So, while the right-leaning Examiner was quick to jump on the NYT, CNN chose to bury it.

Except that they didn't bury it.

Isn't this what I have been describing?
Systematic: Via use of liberal social media, the Times formalized its editorial process to directly respond to Tweets and messages from its readers.
Purposeful Persuasion: The NYT has consistently changed its stories in order to convince the reader that Trump is worse than a neutral observer would presume. When a headline isn't deemed hostile enough, the NYT will readily adapt per the feedback system it created in order to increase negativity. It readily prints stories that are misleading in an attempt to persuade. The example I cited, the authors admitted to their bias.
Attempt to influence: I think it is pretty clear that the NYT wishes to influence its audience that Trump is a bad person and opposed to the views of the NYT and its desired readership.
One-side message: Again, it seems pretty obvious that the NYT is presenting a single side and isn't concerned with being factual.

No. You seem to imagine the NYT is somehow anti-trump in the sense they are out to persuade people of that. The fact is, huge swaths of America are anti-trump and they NYT caters to that audience. They have a commercial interest in reflecting the views of their audience. Look at your first headline changing article....

"The New York Times was forced to change its front-page headline for Tuesday’s newspaper amid an intense backlash over its portrayal of Donald Trump’s statement on the twin mass shootings that left 31 people dead."

A propagandist puts out purposeful messages to persuade people. A propagandist doesn't care if people criticize it. They have a mission and they carry it out. They keep at it until it sticks. Changing your message defeats your purpose unless you are just fine-tuning it.

Here, the public the paper serves got pissed off because they didn't like it. Discovering how unpopular the headline was, they scrambled to change it so people would not be pissed off. That is called kowtowing, or more charitably, responding to your audience. It is not the mark of someone who has something they want to persuade their readers of.

The second example is sketchy. It only showed one change, and frankly, the original is a terrible headline that rather makes no sense. The second one is much more clear as to the meaning.

None of these show any intention to change the way the readers are thinking. Quite the opposite, the readers are changing the way the paper is writing.

[Ibelsd]

What about this CNN story?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/m...ugh/index.html
Headline reads: New York Times' botched Kavanaugh story the latest in series of blunders from the Opinion section

That to me kind of sounds like criticism. Perhaps even condemnation, and look, it's from CNN. It took me about 30 seconds to find it. They also had a bunch of videos on the subject, but I don't usually watch news videos. The article even takes a dig at other stories from the Times opinion section over the years.

And let's remember, as noted this is about an opinion article, not a news story or an investigative piece, it was from Opinion. That doesn't entirely let them off the hook, not at all, but the fact they put a correction out shows they care that they made a real mistake and are rather embarrassed by it.



Except that they didn't bury it.



No. You seem to imagine the NYT is somehow anti-trump in the sense they are out to persuade people of that. The fact is, huge swaths of America are anti-trump and they NYT caters to that audience. They have a commercial interest in reflecting the views of their audience. Look at your first headline changing article....

"The New York Times was forced to change its front-page headline for Tuesday’s newspaper amid an intense backlash over its portrayal of Donald Trump’s statement on the twin mass shootings that left 31 people dead."

A propagandist puts out purposeful messages to persuade people. A propagandist doesn't care if people criticize it. They have a mission and they carry it out. They keep at it until it sticks. Changing your message defeats your purpose unless you are just fine-tuning it.

Here, the public the paper serves got pissed off because they didn't like it. Discovering how unpopular the headline was, they scrambled to change it so people would not be pissed off. That is called kowtowing, or more charitably, responding to your audience. It is not the mark of someone who has something they want to persuade their readers of.

The second example is sketchy. It only showed one change, and frankly, the original is a terrible headline that rather makes no sense. The second one is much more clear as to the meaning.

None of these show any intention to change the way the readers are thinking. Quite the opposite, the readers are changing the way the paper is writing.

You make some good arguments. However, the CNN business section isn't the front page. It isn't the home page for its website. Most readers would never even find that story. It stands to reason the business section is less ideological than the main news section. You found it. Great. I did a google search and that link never came up. Or, it came up low enough on the list that I didn't see it. So, CNN business covered it. CNN news did not. The issue with the NYT is that the people who were outraged were Democrats, high ranking Dems. The paper kowtowed to the wishes of a political party in order that general readers would be fed the correct message. And by correct, I mean the message settled on by CNN and the Dem party.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...line-after-de/
The headline wasn't changed because average leaders complained. It was changed when
Democrats unleashed a wave of criticism against The New York Times on Monday night over a front-page headline that said President Trump’s urged “unity” during his response to the back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

So, the NYT is working with politicians from a single political party to ensure headlines meet their standards. Why? Perhaps to persuade the average reader that Trump is whatever the Dems are claiming he is? Can you find an instance where the NYT caved to Republicans to change a headline or story? Maybe you can, but I could not. So, in response to your question, I'd say yes. The NYT is out to change the reader's perception of Trump.

Let me add another example. I see this on Fox News and CNN all the time. It is kinda wierd that the opinion hosts all drive the same stories for their respective channels and use the same words. Just watch CNN for a few hours and you'll notice each show basically repeats the same core stories. More importantly, they all seem to frame those stories using almost exactly the same words and phrases. Accident? Coincidence? Perhaps, more likely, they are being fed these talking points and sharing them with the viewers. Where do they get the talking points? Your guess is as good as mine, but it seems fairly obvious that they are intended to persuade the viewer towards a certain point of view.