Originally Posted by RINGLEADER
Drudge's current headlines are:
WELFARE SOARS 32% IN 4 YEARS...
Now costs $1,030,000,000,000...
NO SURPRISE: Jobless claims rise 46,000...
Under Obama, for every $7 brought in by gov't, $11 spent...
GALLUP: R 52% O 45%
Those may not help Obama's cause, but are they incorrect? I thought propaganda required some factual inaccuracy, but I could be wrong...
Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.
More crucially to my point:
Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
Drudge's problem is twofold:
1. He is a Republican propaganda outlet, presenting selective news only if it favors the Republican agenda. So while sometimes Drudge will cherry pick reliable information (such as the CNBC piece), he's doing just that: cherry picking. News of similar or greater weight does not get the full "Drudge treatment" if it does not play into the Republican narrative.
His other problem is pointed out by mcchiefsguy:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
Look at the sources for those headlines:
Yup, yup, and yup.
While I have nothing against CNBC, this is common practice on Drudge, and it's honestly the exact same formula they use on Fox News: place nuggets of reliable information in a sea of hyperpartisan bullshit.
Altogether, it creates an air of legitimacy when it's anything but.