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