Usually when reporters work or people argue, they're generally trying to arrive at the truth, even if it's in a flawed way.
For the propagandist, truth is merely another tool in the toolkit, and they'll use it when it advances their purpose and discard it when it doesn't. The same goes with logic and reason. The propogandist will in fact use the truth and reason and logic as much as possible for the simple reason that it's so effective.
This is why Wikileaks was so devastating. As far as I know, there was nothing fabricated in any of it, but it produced an inaccurate impression of the candidates because one side had all their dirty laundry aired in public and he other side operated in secrecy. You'd be a fool to think that a similar release of RNC and Trump emails wouldn't have produced just as much damaging material.
So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically.
I think the only way to effectively fight it is our own countermeasures, fighting the truth with more truth. Unfortunately, the executive branch of the us and the U.K. is thoroughly compromised, so the west is going to have to rely on France and Germany to step up their games.
What you are talking about is "white propaganda": telling the truth but in a manner that creates a useful perception.
This is unfortunately the basis of most information and news media today, as even "free" media industries compete to tell the stories and gain the access of intelligence and national security reporting (how we got the Iraq War propaganda in the US, how today the media industry is spreading "Russia did everything" nonsense, the current media sprint repeating propaganda about the situation in North Korea and the DPRK government's intentions).
> So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically.
Exactly.
I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device. Merely changing a headline or picture sets tone and dramatically alters perception - add to that editing, media campaigning, social media astroturfing, selective synonym choice...
"Perception management" is an regular propaganda term employed by the Department of Defense for this reason. The facts can be useful, but ultimately the objective is to change minds and decision making and to affect outcomes. And so you may be the subject of perception management that utilizes (aspects of) truth.
The most effective way of countering propaganda is to seek nuance when presented with characterizations, try to understand dispassionately the situation from every side, and to be skeptical of especially the things that you most routinely would like to agree.
Ironically this usually means consuming more propaganda on purpose: specifically looking for the narrative position of the United States, Russia, Britain, China, etc on various issues. This is also why it's an extremely good idea to read international news from all parties in a conflict during the entire duration of an event (e.g. Syrian Civil-Proxy War).
> I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device.
That can be taken too far and become the words of propaganda (whether or not the commenter intends it). Truth is not simple or always easy, but it's a real thing. The liar (not calling the parent a liar, but for purposes of example) says, 'the truth is complicated; we just have different opinions; look at all sides'; they say 'I lie, you lie, what's the difference?' No, there is truth, it's something to strive for, and it makes all the difference.
Definitely not what I'm trying to say.
> No, there is truth, it's something to strive for, and it makes all the difference.
Absolutely. This requires that one does not take any propaganda position to be wholeistically true including those of your home country.
The search for truth comes not from authority or consensus, but from experiential reality. No authority and no consensus has a monopoly on experiential reality including the American domestic and international propaganda programmes and the consensus that they create or the Russian domestic and international propaganda programmes and the consensus that they create.
Propaganda is influence.
Facts are facts.
> Definitely not what I'm trying to say.
To be clear, I did say that I was taking it out of context and that my objection is to when it's taken too far.
> Propaganda is influence.
> Facts are facts.
Very well said.
However, I do think that comparing American and Russian propaganda is a false equivalency; they are not similar at all - that is what I'm referring to when I object to saying 'it's all the same'. I'm not naive; I don't at all trust everything the American government says, but there are many, many major differences between American news and information and Russian.
Regarding the differences it's important to both compare and contrast.
The US likes to try to color Russian propaganda as "evil" or "illegitimate" or "propaganda based on lies" or some such other nonsense. There are a great many ways to contrast the propaganda programmes, but doing it moralistically is counterproductive and ineffective.
Your comment does the following:
* Create uncertainty.
* Make many baseless claims in order to force others onto defense and occupy all their resources.
And we can seriously ask the question "Do I know more about the subject after reading (your) comment, or less?" (I think the answer is less - there's a great many things we could discuss about propaganda techniques that look nothing like the sophomoric list you've supplied).
Are you a propagandist, by your own criteria? I don't think so. Can you see how your criteria for finding propagandists isn't even useful?
I'm not one either. In fact, if you think I am the appropriate avenue is to alert the moderators.
In any case my comment is extremely informative and adds substantive knowledge to the debate, and people know more about the subject after reading my comment.
Figure I need to get in here to reply before this whole thread turns into a witch-hunting exercise.
First, people often spread propaganda without repeating it. There was interesting research a little while ago showing how propaganda stories spread across the Internet; most of the propagation is done unknowingly. Also, others simply use the techniques without realizing it. If they don't intend it to be propaganda, is it? I think it doesn't matter, unless we want to shift focus from the comment to the speaker - a falsehood is just as false independently of the speaker, no matter what the speaker's intent. Ah, uncertainty, a primary tool of the trade.
