The subtle dance of propaganda - Iran/Hezbollah/Israel

[Maxmars]

In the world of "appearances" we have to give credit to the media, which in modern times seems to mean simply developing and promulgating a narrative on behalf of someone else.  I offer these bona fide contributions as examples...

Attention Please:  This thread is about propaganda, NOT the subject of specific propaganda; please contain your comments about politics, international crisis, or personalities.  I wish to focus on something that has become a common trend in major media reporting.

From Fox News: Iran humiliated, Hezbollah and Houthis 'completely stunned' by Israel attack failure, says Gen. Keane
Subtitled: Keane called the failure of Iran's missiles a 'humiliation' and 'huge opportunity' for the US

Point made... A US general is stoked about one nation's assault on another failing.

In the meantime... CNN runs with this article: Iran’s attack seemed planned to minimize casualties while maximizing spectacle

Point made... Wasn't that nice of Iran, ... to "hold back?"

These messages have 'intent' within them... Or am I the only one thinking that the "engineered" appeal of these two articles is for two entirely different audiences?

Help me out here...

[quintessentone]

Regarding your specific example, I just read in the news this morning that 95% of Iran's strikes were ineffective against Israel's Iron Dome. So, if that information is actual fact then I'd say it's not propaganda, rather it's an exaggeration or a reaching of the facts because while it's true that the Iran strikes failed 95% of the time, how the news agency described how the General or Iranian military acted may be the 'reaching' or the 'exaggerating'. Also the new station I watched reported only the facts and nothing about how a General or what Iran's intentions are or will be.

As for Iran being humiliated or what their strike intentions were, that can't be known because with all the mutual spying going on, to me, it's likely Iran knew Israel's counterstrike abilities quite well, so it could be true that Iran was just sending an across the bow warning.

[SideEyeEverything]

It seems blatantly obvious to me the intent of the CNN headline is to paint Iran in a light similar to how Hamas is painted:

"See how nice they are? A religion of peace. They care about civilians and the innocents. How unlike evil aggressive Israel!"

ETA: but to your point, well, yes, the two outlets have different audiences and will have different messages. I think Fox is more likely to be closer to real news and more accurate in this particular case, but definitely is appealing to a pro-Israel audience with a splash of commentating like one would a sports event--hyped.

[FlyersFan]

I dunno. 

Seems Fox's opinion piece was pretty spot on.  Iran was humiliated.  They threw a crapload of munitions against Israel and they didn't hit anything except a 10 year old girl who got seriously hurt.  Even Muslim Jordan was out shooting down Iranian rockets.  And to make matters worse for Iran, they faked film footage of fires and people getting uptight and claimed it was all Israel, but that was debunked in hours.

CNNs opinion piece is obviously propaganda.  They claimed Irans attack seemed planned to minimize casualties, but the exact opposite is true.  You don't launch hundreds of rockets at civilians and then say it was 'planned to minimize casualties'.  It's just ridiculous.  

When you look at the headlines of the big three ... FOX, CNN, and MSDNC ... they are often in conflict over the same event.  It depends on what they want you to think.   But in the case of the ones you gave as examples ... The FOX opinion piece wasn't propaganda whereas the CNN one obviously was.

I hope that stayed within the bounds of what you called for for discussion.  I think so.

[SideEyeEverything]

I dunno. 

Seems Fox's opinion piece was pretty spot on.  Iran was humiliated.  They threw a crapload of munitions against Israel and they didn't hit anything except a 10 year old girl who got seriously hurt.  Even Muslim Jordan was out shooting down Iranian rockets.  And to make matters worse for Iran, they faked film footage of fires and people getting uptight and claimed it was all Israel, but that was debunked in hours.

CNNs opinion piece is obviously propaganda.  They claimed Irans attack seemed planned to minimize casualties, but the exact opposite is true.  You don't launch hundreds of rockets at civilians and then say it was 'planned to minimize casualties'.  It's just ridiculous.  

When you look at the headlines of the big three ... FOX, CNN, and MSDNC ... they are often in conflict over the same event.  It depends on what they want you to think.   But in the case of the ones you gave as examples ... The FOX opinion piece wasn't propaganda whereas the CNN one obviously was.

I hope that stayed within the bounds of what you called for for discussion.  I think so.

