Just because it’s true doesn’t mean it’s not advocacy.
Propagandizing and “sharing knowledge in a neutral, fact-based manner” aren’t mutually exclusive. The atomic unit of propaganda isn’t lies, it’s emphasis.
I have two facts that I intend to share in a neutral manner (and, for the case of this hypothetical, we will assume that “sharing knowledge in a 100% completely neutral, fact-based manner” is even possible).
I will call these Fact A and Fact B.
During the Super Bowl, I denote 30 seconds of airtime to Fact A, and denote only 5 seconds of airtime to Fact B.
True neutrality, yes. But the average person sees neutrality as the appearance of neutrality, which is what propaganda revels in. It’s why any both sides arguments are inherently propaganda on many topics, because just the very act of attempting to appear like there are two valid sides is in and of itself propaganda.
Climate change is a perfect example of this. Anthropogenic climate change is happening and even the oil companies are having to admit it publicly (after knowing about it for at least 60 years, but we’ve known this was an issue since 1890), but there are still tons of places who bring on denialists after yet another year of 'record breaking, once in a lifetime’s storms.
Absolutely. Humanizing politicians is biased towards the status quo by distracting from the effects of their policies, which is literally the only relevance they have to our lives.
There’s an implicit liberal, idealist bias in examining personal aspects of politicians instead of political economy and what factions in power selected that politician.
Just because it’s true doesn’t mean it’s not advocacy.
Propagandizing and “sharing knowledge in a neutral, fact-based manner” aren’t mutually exclusive. The atomic unit of propaganda isn’t lies, it’s emphasis.
Propaganda and sharing knowledge in a neutral, fact-based manner are absolutely mutually exclusive.
Propaganda is biased by definition.
I’m a giant media conglomerate.
I have two facts that I intend to share in a neutral manner (and, for the case of this hypothetical, we will assume that “sharing knowledge in a 100% completely neutral, fact-based manner” is even possible).
I will call these Fact A and Fact B.
During the Super Bowl, I denote 30 seconds of airtime to Fact A, and denote only 5 seconds of airtime to Fact B.
Question: is this propaganda?
True neutrality, yes. But the average person sees neutrality as the appearance of neutrality, which is what propaganda revels in. It’s why any both sides arguments are inherently propaganda on many topics, because just the very act of attempting to appear like there are two valid sides is in and of itself propaganda.
Climate change is a perfect example of this. Anthropogenic climate change is happening and even the oil companies are having to admit it publicly (after knowing about it for at least 60 years, but we’ve known this was an issue since 1890), but there are still tons of places who bring on denialists after yet another year of 'record breaking, once in a lifetime’s storms.
There is no unbiased “neutral”, why particular facts are important and how they should be presented is determined by your biases.
To your point: “trump is a human” is a controversial statement.
Absolutely. Humanizing politicians is biased towards the status quo by distracting from the effects of their policies, which is literally the only relevance they have to our lives.
There’s an implicit liberal, idealist bias in examining personal aspects of politicians instead of political economy and what factions in power selected that politician.