Comment by roenxi

Comment by roenxi 20 hours ago

23 replies

View on Hacker News

Ex-CIA head Brennan famously remarked in an MSNBC interview [0] that when he says something is a Russian information operation that includes dumping accurate information.

So really it isn't enough to identify something as Russian propaganda - it is necessary to analyse whether it is propaganda of the accurate and informative variety, or the inaccurate variety.

Propaganda really just means someone is arguing a viewpoint. The BBC is classic propaganda, but nonetheless a pretty reliable source of information and a lot of the views are very agreeable.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Shx2AR_E4

chii 19 hours ago

> a lot of the views are very agreeable

That's why you don't "ignore" propaganda, but consume all, from all sides. Just consuming agreeable propaganda simply means it is working.

Reply View 3 replies
  • exceptione 15 hours ago

    Nope, you shouldn't. Because propaganda is effective.

    Humans are by default not influenced by logic, but rather respond on beliefs and emotions. This is one of the hardest thing to swallow for us people, we do see ourself as independent rational thinkers. We are sometimes able to, with effort.

    To understand it better, you should know that Russian propaganda is not designed to instill a certain belief, but rather to make you not belief the truth. The Kremlin is happy to push different, conflicting stories. You end up with a society of nihilists.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • chii 14 hours ago

      > We are sometimes able to, with effort.

      and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort, because otherwise, people and democracy gets taken over. It's one's civic duty to ensure that you are not making choices based on lies or manipulations.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • exceptione 12 hours ago

        > and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort,

        Agreed. But I would add that one shouldn't stick their head into stuff that is deliberately trying to steer you away from the truth and seeks to undermine your moral compass.

        I think it would help people immensely if they first could filter their sources on intent and principles. The Guardian is a better source than the newspapers from North Korea.

        Reply View 0 replies
foldr 16 hours ago

The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. It’s good to be aware of media bias, but it’s reductive and cynical to view all media as propaganda.

Reply View 18 replies
  • roenxi 15 hours ago

    > The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.

    If it isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down? Why would they be funding something that was pushing viewpoints that undermined Britain? This is simple incentive analysis stuff, this organisation isn't being funded for billions of dollars because the Brits happen to just be uniquely dedicated to the cause of the truth even if it hurts their interests. They're British! They're one step removed from the people who invented espionage, there is a long history of information warfare here.

    RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda. The US has been running this experiment for centuries now, it has been well established that the government-sponsored perspective isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's.

    Reply View 13 replies
    • shakna 14 hours ago

      The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it.

      As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted to shutdown, and control, at different times, but were told that they could only operate within the rights granted by the royal charter.

      > The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.

      Its not a perfect system. But it is very far removed from the daily pressures of propaganda and an angry government. The BBC is not really "state backed". They are independent.

      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Board

      Reply View 2 replies
      • roenxi 13 hours ago

        My eye is drawn to the section:

        > The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence).

        > Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC will agree with the Foreign Secretary-

        > (a) objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service;

        > (b) the languages in which the World Service is to be provided

        Reply View 1 reply
        • shakna 12 hours ago

          > (9) In addition to the specific provisions of paragraphs (4) to (8), the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the BBC for the provision of the World Service is based on the following principles-

          > (a) the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity in the provision of the World Service, within the structure of the Charter and this Framework Agreement;

          > (b) in particular, the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the World Service; and

          > (c) subject to compliance with the Charter and this Framework Agreement the BBC may generate other sources of income for the World Service.

          Reply View 0 replies
    • anigbrowl 6 hours ago

      one step removed from the people who invented espionage

      Some temporal and geographic myopia going on here.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • ripe 12 hours ago

      > RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda.

      False equivalence.

      By your logic, any government support automatically makes an outlet propaganda. So, NPR and PBS would also be propaganda, since they get a small grant.

      RT and other Russian-sponsored outlets, in case you didn't know, try to both push the state narrative, and push conflicting conspiracy theories in different markets to convince people that there is no objective truth.

      Like, for example, claiming that reliable Western news sources are government propaganda...

      Reply View 0 replies
    • foldr 15 hours ago

      Every news organisation reports its own point of view and could potentially be shut down by whoever controls the purse strings. Your logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda. That might be technically true in some very broad sense, but it tends to lead to absurd comparisons like your comparison between the BBC and RT.

      Incidentally, various British governments have tried quite hard to shut down (or at least neuter) the BBC and failed. You're failing to take into account the fact that the BBC is a popular institution and that there would be domestic political consequences for a government that attacked it too strongly. If you think that your average British government minister goes around thinking "thank goodness for the BBC's news coverage!" then you may be a little out of touch with British politics.

      Reply View 7 replies
      • roenxi 14 hours ago

        > This logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda.

        A lot of media groups are pretty transparently in existence for propaganda purposes, but the logic doesn't imply that. It could be a media organisation exists to make their owners money while meeting an under-served need in the community. That is why most businesses exist. It obviously isn't why the BBC exists because there are a whole bunch of laws and public funding propping it up and it isn't independently profitable.

        > ...absurd comparisons like your comparison between the BBC and RT.

        The BBC had a policy for 60 years [0] of vetting applicants through MI5 based on their politics. And realistically it took 60 years to find that out we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s. Any media organisation with that sort of historic tie to intelligence can be safely compared to RT.

        > Incidentally, various British governments have tried quite hard to shut down (or at least neuter) the BBC and failed. You're failing to take into account the fact that the BBC is a popular institution and that there would be domestic political consequences for a government that attacked it too strongly.

        That seems to be largely irrelevant. I'm sure there are factions in the Russian government that see RT as a waste of money on any given day and I'm happy to accept that British propaganda is popular in Britain.

        [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#MI5_vetting_policy

        Reply View 6 replies
  • paganel 16 hours ago

    > but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.

    Id does exactly that, as does all State-supported media (such as RFI in France or Deutsche Welle in Germany).

    Reply View 3 replies
    • foldr 15 hours ago

      The BBC’s editorial line isn’t determined by the government of the day. I’m not familiar with the output of examples you mention, but there’s no comparison with RT, which is simply a propaganda arm of the Russian state.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • paganel 12 hours ago

        Then how come it lines up pretty closely with the British government’s views? See Covid, Ukraine and especially the genocide in Gaza.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • foldr 11 hours ago

          It doesn’t. You can find people of all political stripes complaining about BBC journalism, including government ministers.

          Reply View 0 replies