How do you point out propaganda, politely? One defensive tactic, both of the propagandist and of a normal person (again, it's never certain), is to frame it as a personal attack. Also, it's one thing to point it out with the personal distance of a online message board; what do you say to someone you are talking to - 'those are propaganda talking points'? That's rude, but otherwise you empower it. Again, it's a parasite on good faith and politeness.
This discussion is a tangent, but a very important one: What to do? Doing nothing, politely ignoring it, is to empower it. We've seen disastrous consequences from that, both historically and we seem to be heading in that direction now.
Essentially it's this: there are many narratives for explaining what's going on provided by different sources of authority and different avenues of information dispersal. Much of it is consistent with a propaganda narrative by the United States, Israel, Russia, Britain, China or another active "strategic communication"/"public messaging" campaigner.
Thinking that any one of these narratives is wholeistic truth (for example the US domestic propaganda) and then charging forward critical of any true facts that inconvenience that propaganda or are consistent with a competing one is not the solution to the problem.
And thus the track that this thread has gone down: inconvenient truths about the gaps, assumptions and conspiracies that support a broader US propaganda position are being called into question not as facts but because merely contributing these facts into the discussion could be conceivably be supportive of a competing narrative.
That's ultimately how these propaganda programs function: they overwhelm your instinctual capability to reason about facts in a manner that is divorced from reaffirmation of the propaganda bubble.
I don't know how to help you get out of it other than to call it out to you.
Absolutely, but ...
> there are many narratives for explaining what's going on provided by different sources of authority and different avenues of information dispersal. Much of it is consistent with a propaganda narrative by the United States, Israel, Russia, Britain, China or another active "strategic communication"/"public messaging" campaigner.
To make it all equivalent is to make just as much of a mistake on the other end of the continuum, and it is selling the propaganda: It's a talking point of propaganda campaigns, creating uncertainty and paralyzing action. As I said elsewhere, it's the liar who says 'you lie a little, I lie a little, it's all the same'. It's not at all the same; there is truth and it is worth everything. It's like the murderer saying 'you're a little violent, I'm a little violent, it's all the same' - no, I didn't kill anyone. It's not binary - 100% honest or a liar. Not all sources are equally trustworthy, just like not all people are. There are large differences between the Russian government and the NY Times, for example.
> inconvenient truths about the gaps, assumptions and conspiracies that support a broader US propaganda position are being called into question
They aren't truths; that's my point; calling them truths or making claims has nothing to do with truth or seeking it. They are unsubstantiated claims, including that it's US propaganda in the first place. That is the difference.
Is your point that you think American propaganda is the truth and non-American propaganda are lies?
I stand by our earlier sophisticated conversation about propaganda as influence and perception management/creation, and how seeking truth in a world filled with propaganda needs to be dispassionately uninvolved in instinctual defense of propaganda, including that of national origin.
I absolutely agree with this one. Your original comment certainly added to the discussion, and was well-reasoned (though I disagree with its conclusion).
Here's how I look at it: What knowledge did it add? By knowledge, I mean something substantiated and serious; claims and allegations are not knowledge.
"President X did nothing to stop the advance of Y" is a claim. "President X said the following about their policy on Y; as you can see, it's a relatively passive position: '...' [from http://...]" is substantiated knowledge (and admittedly, much on HN isn't substantiated).
(I don't mean to be the arbiter of or set rules for validity and knowledge; I'm just trying to give a rough idea of the distinction I'm trying to make.)
> The Shadow Brokers mentioned X. Why didn't Bruce mention it?
> The CIA had an internal hunt for contractors. Why didn't Bruce include this in his analysis?
That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten. I found it useful. jwtadvice is critiquing an opinion piece.
Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda. This is because we're commenting on an opinion piece, which itself is indistinguishable from propaganda. In fact, I assert that the most fact-laden article can be propaganda because it can completely ignore facts supporting the opposition.
Why would you be commenting about this? Because you're doing the same thing we're doing, commenting on a forum because it's fun to discuss stuff. Sure, maybe jwtadvice is a secret propagandist. Maybe I am. I think it's a waste of time to accuse people of it unless there's substance.
A more specific criticism is more appropriate: "You're just concern trolling by saying X." "You're spreading FUD about this topic without evidence. Let's wait and see." "You're changing the goal posts in order to 'be right'. Debate me on my argument." Etc.
Fair enough, but how do you know that it's true? That's part of propaganda, to make many unsubstantiated claims that people generally will accept without checking - who has time?
> Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda
In fairness I said that myself; it is a high standard that often isn't met, but it's not hopeless: Many comments do say things that are substantiated (or well-known - 'the sun rises in the east' doesn't need a cite) and they don't follow other patterns of propaganda.
But as I said, it is difficult. Good or even decent propaganda isn't easily distinguished - otherwise it wouldn't be effective.
