source

If you don’t see what i’m referring to, it’s just the usual stuff :

More here, here, and a bit of debunking there

  • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t tell if the parenthesised “(only from one side, of course)” is open unapologetic sarcasm, or if people are actually expected to ignore the obvious.

    I can’t quite tell what you mean here. What are you trying to communicate?

        • aelwero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Only one side of anything being propagandised is effectively a non-existent concept. Propaganda is simply promotion of an opposing idea. People tend to equate the term with outright lies, but propaganda is far more often truth that’s specifically chosen to influence opinions in a certain direction.

          The very notion of “only one side” propagandising is, in and of itself, propaganda (and in my opinion, a very common form of it, one you’ll find much more egregiously used in US politics). I was simply pointing out the irony without meaning any implications to either side.

          • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, I understand that. Surely you can agree that one side has a significant propaganda advantage? There’s a massive difference between splashing news across every Western Source, and dropping a propaganda video on telegram.