Doesn't make it less true.

Chomsky spent a good part of his career claiming the Cambodian Genocide was just US propaganda.

This too doesn't make it less true.

Of course it does, it offers a pervasive arguement that the source is unreliable.

Nothing you say makes your comment any more true, either. At the moment, we're at "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

[Edit: Do you have any evidence that the NYT is deliberately seeking to manufacture consent? Or even that they are unwittingly being used to manufacture consent?

Or are they just reporting what's actually happening, namely that China is manipulating western media?

And, even if the NYT is manufacturing consent, that's still pretty much a "whataboutism", unless you're claiming that China is not manipulating Facebook and Twitter.

End of edit.]

Dude. This is not Vietnam.

Let us compare the NYT manufacturing track record considering ... Iraq.

This will not stand.

Since you've editted, I will use a new comment.

Propaganda is among others what to say, or not to say. When to say it. What words to use.

1) Where the NYT uses manipulating western media, I would say China is engaging with world leading social networks. Basically China is buying likes. Big frickin' deal. But the NYT calls this manipulates Facebook and Twitter ( as if they are influencing the companies in itself ).

2) Manufacturing consent implies war : foreign adventures. It is not whataboutism because the US has a track record of these adventures and China has not.

Do you regard Tibet as an internal Chinese matter?

The US has more of a track record, I'll admit. On the other hand, China keeps forever in a way that the US does not.

I asked if you have any evidence. You didn't even hint that you had any, so I will assume that you do not. So we're back to "That's just your opinion."

Asking for evidence of manufacturing consent is not understanding manufacturing consent. Without being told, the media knows what is supposed to report on and what not to report on.

"It's clearly true, no evidence needed"? At a minimum, that's not very persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

But worse, that kind of thinking is how you wind up with beliefs that no external evidence can persuade you are false. It's the same approach of both religious cults and conspiracy theorists.

Mind you, you could in fact be right. But the thinking pattern has, at best, disreputable fellow travelers. Be cautious of that pattern of thinking.

In this case it means you misunderstand the model [1] which doesn't require conspiracy or malicious intent. The book they published on it is just a mass of evidence that this is how it works, check it out if that's what you want.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

If a preconceived belief will make you blind to genocide, what else will it make you blind to?

Might it make you uncritically believe anything the NYT and Washington establishment media claims? Even if their primary sources are extremely dubious?

My daily first-hand encounters with China's 50 cent army suggest it's more than just dubious claims. If anything, the NYT is late to the party.

Sorry, but this is just naïve. Washington/NY media invented "yellow journalism" long before the PRC or your scapegoat "wumao" bogeyman even existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Hearst_in_Sa...

No, I mean I myself am bombarded by people who self-identify as wumao on the various internet forums I visit. I don't read the New York Times or other "mainstream" journalism outlets. The 50 cent army has become extremely pervasive and obnoxious with their off-topic spam over the last 12 months. It's very frustrating to use most of my usual forums because of just how intensely the wumaos spam them now.

That would be news to me, src?

Quick search suggest, that this statement is just propaganda.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tr...

Nice try

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

I do not read anything, close of a statement "cambodian genocide is just us propaganda"

What I read is:

"What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered"

a much more nuanced statement.

Are we reading the same quote? He is calling reporting about the genocide propaganda.

I am reading, he is calling some reporting possible propaganda.

the best propaganda is the correct truth, no?

Correct, but Chomsky wanted people to believe it was lies.

Because he believed so, too. The US would have had incentive to paint the picture worse of the communist side doings after they left the area in a mess. After the pentagon papers and everything, that would have been a plausible scenario - it just happened to be real murder on big scale, even unseen in sowjet russia before.

This comment is parroting Chomsky critics that stretched pretty damn hard to find some way to defame him.

He compared the US media coverage of 2 similar genocides, nowhere does he claim either was "just US propaganda", nor does he downplay the seriousness of either, just that the coverage of it was handled different than the other.

Wikipedia has an entire section dedicated to his denial of the genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

I don't think that says what you're claiming it says. In fact, my reading of the content is contradictory to my reading of your comments. Am I missing something?

Are the quotes where he calls reporting on the genocide, propaganda, not good enough for you?

Oh, I stand corrected.