MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney

[petegz28]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ey_654728.html

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Off the top of my head, no.

That's what I figured.

The problem with the definition you provided for yourself of what propaganda is, is that you set it so specifically that not only does Drudge fail to reach it, but every other propaganda outlet on earth does, too.

Here's how it is commonly defined:

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.

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.

Before I continue, I want to do know: does this sound like an adequate definition of propaganda to you?

[headsnap]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.

sounds like the MSM...

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's what I figured.

The problem with the definition you provided for yourself of what propaganda is, is that you set it so specifically that not only does Drudge fail to reach it, but every other propaganda outlet on earth does, too.

Here's how it is commonly defined:





Before I continue, I want to do know: does this sound like an adequate definition of propaganda to you?

Sure, but Drudge does not lie by omission, he presents a link to the entire article, and despite your claims, not 100% of his links are to republican sites.

If Drudge was only presenting parts of the news stories, I think the argument that he is a propaganda machine would be much more valid.

Even if you think Drudge fits that definition, then you must agree that HuffPo fits that definition as well. Since you cannot concede that basic point, it makes any argument you attempt to articulate merely a front row seat to your hypocrisy.

[LVNHACK]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It looks like Direckshun is going off the rails on these final days in the DC forum. It's kind of Bonnie and Clyde style.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Sure.

Awesome.

So we have a working definition of propaganda.

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.

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.

So, again, to make this a set of workable factors, in order to be propaganda:

1. Must be a form of communication
2. aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause/position
3. by presenting only one side of an argument,
4. presenting facts selectively, and/or
5. using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to presented information.

There it is. That's the official Direckshun/mcchiefsfan conditions for propaganda.

Tell me, do these following screencaps, taken from Drudge right now, seem to present only one side of the argument, use dubious sources to make their one-sided argument?











And tell me, do these selected photos for several of the headlines suggest an emotional response?







The Drudge Report is Republican propaganda.

Screw your head back on.

[mnchiefsguy]

The New York Times is a dubious source?

What information has Drudge omitted from these articles?

Again, if you want to call The Drudge Report Republican propaganda, that is fine. But you have to be willing to admit that HuffPo is Democratic Propaganda. If you cannot hold both sites to the same standard, then you are a hypocrite.

Do you think HuffPo is Democratic propaganda?
(Not that I think you are going to answer the question)

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The New York Times is a dubious source?

Do you remember what I said earlier in the thread?

Here's the conversation:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Look at the sources for those headlines:

Washington Times
Daily Caller
CNBC
Weekly Standard

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.

This was a discussion we had days ago. Today, Drudge is doing the exact same thing.

Want to follow it with me for six months? How much you want to bet this is regular practice?

(Hint: Take it from somebody who checks Drudge every day: it's regular practice.)

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

What information has Drudge omitted from these articles?

Drudge uses articles that advance the Republican agenda.

Here's what we mean by lie by omission: there are no stories that go counter to Romney and the Republican party. No pro-Obama stories.

And most of the stories come from websites like the Daily Caller, World Net Daily, and the Washington Times. Conservative media.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Again, if you want to call The Drudge Report Republican propaganda, that is fine. But you have to be willing to admit that HuffPo is Democratic Propaganda. If you cannot hold both sites to the same standard, then you are a hypocrite.

Do you think HuffPo is Democratic propaganda?
(Not that I think you are going to answer the question)

Fine, I have no problem admitting that Huff Po is in the tank for Democrats, and severely adjust their coverage to support the Democratic party.

You want to call them a Democratic propaganda outlet? I won't disagree.

To rely on them for news is to misinform yourself.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fine, I have no problem admitting that Huff Po is in the tank for Democrats, and severely adjust their coverage to support the Democratic party.

You want to call them a Democratic propaganda outlet? I won't disagree.

To rely on them for news is to misinform yourself.

So orange and pete are in the same category then? orange is mr. huffpo after all, but I don't recall you ever criticizing for leaning so hard on Huffpo for his info....hmmmmm.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So orange and pete are in the same category then? orange is mr. huffpo after all, but I don't recall you ever criticizing for leaning so hard on Huffpo for his info....hmmmmm.

It's true, orange posted a ton of stuff from HuffPo, but he also presented more links from websites away from HuffPo than almost every other person on the board.

Pete, on the other hand, just lives off Drudge.

[Direckshun]

Just to recap:

1. We have agreed on a definition on propaganda.

2. I have presented a case proving that Drudge fits that definition.

3. You... haven't exactly batted that case down.

[Dallas Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just to recap:

1. We have agreed on a definition on propaganda.

2. I have presented a case proving that Drudge fits that definition.

3. You... haven't exactly batted that case down.

Swing and a miss.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just to recap:

1. We have agreed on a definition on propaganda.

2. I have presented a case proving that Drudge and Huff PO fits that definition.

3. Direckshun has failed to admit that HuffPo is a propaganda outlet for the Democratic property.

4. Direckshun is a hypocrite.

FYP

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fine, I have no problem admitting that Huff Po is in the tank for Democrats, and severely adjust their coverage to support the Democratic party.

You want to call them a Democratic propaganda outlet? I won't disagree.

To rely on them for news is to misinform yourself.

But you won't come out and say it either.