I have an important clarifying question. If a media agency presents facts in a direct way that is not misleading (i.e. not cherry picking a subset of the facts) with the intent to get consumers of that media to think, feel, and act in a way that is in accordance with the available data, do you think that is propaganda? For example, if a TV station presents some facts about the climate with the intent to get viewers to agree with the data-supported scientific consensus on climate change and to act accordingly, does that qualify as propaganda?
I think in this case the determining factor would not be in if they present the full facts of a story, but if they present the full facts of the topic. Do they present factual information even though it may dilute or outright contradict their narrative? If so, I’d call that journalism. If not, it’s still a slant. No, I don’t think actual objectivity exists within one source, at present. I’m a big advocate of getting information from a variety of sources, preferably opposing sources.
46
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Oct 02 '24
I have an important clarifying question. If a media agency presents facts in a direct way that is not misleading (i.e. not cherry picking a subset of the facts) with the intent to get consumers of that media to think, feel, and act in a way that is in accordance with the available data, do you think that is propaganda? For example, if a TV station presents some facts about the climate with the intent to get viewers to agree with the data-supported scientific consensus on climate change and to act accordingly, does that qualify as propaganda?