Oh, the irony! As an Indian, reading nytimes and bbc articles about India was a real eye opener on how much propaganda is passed off as 'opinion' and 'news' in the western press.

I mean, the confidence and elan with which a narrative is pushed by blatantly hiding contrarian views and even facts is fascinating to observe, especially when you're on the ground looking at stuff firsthand.

You really need to experience it to believe it.

You always need to take anything in 'opinion', 'editorial' or 'analysis' sections with a grain of salt.

That being said, bias does not automatically imply propaganda. Naturally someone raised in the UK/US is going to have a Western interpretation of actions and bias, but in most cases these are beliefs genuinely held. I'm sure as a British person I could find many areas where I disagree with you, and our particular views are coloured by cultural biases - but that does not make them propaganda IMO. Tech articles often contain ridiculous statements around encryption and the dark web, but it's most likely lack of understanding than propaganda.

I would say propaganda requires intent - usually to achieve a political aim at the behest of the government. Genuine propaganda is hard to conclusively find within the BBC - though I personally suspect some of the covid reporting contained a type of voluntary propaganda.

> I would say propaganda requires intent - usually to achieve a political aim at the behest of the government.

This is most certainly present, and is glaringly obvious when you're seeing events unfold firsthand and look at the reportage in western media very deliberately leave out happenings that don't tie in with the narrative being peddled. It definitely isn't just bias. It's wilful propaganda, with malicious intent.

Having known journalists, I think it's better to apply Hanlon's razor. Most articles are likely to be being written from some office in London by people who have no direct experience with the issue in question, and the primary metrics they'll be optimising for will be page views.

For example, a writer for the Express won't write an article about how the British Empire screwed India because it will annoy the readership. It's not propaganda, it's people who don't know what they're talking about desperately fighting over shrinking advertising revenue.

> Most articles are likely to be being written from some office in London by people who have no direct experience with the issue in question

And they will use government sources, adding little more than stenography to whatever message their government wants to push.

Ypu know why west is different from Russia or China? Russian embassy in Italy retweeted an italian newspaper editorial from 'Il Fatto Quotidiano' backing russian story. In Italy you can say almost anything. Is it the same in Russia (15 years of prison for "false news" law) or China (HK is no more "two system, one country" despite 1997 international agreement)?

This happened recently with the Canadian trucker convoy. So many videos showing people just being peaceful, they stopped honking when a bad law was passed to prohibit it- and they were labeled extreme terrorists who had donations/bank accounts frozen and confiscated.

In a way I'm glad this has all happened to show the few who remain faithful in media that it's all bullshit pushing some narrative.

This is all so blatant now that it's almost impossible to defend rationally.

I've seen the same in Indian news in reference to the USA. All country's news are slanted towards their populous. However in countries like China and Russia they print straight up lies.

I am amused that one who know neither Chinese and Russian languages confidently claim that their media are lying, based on the reporting that one knows as biased.

Let's put in this way.

One saw a black box.

One was told that the black box contains some nasty staff.

One knows that the above statement is biased.

One then claim that the black box contains the nasty thing.

See how bias anchored one's thought, even if clearly this guy had no first hand information to make any judgement at all. Yet still be able to have a mental state that clearly established.

You know that Russian and Chinese media have English versions, and Google Translate and similar can be used to translate the original versions? The absolutely publish complete bullshit.

his point is, have _you_ translated these things for yourself or just relied on someone else to do so?

Yes, i have. It's not worth the bytes it took to get to me and i wonder what kind of cynic would even try to write so blatantly wrong bullshit.

while i was replying to you, i meant “you” in general. his point is a valid one: that most people simply take the information that’s presented to them, and, despite knowing what the source of that information is, choose to believe it at face-value. whether this news is from state-controlled media or the new york times or wherever, people ignore the known fact that their news source is likely biased in some way and, without bothering to do any research themselves, let that news shape their opinions.

I mean, calling Zelenskyj a nazi dictator is quite stupid. He was elected in 2019, won elections against the previous Ukrainian 'dictator' (who was also put in the seat by the CIA if you believe the dictator narrative).

At least we don't get jailed for speaking out, so dissenting opinions are still able to come out. That's the difference.

Only canceled.

I don't doubt you, but examples would greatly help.

