-13
Total censorship becoming the norm in the political West
(infobrics.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
-13 points (38.2% liked)
World News
32378 readers
902 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Again you wrote a reply guy screed without engaging with a single word that was written. We are getting closer to making you read though, as you are now offended by "writing style". Of course, all of your liberal opinions are fact, everyone else's are Russian Evil Antivax Hate Propaganda. Do you have any more invective to heap on the piece without daring to attempt to refute a word?
I can handle nonsense but please don't call me a liberal.
Can you point to the part you want me to engage with? Half your comments are you fantasizing about me so I'm not sure what you're even trying to tell me.
I am speaking directly to you about what you are doing and saying there is no fantasy here I am describing you.
That's not how it works you're the one complaining about the article you have to find a point that was made in the article that you disagree with you need to supply the evidence that refutes the point otherwise you're just thoughtlessly dismissing it because that affirms your liberal worldview.
Of course there are other reasons that you could dismiss the article such as actually pointing to something that made the source unreliable that they'd said in the past. But I don't think you can do that either.
alright sorry for leaving you hanging, I got some time gonna answer now.
That's fair. Although I'm not really disagreeing with the content of the article. For one, it makes many claims itself that are not substantiated.
Agreed, but there's no example. This is just narrative.
Agreed, but again it's just narrative no examples. I can think for myself, I'd like to know why this is the case.
I could keep going but this goes for both of the first paragraph. Every sentence is loaded with narrative, while depriving me of any actual information.
Then it gets juicy.
Back in 2020, covid caused a shock to the global population, making them susceptible. Fake news and medical misinformation ran rampant, and there was an outcry against it, as conspiracy-crap isolated people even more. Russian state-sponsored propaganda quickly picked up on this, and capitalized on fear and shock in order to lure people into their propaganda. I investigated some of the "news outlets" spreading medical misinformation back then, and the articles were just like this one. All narrative, very little actual information. Just enough to confirm peoples beliefs and then a little more to influence them. Drago is basically admitting he was part of that.
Maybe it's not about covid, maybe it's about something else. Anyway Drago makes no attempt to tell us what his great journalism was about.
Then the article finally has some proper information about WikiLeaks being under attack. No complaints here
for real? wow. Once again not a single bit of information. Which truths? What is the great journalistic effort that Drago seems to want my recognition for?
The source for this is... a twitter post? really? I'm not saying it's not true I'm saying this article is not journalism. It's an essay at best, and a shit one at that.
And the source for this is... links to Telegram channels? lmao
Another reminder that this is a far-right propaganda author. Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist piece of shit and his intentions were clear.
come on you have to admit this is hilarious.
Basically, the information conveyed in this article is next to none. There is only narrative. The article barely provides no evidence for its own narrative, and then you expect me to bring evidence to refute the narrative. I'm not here to do the authors job for him lol.
I'm not even trying to refute the article. Like I've said many times now and you fail to understand, I don't disagree with the opinion that censorship is becoming a bigger problem in the West. But the article isn't trying to inform you. The article is trying to manipulate your opinion.
One important factor in the whole discussion over whether we take western propaganda seriously, whether we take the censorship to be benevolent, which I'm seeing completely neglected, is how we're dismissing it because of all the lies which western governments have told in the past, we're not just dismissing it because it's state affiliated, or propaganda, all journalism is propaganda. When former CIA officers tell us that the purpose of the organization is misinformation I think we would be wise to listen to them, if only on that point. With a little bit of reading we can easily discover that western propaganda is based entirely in taking embedded reporters who serve alongside the Israeli military, the Ukrainian military, and other allies at face value, or taking statements by the US and its allies at face value without investigation or waiting for them to provide any evidence for these claims. Due to a monopoly on media distribution and high-ranking universities they don't have to make any contact with reality to be taken seriously. Quite the opposite, the more uncritically they repeat what they're told the more prestige is heaped upon them.