Read between the lines. When Fox News calls a group of peoples an “invading horde”, this is done as purposely as when the New York Times calls these peoples “migrants”.
Understand the truth that everything is propaganda, every organization is capable of propaganda, and you should question every source of media for its bias.
Although this article thus far has been politically focused, apply the ideology to everything, just as you would research something educational to prove its veracity. The internet being at your fingertips means you have the power to seek truth over convenience. Failure to utilize this is a failure to everything you think you stand for.
I agree with the general premise you present, but let’s be clear: there is a BIG difference between framing this example as “invading horde” and “migrants”. One of these, at least, aims to present an acceptably neutral term, while the other targets a more visceral and inflammatory response. Both sides are not the same.
Also? One statement is factual. Migrants are people moving from one place to another. That’s what these people are doing- migrating in search of a better life.
“Invading Horde” is not factual. They aren’t Mongols leading a massive and blooding military incursion into most of Central Europe.
When Fox News calls a group of peoples an “invading horde”, this is done as purposely as when the New York Times calls these peoples “migrants”.
Bullshit. One of those terms is dripping with agenda, and the other simply isn’t. “Migrants” describes the people without making a value judgment. If not making a value judgment is propaganda, then yes, everything is, including “grass is green” and “the sky is blue.”
Just because two people hold different positions on something doesn’t always mean “tHEy’Re bOTh RIgHt!” or “tHEy’Re bOTh WRoNg!” Sometimes - and I bet you can think of some pretty universal cases - one person is right, and the other is fucking wrong.
Edit: Oh oh wait, fucking wait. Then the article goes on to talk about reporting on Tiananmen Square being propagandist because a large portion of the killing “ackshually happened outside of the ackshual sqaure.”
I’m not sure why people are getting so hung up on the example that they can’t see the message.
It makes sense to me. Just because Fox’s bias is showing now doesn’t mean they won’t both be telling you about how corporations getting tax cuts is good for you in 10 minutes.
Be critical of everything you read, watch and hear. Everyone has an agenda, and it usually involves money.
Read between the lines. When Fox News calls a group of peoples an “invading horde”, this is done as purposely as when the New York Times calls these peoples “migrants”.
This is like saying referring to someone on trial as a “murderer” or as a “defendant” are just two different forms of bias. Lol, not at all. One implies guilt while the other is neutral.
The Backfire Effect is the theory that when given contradicting evidence against these predetermined beliefs a person acts to further entrench themselves in their beliefs in open rejection of the facts. Although this is considered a rare phenomenon instead of a common occurrence, the ideas are still embedded within the principles of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
From the article:
I see no article here.
I agree with the general premise you present, but let’s be clear: there is a BIG difference between framing this example as “invading horde” and “migrants”. One of these, at least, aims to present an acceptably neutral term, while the other targets a more visceral and inflammatory response. Both sides are not the same.
Also? One statement is factual. Migrants are people moving from one place to another. That’s what these people are doing- migrating in search of a better life.
“Invading Horde” is not factual. They aren’t Mongols leading a massive and blooding military incursion into most of Central Europe.
deleted by creator
Bullshit. One of those terms is dripping with agenda, and the other simply isn’t. “Migrants” describes the people without making a value judgment. If not making a value judgment is propaganda, then yes, everything is, including “grass is green” and “the sky is blue.”
Just because two people hold different positions on something doesn’t always mean “tHEy’Re bOTh RIgHt!” or “tHEy’Re bOTh WRoNg!” Sometimes - and I bet you can think of some pretty universal cases - one person is right, and the other is fucking wrong.
Edit: Oh oh wait, fucking wait. Then the article goes on to talk about reporting on Tiananmen Square being propagandist because a large portion of the killing “ackshually happened outside of the ackshual sqaure.”
Go fuck yourself.
You read it. Thanks.
I’m not sure why people are getting so hung up on the example that they can’t see the message.
It makes sense to me. Just because Fox’s bias is showing now doesn’t mean they won’t both be telling you about how corporations getting tax cuts is good for you in 10 minutes.
Be critical of everything you read, watch and hear. Everyone has an agenda, and it usually involves money.
It’s more fun to pick sides tbh
Relevant username .
This is like saying referring to someone on trial as a “murderer” or as a “defendant” are just two different forms of bias. Lol, not at all. One implies guilt while the other is neutral.
This you?
deleted by creator
That legitimately makes no sense and is not based on the article or the author’s intentions. Gold ⭐️ for trying though.
deleted by creator
Okay