I thought the reporting on the near-nuclear incident gave a good contrast, as I first read it in the Telegraph[tele], then checked it in the Guardian[graun], had a look at Reuters (not sure what the link was), then looked at Russia Today[RT]. The main difference I found was that the western media was more alarmist and buried the lede[1] that the fire wasn't actually going to lead to a nuclear accident. Russia Today's reporting was much calmer and put things like that nearer the top (going by my recollection).

For example, the Guardian's headline:

> World ‘narrowly averted a nuclear catastrophe’, says US envoy to UN after Russia attack on Ukraine atomic plant - as it happened

Whereas Russia Today's headline and first line are:

> Ukraine accuses Russia of ‘shelling’ nuclear plant

> A fire broke out on Friday morning in a training building adjacent to the six-reactor Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), which local Ukrainian authorities have blamed on shelling by Russian troops.

The Telegraph has this quote a way down the page[2]:

> "For the moment, we know that all these dangers (that there had been concern about) haven't materialised but that the fire was contained to an administration building."

I was genuinely shocked and worried when I read the Telegraph, until I saw the bit about the building, and then I see that RT is making that the important part of their reporting.

I'm not picking a side here, nor trying to dismiss genuine worries (I still think the fire was too close for comfort), however, I think it's interesting to see the ways the same events are reported on, and it's something I think should be allowed, at the very least to counter accusations of censorship in aid of propaganda.

[1] that phrase implies intention, I can't confirm that, of course.

[2] I know it's a "live blog" page but that wouldn't stop them putting the info in the summary at the top, nor dialling down the scary language.

[tele]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/04/russia-ukr...

[RT]: https://www.rt.com/russia/551189-ukraine-zaporozhskaya-nucle...

[graun]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/04/ukraine-n...

I’m really interested in an example of these discrepancies, since as a westerner I’m exposed mostly to that narrative.

Give us an example that supports your argument ? Opinion pieces are what they are subjective opinions

Outside the west, there is a massive world that just sees things differently. Here the US is not a force for good but a warmongering empire.

Think of it what you will but it would be wrong to discard it as mere propaganda. These are deeply held beliefs.

Belief From a country or countries where people are not free to inform themselves or to speech openly about opinions , that's where propaganda have are easily spread..

Well, to be fair if you remove restrictions then it is the Western version of events that will rules as they have the established platforms and money to spread info.

To see their power look at the French poll of who won them the World War. It became 20% in the recent decades from 57% for Russia

https://www.france24.com/en/20190601-who-won-wwii-russias-ro...

The idea that the Soviet Union won WWII is itself propaganda and ignores the contributions of many, many nations, not to mention the entire Pacific war. Also, the liberation of France was exclusively the western allies.

For the most part I agree but the Soviets were integral. Without the Eastern front taking up so much of the enemy resources, the Western front would have been very different.

After they were forced to switch sides. Before, they did their own share of conquest and genocide in eastern Europe [1,2,..], and the Allies generously let them keep those countries after the war. But all is forgiven and forgotten if one ends up on the Right Side of History.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

This really egregiously rewrites the history in which the nascent USSR was rebuked by every single European nation it tried to enter into a defense treaty with against Germany. I'm not going to spoon-feed, but here's a source from mainstream Western media: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/322...

If you want to categorize what the USSR did in that period as conquest and genocide would you say the same about the US annexing Hawai'i? I don't know where you're getting "forgiven and forgotten" from given that you can't talk about the USSR without someone bringing up historical events they don't understand. The Holodomor, Katyn massacre, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are all common offenders here.

And it was the collapse of the USSR + subsequent privatization of state enterprises at bargain bin prices that created the oligarchs that today are Putin's power base. The US & UK also intervened to put Putin into power in 1999, continuing a long-standing tradition of destabilizing regions and not really caring until the consequences spill over into a country like Ukraine that "looks like us" and live in "a civilized country with McDonalds"

> USSR was rebuked by every single European nation it tried to enter into a defense treaty with against Germany

That does not imply eastern European states joined the Soviet union willingly.

> If you want to categorize what the USSR did in that period as conquest and genocide would you say the same about the US annexing Hawai'i?

Unless Hawai'i joined willingly, it is by definition conquest, yes. I'm not aware of any subsequent nationality or ethnicity based mass killings, but if they took place, that is, again, genocide by definition.

> you can't talk about the USSR without someone bringing up historical events they don't understand.