I had not checked that the SB actually claimed they got the tools from a left-behind Equation Group pivot server. Or that it's even relevant, because there's plenty of contradictory stuff in their public statements (in the last dump they claim they're inside the IC and they write "Cyber Policy Papers").
I'll say that you have absolutely added to the conversation.
> I had not checked that ...
I don't want to take those words too literally, but I want to make a point: The implied modus operendi, that the listener checks the validity of the claims, doesn't work IMHO. It's too inefficient - the speaker can make up or repeat or simply be sloppy about many claims in seconds, and you the listener would have to spend hours validating them.
The only efficient model is that the speaker has to substantiate the claims or have them ignored (which is the method of more formal forums such as courtrooms and science). Imagine the signal-to-noise ratio with and without that requirement. Without it, false assertions simply get repeated endlessly because nobody has the time to check them out (and of course repetition is confused with truth). With that standard, much of the noise goes away; rants repeating nonsense quickly dry up. You can focus on the good stuff.
People worry, 'I might miss something important.' You only have time to read a tiny fraction of what's written, and even a tiny fraction of what is well-substantiated. You might as well invest that time on the best knowledge available.
I mean there is a difference here:
News: "US Bombs Syria" Opinion: "A line was crossed and Trump acted", "XXX Unproved actor did Y so We did Z", "One country just attacked another without going through the UN"
Yeah, states have agendas. Big media groups tend to have interests/friends that aren't totally obvious. Mass media is probably skewed on their commentary as a result.
But, we seem to be extending this warp field as an instant invalidation of all views counter to our own. Something we don't like? Obv ;fake news' and 'propaganda'. It's making lots of silos.
Those with different views are no longer tolerable. Instead of sitting down and listening to someone with a different take, we (generally as humans, I mean) seem to be increasingly looking for ways to invalidate and cheapen them to avoid having to be challenged.
"You think that drugs should be legalised and want to have a serious conversation at a national level about changing our strategy which has clearly failed? Dope head! You must be one of those pink floyd people"
"You're pro-immigration and I'm pro-isolation? Well you're clearly a lefty socialist guardian reading oolong drinker!"
"You're a business owner with serious concerns about the economic consequences of brexit? Remoaner scum!"
This goes both ways than those right/left examples above -- I do it too. I really think we're getting to the point where we can barely even discuss things any more though, we're so divided and unwilling to even listen to each other it's scary.
Yeah, someone might have an agenda. If someone says to you "obamacare gave millions of people health insurance, why do you want to remove it?" and nine times out of ten this discussion ends with nothing achieved other than discussing the motivation of the origional poster, rather instead of discussing the actual issue: don't you think we've lost something?
When did we stop respecting the right of our fellows to have a different opinion, and when did our petty insults of his motivations become more important to us than his points?
One of Churchill's nice ones: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" and we all seem to be getting fanatical...
I mean, I kind of agree. I just don't get what you're worked up about in this context.
Fair cop; this isn't aimed at anyone or wasn't intended as a response to anything -- I was just spewing my view...
I think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Shadow Brokers are Russian-aligned if not actual Russian agents. That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda.
A reasonable person could be unconvinced about this conclusion because almost no evidence has been revealed about the SB dump. Even U.S. officials haven't confirmed definitively [1] that the SB are Russian agents, though they say SB probably are.
Please note that jwtadvice didn't dispute that the Guccifer 2.0 actor was a Russia-aligned actor.
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S...
I completely agree. The problem is, and my point was, how does one distinguish a reasonable person speaking in good faith from propaganda, which by its nature is intended to appear as a reasonable person speaking in good faith - and which most often is spread not directly by propagandists but by reasonable people who trust the good faith of the propagandist?
Anyway, I think we talked about it plenty above; I just thought your well-made points deserved a response here.
Here are some techniques I know; I'd be interested in more or where I can find useful research and expertise about it:
* Create uncertainty. The strategy is not to persuade people, but to create enough uncertainty to disable them and disable debate. One way to do this is to question every possible flaw in the evidence; in reality, nothing is so clear-cut that there aren't questions (and that especially applies to intelligence operations).
* Make many baseless claims in order to force others onto defense and occupy all their resources. A baseless allegation takes seconds to make but hours or days to defend. Also, many people remember only the first headline, the baseless allegation, and don't see the followup story. Again, it's a way of disabling debate.
By design, it's tough to deal with propaganda - it's tough to continue intelligent, valuable discussion in the face of it. I'm not sure of the answer, but comments matching those techniques, such as the parent, seem to appear when Russia is discussed, for example.
One thing I do is to look for whether the comment adds substantive knowledge to the debate, or whether it just increases uncertainty about others and includes baseless information (unsubstantiated claims and rumors). Do I know more about the subject after reading the comment, or less?
EDIT: Clarified my purpose in the first paragraph.