Once you understand how powerful propaganda is, it becomes immensely tempting to use it yourself One of the reasons we've built an anti-reality machine is that journalism selects for people who are able to mindkill themselves to what they're doing
-
Show this thread
-
The flip side of this is that it's impossible (and idiotic to expect) you can transmit the full understanding of what leads to a good, virtuous, and productive society to every member of it So some definition of "propaganda" is absolutely vital to keeping society functional
2 replies 6 retweets 82 likesShow this thread -
This means that "propaganda" itself isn't an evil function, it's a neutral one. Its virtue depends on the truth it's derived from This might take the form of tradition, religion, Party doctrine, journalism, etc
5 replies 4 retweets 68 likesShow this thread -
Most if not all other forms of "propaganda" will admit that they're doctrine. They believe—rightly—there's nothing *wrong* with doctrine. It's necessary Journalism is the unique outlier. It requires people built to lie to themselves about the very nature of what they're doing
2 replies 8 retweets 71 likesShow this thread -
The thing that World War SSC vs NYT has revealed nakedly bare is that journalists consider themselves *anti*-doctrinists. They purely believe that they have no special motives, malice, or ideological drive They consider themselves pure truth-seekers. From three different pieces:pic.twitter.com/zp0PJQUhJM
4 replies 16 retweets 128 likesShow this thread -
Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS Retweeted Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS
So the doctrine of the journalist isn't fixed: it's whatever we've decided is "truth," today. There is *one* comparison to the propaganda of modern journalists, but it's so on the nose that it's been made embarrassing to sayhttps://twitter.com/17cShyteposter/status/1316232473349517320 …
Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS added,
2 replies 2 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
Here's the kicker: journalism believes itself the product of "objective, disinterested truth," but if you forced every single NYT writer to read this study Clockwork Orange-style, *not a single one* would dare to write a piece exploring it "objectively"http://archive.is/rjs7R
2 replies 5 retweets 59 likesShow this thread
They instinctively decide what the story is. In this case "the story" isn't the claims - it's the fact it was written. Who wrote it? Why? What does his employer think? Trying to get them to write about the content is like trying to push negative poles of a magnet together
-
-
Note that the resulting story will be double and triple fact checked to make sure they don't get the author's home town or employer wrong. This is called "objectivity"
0 replies 0 retweets 10 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.