You are correct, I don't fully understand that part of history. Could you explain how using military force to expand the Soviet empire wasn't conquest, or how the Holodomor wasn't genocide?

> The US & UK also intervened to put Putin into power in 1999, continuing a long-standing tradition of destabilizing regions and not really caring until the consequences spill over into a country like Ukraine that "looks like us" and live in "a civilized country with McDonalds"

You disprove your point in the same sentence that you make it. Russians look very similar to Ukrainians, and they've had McDonald's since 1990, while Ukraine got its first in 1997, and has less than half as many McDonald's per capita as Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_McDonal...

7/10 Nazi deaths were on the eastern front. Nobody said the USSR won the war itself, but they absolutely did contribute the most to the war effort. They were invaded by the largest land army in history and lost entire swathes of the country before eventually pushing the invaders out and liberating Majdanek and Auschwitz. US could have had a similar impact but we only got involved after Pearl Harbor. By then the writing was already on the wall for the Third Reich.

I suggest asking some professional historians this question and you will be surprised at the answer. Only Americans believe that the the USA was the primary nation responsible for victory in WW2.

And belief that access to information freely somehow makes one better informed is how propaganda is most _potently_ spread. At least people who grow up in repressive medium regimes know they're fed propaganda. There are comparable amount of low-info useful idiots everywhere, but very few countries are so unfree that access to global opinions isn't a VPN away. Though the ignorant from "free" societies are most insistent they're free from indoctorination, for merely having access to perspectives that they don't actually read nor have capability to interpret i.e. the amount of diaspora in western countries and western NGOs abroad means flow of propaganda is strong unidirectional while west is largely dismissive of what everyone else thinks.

Dismissing different opinions about politics based on random claims about "freedom" (this word is the trademark of western propaganda) is one of the strongest forms of propaganda. By the way, other people opinions on US actions in their countries is more relevant than US citisen opinion on the same matter, becaue guess what? That US citisen is only hearing the US Gov pov and "facts".

US banned Russian media for not spreading US narrative. Are you going to lecture the world about freeze peach?

No they didn't. I can still read sputnik and rt.com just fine if I want to. Why are you not telling the truth?

US did not ban RT. Independent companies chose to drop it, EU chose to ban it, but one can still access that cesspool of their website. But US did not ban anything.

Isn't propaganda the perfect tool to create deeply held beliefs? I would even go as far as to say that propaganda is the only way to have deeply held beliefs. But maybe my definition of propaganda is too broad.

No. It comes from history and lived experience. I have met countless Serbs who lived in the west for decades, all being deeply bitter and cynical about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the role the US played in it.

A subtle form of propaganda which is consistent with the truth is how you win hearts and minds of generations.

>that the Ukraine president is a dictator and so on...

A year ago Zelensky closed all opposition TV channels on the pretext they were pro-Russian. [0] Not one or two. All of them. Since then there is no opposition TV in Ukraine.

An extremely democratic move, isn't it?

[0] https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-zelenskiy-bans-three-oppositio...

Russia was waging a proxy war in the east, and used these channels as an propaganda weapon. So it's not so strange as you try to make it seem.

It's not the same as forbidding certain words and jailing journalists for 15 years for not agreeing with the state.

Three is not all.

In Ukraine the three was all. Since a year ago zero is all.

And there was not even a court decision. He just unplugged them overnight without notice. How democratic.

It is overly simplification. I think the sentiment in China is really not about supporting Russia; it is about anti-US.

Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region. For example, the nuclear-powered marine deal with Australia, etc. Biden’s first year was much harsher on China than Russia.

In 1999, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy, killing 3, that certainly did not help.

Eastern NATO? Sounds like something many smaller countries in the region would love to join, to secure each other against a large expansionistic neighboring country.

It might come as a surprise to you. But a lot of countries in Asia consider US and China are both bullies.

Just look how many Asia countries joined the US-lead economic sanction/coercion. Very few.

Yeah, so why does the US have to be involved? The countries could co-operate on their own?

Doesn't work if they don't have nukes. Maybe India can play daddy?

even with conventional weapons, taking on three countries should be a lot higher threshold than one...

Well, I hope they are smart in hedging their bets.

> I think the sentiment in China is really not about supporting Russia; it is about anti-US.

