2006-rabbit is somewhat right. It’s a lot easier to do propaganda over a handful of radio and TV stations than when anybody can host their own podcast.
Can you imagine the hellscape the USA would be in if media was just 3 major networks? Trump has already shown how willing he is to use his power to control what’s allowed on TV.
The propaganda is heavy controlled via a few companies. Google and Meta, primarily.
I’d argue it’s worse, as now it’s intensely personalized, so everyone gets their own little shard of reality instead of one “averaged” version. That, and even with slants, the old networks did follow journalistic standards to some extent, while modern influencers are under no such obligation.
You’re still spending money because you employ the people doing the spreading. They could be doing other things, so even if they were slaves there’s an opportunity cost.
Yes, they’re different enough that the distinction matters.
Advertising is about selling things. The company buying an ad simply wants to sell their product or service. The advertiser simply wants to make money by showing an ad. An advertiser might accept an ad from Palantir one day and one from Amnesty International the next day. Or, in the case of Meta or Google, selling ads for both simultaneously.
Propaganda isn’t about making money. It’s a money-losing venture. The idea is to change people’s minds, typically by deceit. Some people might say that a piece about the dangers of drinking and driving is propaganda, I think most would say it’s an informational message.
There are cases where advertising and propaganda overlap. But, there are also many cases where they don’t. It’s very useful to have two distinct words to describe the two different phenomena.
yes, but do not discount how easily a huge part of the market was bought out and turned those decentralized broadcasters into free agent propagandists. rogan is the highest profile example but he’s far from the only one, and it takes a lot less to buy smaller personalities
Rogan says a lot of dumb shit, but I don’t think he’s a “free agent propagandist”. I don’t think he’s being paid to say that dumb stuff, at least not directly. I think it’s more that he either believes it or he thinks it makes for podcasts that people will download / stream. I don’t think that a Swedish media giant paid him a huge sum in order to spread propaganda, I think they did it because he had a huge audience and they thought that by making him exclusive to Spotify they could corner the market on podcasts. Luckily they were completely wrong.
The Russia Today / Tenet Media event did show that some right wing podcasters accepted money to knowingly or unknowingly launder Russian propaganda. But, these were much smaller podcasters than Joe Rogan. And, it shows that instead of the major 3 networks being forced to spread American propaganda, in the current media landscape there are so many smaller podcasters that not only can the US government not control the media, they can’t even prevent foreign countries from buying airtime.
IMO the whole podcast space is a free for all. There’s paid-for propaganda, but only some of it is American. Not all the top podcasts that Americans listen to are even American.
When the media was just 3 major networks, they had the power to say no to the government. These days their viewership is so low that they can be controlled by the government.
They never had the power to say no to the government. The government was more restrained in telling them openly and in public what they should say. But, they mostly obeyed in advance, slanting all their stories in a way that was “patriotic” more than it was truthful.
![Hope Springs Eternal [Feral Mills]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/1c308a89-7801-4ec8-84c7-0c7e152342f9.png){kind=link}
2006-rabbit is somewhat right. It’s a lot easier to do propaganda over a handful of radio and TV stations than when anybody can host their own podcast.
Can you imagine the hellscape the USA would be in if media was just 3 major networks? Trump has already shown how willing he is to use his power to control what’s allowed on TV.
The propaganda is heavy controlled via a few companies. Google and Meta, primarily.
I’d argue it’s worse, as now it’s intensely personalized, so everyone gets their own little shard of reality instead of one “averaged” version. That, and even with slants, the old networks did follow journalistic standards to some extent, while modern influencers are under no such obligation.
Yeah 2006-rabbit was right at the time, then the tech evolved again.
Google and Meta aren’t controlling propaganda. They’re just trying to make ad dollars.
Propaganda is something you lose money doing, because you’re spending money (or using influence) to change minds.
You don’t need to spend money to spread propaganda if you own the means of spreading.
You’re still spending money because you employ the people doing the spreading. They could be doing other things, so even if they were slaves there’s an opportunity cost.
It’s worth it though. Capitalist propaganda allows them to keep their wealth.
They do when it’s in their business interest, though. They absolutely spend effort to skew opinions.
That’s not propaganda. That’s advertising. Google and Meta are ad companies.
Serious question; how are advertising and propaganda different, and are they different enough that the distinction matters?
Yes, they’re different enough that the distinction matters.
Advertising is about selling things. The company buying an ad simply wants to sell their product or service. The advertiser simply wants to make money by showing an ad. An advertiser might accept an ad from Palantir one day and one from Amnesty International the next day. Or, in the case of Meta or Google, selling ads for both simultaneously.
Propaganda isn’t about making money. It’s a money-losing venture. The idea is to change people’s minds, typically by deceit. Some people might say that a piece about the dangers of drinking and driving is propaganda, I think most would say it’s an informational message.
There are cases where advertising and propaganda overlap. But, there are also many cases where they don’t. It’s very useful to have two distinct words to describe the two different phenomena.
Subtle Political advertising is most definitely propaganda
yes, but do not discount how easily a huge part of the market was bought out and turned those decentralized broadcasters into free agent propagandists. rogan is the highest profile example but he’s far from the only one, and it takes a lot less to buy smaller personalities
Rogan says a lot of dumb shit, but I don’t think he’s a “free agent propagandist”. I don’t think he’s being paid to say that dumb stuff, at least not directly. I think it’s more that he either believes it or he thinks it makes for podcasts that people will download / stream. I don’t think that a Swedish media giant paid him a huge sum in order to spread propaganda, I think they did it because he had a huge audience and they thought that by making him exclusive to Spotify they could corner the market on podcasts. Luckily they were completely wrong.
The Russia Today / Tenet Media event did show that some right wing podcasters accepted money to knowingly or unknowingly launder Russian propaganda. But, these were much smaller podcasters than Joe Rogan. And, it shows that instead of the major 3 networks being forced to spread American propaganda, in the current media landscape there are so many smaller podcasters that not only can the US government not control the media, they can’t even prevent foreign countries from buying airtime.
IMO the whole podcast space is a free for all. There’s paid-for propaganda, but only some of it is American. Not all the top podcasts that Americans listen to are even American.
When the media was just 3 major networks, they had the power to say no to the government. These days their viewership is so low that they can be controlled by the government.
They never had the power to say no to the government. The government was more restrained in telling them openly and in public what they should say. But, they mostly obeyed in advance, slanting all their stories in a way that was “patriotic” more than it was truthful.