> If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does.
Well, OK. If you want to call the New York Times opinion section "propaganda", then I guess I can't argue.
This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. Is “I have imagined your opinion about a different thing that we aren’t talking about!” supposed to be some sort of gotcha?
You called the Washington Post opinions section propaganda in another post. You seem to keep agreeing with the people that you’re responding to in a tone that sounds like you’re not agreeing with them.
It seems like we all agree about Jeff Bezos turning the options section into his own personal propaganda outlet and you just want to add that you think other folks are angry? And you want us to know that you’re imagining our opinions about other stuff?
> This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post.
No, "we" are not doing that. You are asserting this, and I am saying that you are confusing the completely historically normal function of a newspaper editorial staff with "propaganda". Newspaper owners have, since newspapers have existed, controlled the editorial slants of their papers.
The New York Times does similar things regularly -- but on the left -- and James Bennet famously was pushed out from the Times in 2020 for having the temerity to publish an editorial from a sitting US Senator, because that Senator said something right-wing, and AG Sulzberger (chairman of the Times) demanded his resignation for it.
Yes, you did. You used the word “characterizing” in reference to someone correctly using the word “propaganda” in the sense that it’s defined in the dictionary. You agreed that it’s propaganda insofar as when someone is using the word correctly, but you disagree because… “the left”… exists??
> they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda
It seems like you’re arguing that “propaganda” isn’t so much a word that has a meaning that people agree on but rather a vibe that you, forums poster timr, are the arbiter of.
Like it’s pretty simple to look up a word and see that “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause” applies in a way so plainly obvious that it would take extreme pains to craft an argument otherwise in good faith. Hence the unprompted change of topic to the opinions that you imagine in your head that other people have and “the left”.
Trying to change the topic of discussion with whataboutisms about “the left” won’t change what the word means, even if a person feels really, really strongly that it should or would.
That aside,
> No, "we" are not doing that.
Yes “we” are. Similar to how propaganda is a word that has a meaning, this is actually the thread about Jeff Bezos/WaPo and not a fanfic thread about me, no matter how badly an individual might want that to be otherwise. If you want to start a “What sort of stuff does everybody imagine jrflowers thinks or has opinions about?” discussion, the place to do that is at this link https://news.ycombinator.com/submit
Well, OK. If you want to call the New York Times opinion section "propaganda", then I guess I can't argue.