Anti-US is a part of it, but from what I know, Chinese people do generally like Russia a lot more than most of the world. I think it’s kind of a culture and history thing, education is likely a big part. Chinese tend to favour Russia by default for many things, even if the US isn’t involved. The US involvement (perceived or not) definitely still contributes a lot to the general sentiment in this particular case, of course.

> Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region.

We had one of those, it was called SEATO. There's been only negative progress since on that front.

> For example, the nuclear-powered marine deal with Australia

AUKUS involved countries already in NATO-like agreements with the US (UK is in NATO, Australia in ANZUS) so it doesn't really change much in terms of security alignment.

> AUKUS involved countries already in NATO-like agreements with the US (UK is in NATO, Australia in ANZUS) so it doesn't really change much in terms of security alignment.

It does, because it pissed off France ( which also has territory in the Pacific) for no good reason, and also stated that the choice of nuclear subs is due to the Chinese threat. And also it pushed the delivery date of new Australian submarines by at least a decade, probably more.

> Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region.

It probably doesn't help that this was a stated goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

> It probably doesn't help that this was a stated goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

No it wasn't, and TPP had no security provisions at all.

Yeah it's really just a giant trade agreement. The US was an idiot for backing out.

There were a lot of good reasons to be against the TPP; particularly in regards to IP. The EFF who has been a consistent and well guided voice on this issue was firmly against it[1].

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

> organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region

SEATO used to exist, and had the exact opposite effect. The destabilizing influence is an expansionist PRC.

I’m ashamed of my country and people… only if they were well informed and had unlimited access to internet would they start realizing they have been brainwashed by their own goevernment….

No I cannot. Only China and Russia ban websites that have voices against their government.

I have the same misgivings in reaction to your comment as the siblings comments mention about gatekeeping... but at the same time, I agree with you. And I'm one of the people you mention.

Speaking solely for myself, your description of me, someone seeking smarter people than myself and mostly chiming in on political/business things, it is insightful and spot on. I don't contribute much, if any, to highly technical discussions, nor do I demonstrate my own expertise. I do have it (technical expertise), but I rarely see relevant times to bring it up, and when I do see those times it's usually better to stay silent or somebody else has already said what I wanted to better than I could.

So I contribute more (not much; I resisted creating an account for many years, and now try to limit myself) to the generalized topics we can all share interest in. If stories on those topics weren't there, I wouldn't say anything. In fact, I could get those exact same stories elsewhere with accompanying forum. The only reason I prefer it here is because of the smarter people.

Will that make HN more like reddit or <insert normie platform>? Yeah, probably, and maybe that's not great.

In other words I'm near the epitome of the strawman you created, and I agree with you. I'll consider if my own participation can be modified to alleviate our shared concerns.

Glad you were open to seeing what I'm talking about, and why it concerns me. I also feel I have been guilty of it, and have hesitated to comment in technical conversations as often for the same reasons as you.

I've been trying to correct that in myself as well, seeking out more technical conversations where my statements can be clearly evaluated to be true or false based on technical merits, and thus valuable to anyone reading it.

Unfortunately, a part of nurturing a certain type of community, is to make it slightly unapproachable to those you don't want in it. I think the very plain css of the site already does a great job of that, but I wonder if it's still not enough to curate the community long term.

While the poster you are responding to seems to be a mythical creature, this is very strange gatekeeping. Hacker news has never been a purely technical forum, given the business, marketing etc side of startup culture. This intermixes with legislation, geopolitics and many other topics. All these have a legitimate place here.

To dismiss views of people with no strong tech background as not able to "filter their thoughts" or that they come here to "talk to smarter people" is rather ridiculous. You will find lawyers, linguists, public servants, medical professionals, tax advisors, HR people, ... here. Why would their analysis be less valid than yours just because you happen to have a CS or engineering degree? Who is the most rational and "smart" for you? Applied mathematics? Logicians? Philosophers specialized in philosophy of science?

Assuming other people are less smart than oneself and that one's own expertise implies superior knowledge/analysis in unrelated fields is by the way a key sign of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I already made clear my reasoning:

> demonstrating expertise in a field where being wrong is easy to prove. I find expertise in a highly technical field trains one to filter their thoughts for demonstrable accuracy.

Your litany of past posts with a tone of incredulity at the people you reply to, as well as being a good example of having few posts on topics of technical complexity, make me not interested in engaging with you further, as it seems more like it struck a personal chord with you and that you're not discussing the merits of this observation in good faith.