 In agreement with you, absolutely. I agree Fox was correct in the assessment made, just was a bit sensational. I'm simply comparing straight news reading I grew up with to the news entertainment we have today is all.

[Raptured]

Without having been there, on the front-lines, I don't believe anything that's reported. 

Every outlet is controlled.   Every piece is programming.   Every event is orchestrated

[Maxmars]

Without having been there, on the front-lines, I don't believe anything that's reported. 

Every outlet is controlled.   Every piece is programming.   Every event is orchestrated

Well, you are approaching an understanding of those who wish to not just to carry out their objectives (whatever they may be.)   For many, it's not just about their objectives... but how the larger world "perceives" what they do.  To that end, they will focus on "appearances" rather than the simple truth.

Yes, every outlet they can control, will be as controlled as they can manage.  Yes, everything we see is not just a production, but "programming."  It's not about what happened, but how they frame what happened and what reactions they offer up as acceptable or 'normal.'

I hesitate to agree with every even being "orchestrated."  They aren't that 'all-knowing' or 'all-powerful,' they just aren't that smart... that is also part of "appearances."  Which is not to say it couldn't be or hasn't been.  Only that anything that increases such an image won't be countered.  There is little more useful than having the world believe you are so deft and skilled that no one can reach you.  It's a convenient standing... like being free to speak of your notional opponents and having everyone 'automatically' believe you... and having you opponents "appear" powerless to stop you.

You are correct in that lacking first-hand exposure should make you hesitant make proclamations about any event.  But everyone is entitled to their own judgement and will do as their nature compels them. 

My point here was to offer a contrast and fuel to the pursuit of the evidence we are exposed to about world affairs and "who says what" about them.  The idea that "such and such" makes some statement about something DOES NOT indicate anything about that event other than what "that person" thinks.  It is not - in and of itself - news "about" the event any more than what YOU think is "news" about the event.

People have granted a lot of "power" to the press... because we collectively are to believe that the press is some kind of objective source.  That is only the ideal... and far from true, especially nowadays when unspoken "advocacy/activist journalism" is considered 'acceptable.'  Add to this the direct and purposeful insertion of 'press-release' journalism from the government or mega industrial entities... and well, here we are.

[quintessentone]

Well, you are approaching an understanding of those who wish to not just to carry out their objectives (whatever they may be.)   For many, it's not just about their objectives... but how the larger world "perceives" what they do.  To that end, they will focus on "appearances" rather than the simple truth.

Yes, every outlet they can control, will be as controlled as they can manage.  Yes, everything we see is not just a production, but "programming."  It's not about what happened, but how they frame what happened and what reactions they offer up as acceptable or 'normal.'

I hesitate to agree with every even being "orchestrated."  They aren't that 'all-knowing' or 'all-powerful,' they just aren't that smart... that is also part of "appearances."  Which is not to say it couldn't be or hasn't been.  Only that anything that increases such an image won't be countered.  There is little more useful than having the world believe you are so deft and skilled that no one can reach you.  It's a convenient standing... like being free to speak of your notional opponents and having everyone 'automatically' believe you... and having you opponents "appear" powerless to stop you.

You are correct in that lacking first-hand exposure should make you hesitant make proclamations about any event.  But everyone is entitled to their own judgement and will do as their nature compels them. 

My point here was to offer a contrast and fuel to the pursuit of the evidence we are exposed to about world affairs and "who says what" about them.  The idea that "such and such" makes some statement about something DOES NOT indicate anything about that event other than what "that person" thinks.  It is not - in and of itself - news "about" the event any more than what YOU think is "news" about the event.

People have granted a lot of "power" to the press... because we collectively are to believe that the press is some kind of objective source.  That is only the ideal... and far from true, especially nowadays when unspoken "advocacy/activist journalism" is considered 'acceptable.'  Add to this the direct and purposeful insertion of 'press-release' journalism from the government or mega industrial entities... and well, here we are.

For both sides, it almost seems that the orchestrated news is delivered in such a way that appeases both sides, so no further thinking nor further investigation is required by the audiences...this is where the thinking stops for those who want others to think for them. Reinforced circular thinking...

https://imgur.com/YRqDyoC

You are responsible for your own continued programming.