How propaganda works vs. how Wikilawyers think propaganda works
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:10 am
Wikipedia, correctly, labels the Russian state media outlet RT as "propaganda". However, it does not label a single western-government-funded outlet thusly. In fact, many US-government funded outlets are cited as objective, reliable sources to dismiss critics of US foreign policy! Can you imagine Russian state media being cited to dismiss a critic of Putin?
One reason this happens is that most Wikipedians, even (especially?) those focused on political topics, are propaganda-illiterate. They don't know what propaganda is, and tend to think that it's mostly non-existent in the western world. While there are definitely individuals on Wikipedia consciously pushing government narratives, I do believe that most editors are operating in good faith, and are simply ignorant useful idiots who don't even know that they're being played like a piano key. I've been thinking about this for the past few days, and I've reached a couple of conclusions that I think merit discussion:
1) The biggest misunderstanding about propaganda is that it is requires an active message. It does not. There is propaganda by commission (an article that heaps excessive praise on a government official, or intentionally promotes a misleading narrative). Then, there is propaganda by omission. This is the type of propaganda that permeates western media. There are staggeringly huge, fruitful areas of public & potential journalistic interest that are simply...not discussed in American media. Ever. Ever. Except to dismiss them as "conspiracy theories", "pro-Russian narratives", or some other bullshit.
Propaganda by omission is thoroughly and exceptionally well-analyzed in Noam Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent". The book actually describes how Wikipedia works, quite accurately, 15 years before its inception. If you haven't read it, I highly, highly encourage you to do so.
I think most people here know exactly what I'm talking about, but if anyone is confused about what I mean by "propaganda by omission", I'm happy to provide specific examples. For the sake of brevity, though, on to point #2.
2) There is not an obvious solution to propaganda by omission. If the media steadfastly and uniformly ignores certain issues, it's as if they don't exist. If the media repeats only one point of view (the one that coincidentally aligns with the interests of the US government), it is as if other points of view do not exist, even if they are well-documented in independent media and self-published commentary from respected journalists. Then, the Wikipedia article repeats only the establishment point of view, in Wikivoice, as if it were a fact. Because, as far as "reliability" and "verifiability" go, the propagandistic assertions of the establishment media are facts, as Wikipedia defines a fact as an "uncontested assertion". Basically, if the establishment media says something, and isn't directly, word-for-word contradicted by other establishment media, that "something" becomes a literal, empirical fact.
The topic for discussion is this: how can a future project, like Justapedia, construct its sourcing and verifiability policies to make it more resilient to propaganda by omission than WIkipedia?
How can Justapedia avoid dumpster fires like "The Grayzone"'s Wikipedia article, which was recently criticized here, beginning at 55:30: https://rumble.com/v33nemd-system-update-121.html.
How can propaganda by omission be excluded from a neutral encyclopedia without engaging in OR? Should there be more lax sourcing requirements, such that modern independent media is given equal or greater weight than legacy media? Should there be tighter sourcing requirements, such that government-funded outlets are all deprecated on political topics? Even then, that would only solve part of the problem, since corporate interests lead supposedly non-governmental outlets to parrot government talking points with almost perfect fidelity.
I have some thoughts/ideas, but this post is long enough. I want to hear your thoughts, suckers.
One reason this happens is that most Wikipedians, even (especially?) those focused on political topics, are propaganda-illiterate. They don't know what propaganda is, and tend to think that it's mostly non-existent in the western world. While there are definitely individuals on Wikipedia consciously pushing government narratives, I do believe that most editors are operating in good faith, and are simply ignorant useful idiots who don't even know that they're being played like a piano key. I've been thinking about this for the past few days, and I've reached a couple of conclusions that I think merit discussion:
1) The biggest misunderstanding about propaganda is that it is requires an active message. It does not. There is propaganda by commission (an article that heaps excessive praise on a government official, or intentionally promotes a misleading narrative). Then, there is propaganda by omission. This is the type of propaganda that permeates western media. There are staggeringly huge, fruitful areas of public & potential journalistic interest that are simply...not discussed in American media. Ever. Ever. Except to dismiss them as "conspiracy theories", "pro-Russian narratives", or some other bullshit.
Propaganda by omission is thoroughly and exceptionally well-analyzed in Noam Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent". The book actually describes how Wikipedia works, quite accurately, 15 years before its inception. If you haven't read it, I highly, highly encourage you to do so.
I think most people here know exactly what I'm talking about, but if anyone is confused about what I mean by "propaganda by omission", I'm happy to provide specific examples. For the sake of brevity, though, on to point #2.
2) There is not an obvious solution to propaganda by omission. If the media steadfastly and uniformly ignores certain issues, it's as if they don't exist. If the media repeats only one point of view (the one that coincidentally aligns with the interests of the US government), it is as if other points of view do not exist, even if they are well-documented in independent media and self-published commentary from respected journalists. Then, the Wikipedia article repeats only the establishment point of view, in Wikivoice, as if it were a fact. Because, as far as "reliability" and "verifiability" go, the propagandistic assertions of the establishment media are facts, as Wikipedia defines a fact as an "uncontested assertion". Basically, if the establishment media says something, and isn't directly, word-for-word contradicted by other establishment media, that "something" becomes a literal, empirical fact.
The topic for discussion is this: how can a future project, like Justapedia, construct its sourcing and verifiability policies to make it more resilient to propaganda by omission than WIkipedia?
How can Justapedia avoid dumpster fires like "The Grayzone"'s Wikipedia article, which was recently criticized here, beginning at 55:30: https://rumble.com/v33nemd-system-update-121.html.
How can propaganda by omission be excluded from a neutral encyclopedia without engaging in OR? Should there be more lax sourcing requirements, such that modern independent media is given equal or greater weight than legacy media? Should there be tighter sourcing requirements, such that government-funded outlets are all deprecated on political topics? Even then, that would only solve part of the problem, since corporate interests lead supposedly non-governmental outlets to parrot government talking points with almost perfect fidelity.
I have some thoughts/ideas, but this post is long enough. I want to hear your thoughts, suckers.