Consuming Propaganda Puts You in a Higher Risk Group

[Milchshake]

Ongoing In: Partisanship Predicts Personal Response to Covid-19

Interesting working paper comparing subgroups of Fox News viewers.

We study the effects of news coverage of the novel coronavirus by the two most widely-viewed cable news shows in the United States – Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight, both on Fox News – on viewers’ behavior and downstream health outcomes. Carlson warned viewers about the threat posed by the coronavirus from early February, while Hannity originally dismissed the risks associated with the virus before gradually adjusting his position starting late February.

• Hannity downplayed the threat of the virus in early Feb
• Carlson acknowledged risks earlier
  
• Hannity’s viewers changed behavior later than Carlson’s (per surveys)
• Viewership of Hannity was strongly associated with more COVID deaths & cases in early stages of the pandemic

I wonder if they could preform a comparable study to other state TV networks like RT.

[anveena]

Well thankfully I don't watch CNN.

[Felya]

Well thankfully I don't watch CNN.

That’s the thing... if you got your news from anywhere other than Hannity, even other Fox News hosts, you would have been better off. As long as it wasn’t Hannity, don’t have to be cnn, you were better off than those who watched Hannity. Hannity appears to be typhoid marry, but isn’t sick and simply gets others sick on his behalf.

[Machismo]

Well thankfully I don't watch CNN.

I don't recall CNN pushing a mountain of lies like Hannity did. perhaps you can provide that evidence.

[Orbitus]

Well thankfully I don't watch CNN.

Which is why we know you consume propaganda, which CNN is not.

[Zython]

Well thankfully I don't watch CNN.

Yeah, you need to get news from foreign sources, as well. Otherwise, you're just sniffing your own farts on pro-American propaganda.

[zEmini]

Actually both CNN and Fox news spew propaganda and fake news. Even with the Covid-19 information we are getting disinformation (or uniformed opinions) from all these talking heads. I suggest watching your local channels if you want something with less bias

[Maneo]

Actually both CNN and Fox news spew propaganda and fake news. Even with the Covid-19 information we are getting disinformation (or uniformed opinions) from all these talking heads. I suggest watching your local channels if you want something with less bias

Couldn't agree more local news is where it is at, the big networks are all about clicks/views not the news.

Personally I watch Fox news (not the commentators) and MSNBC and try to find the truth in the middle w/the assistance of local news casts and personal research.

[Felya]

Couldn't agree more local news is where it is at, the big networks are all about clicks/views not the news.

I suggest watching your local channels if you want something with less bias

A lot local news is owned by the same company and get their news script from the same headquarters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

Local news isn’t protected from any bias... they are for profit, just like cable news.

[Edge-]

Actually both CNN and Fox news spew propaganda and fake news. Even with the Covid-19 information we are getting disinformation (or uniformed opinions) from all these talking heads. I suggest watching your local channels if you want something with less bias

Neither is great, but from what bits I've seen of both in their coverage of the virus they're not remotely alike.

CNN was taking this seriously early.
Fox was telling people that this was the flu.

CNN was reporting the dangers of the virus.
Fox was saying more people die from the flu.

CNN brings on a bunch of idiots, but they largely stick with actual doctors when getting medical advice.
Fox brings on Mr. Phil and Dr. Drew to talk about how swimming polls kill more people (they don't).

CNN fact-checked Trump's frequent incorrect statements during his briefings.
Fox, to my knowledge, has not.

CNN may be garbage for the most part (I can't believe Don Lemon still has a job), but they're not propaganda in the way that Fox is. CNN's goal is viewers and money, they don't have any broader ideology behind corporatism that's shared by every major corporation. Fox absolutely has a hard-ideology bent and it shapes their entire world view, and the world view and information they present (often inaccurately) to their viewers.

This is why, for example, this exists - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...icism-n1011176

Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."

Agreed that local channels tend to be a bit less sensational in their stupidity, but between Sinclair's nonsense and some of the quirks of local reporting it's hardly a great resource for anything beyond information about what your state/county is doing lately.

[Dsonsion]

There's hardly one source that is not propaganda, especially in the USA. It's just that extreme right-wing propaganda is the worst in terms of veracity and the most sinister in terms of its goals.

[Edge-]

There's hardly one source that is not propaganda, especially in the USA. It's just that extreme right-wing propaganda is the worst in terms of veracity and the most sinister in terms of its goals.

Hard disagree. Bias =|= propaganda. Most outlets have some form of bias.

HuffPo for example is definitely left leaning. Though I'm not sure I'd argue that they're "propaganda" despite the heavy lean leftwards, as they still largely stick to facts and reality. Just viewed through a very left-leaning lens. They're getting informed, just with a particular bias behind the information that can color how the reader/viewer processes it (though honestly if you're going to HuffPo you're probably already left-leaning so would likely view/process the information in a similar manner regardless).

Fox though...that's not just reality viewed through the world of a right-leaning lens as they often reject facts and reality in service of ideology. That's why Fox viewers, for example, are often the least informed of news consumers overall. Because they're not getting news, even if it's biased news. They're getting propaganda, which is why they're not just uninformed, but aggressively misinformed.

[Dsonsion]

Hard disagree. Bias =|= propaganda. Most outlets have some form of bias.

HuffPo for example is definitely left leaning. Though I'm not sure I'd argue that they're "propaganda" despite the heavy lean leftwards, as they still largely stick to facts and reality. Just viewed through a very left-leaning lens. They're getting informed, just with a particular bias behind the information that can color how the reader/viewer processes it (though honestly if you're going to HuffPo you're probably already left-leaning so would likely view/process the information in a similar manner regardless).

Fox though...that's not just reality viewed through the world of a right-leaning lens as they often reject facts and reality in service of ideology. That's why Fox viewers, for example, are often the least informed of news consumers overall. Because they're not getting news, even if it's biased news. They're getting propaganda, which is why they're not just uninformed, but aggressively misinformed.

Every news site has their own agenda and bias and consciously or subconsciously sets out to influence their audience. Besides, propaganda doesn't have to be deceptive to be considered as such. Just the selective reporting that the US and European news outlets are so expert at is a great example of technically veracious news that I'd consider propaganda.

[Endus]

Hard disagree. Bias =|= propaganda. Most outlets have some form of bias.

Just to be clear on the terminology for others; "Bias" just means "has an opinion about things". If the people behind CNN support a particular policy shift, it's absolutely reasonable for them to use that platform to support it. Journalistic integrity does not require that one avoid having opinions and viewpoints; in fact, it demands it. Journalists are not expected to be neutral.

Having said opinions will, naturally, mean you tend to use more-friendly language towards people and viewpoints you support, and less-friendly language towards those you don't. Again, this is fine, and not an issue of journalistic integrity.

Where we enter into propaganda is when you start misrepresenting the facts, whether by deliberately making shit up, omitting major parts of the story, or by including the narrative of idiots and propagandists alongside that of experts, to cast false uncertainty upon an issue. This isn't "bias", it's just straight-up lying and disinformation.

Bias is fine, and to be expected. Propagandizing is not. CNN definitely engages in the former (and that's fine). They pretty much don't engage in the latter. Fox, on the other hand, clearly does engage in propagandizing.


Taking issue with an outlet having a "bias" is like complaining that a movie reviewer is "wrong" and "lying" because he gave a movie 8/10 and you think it's a 4/10. He's got his opinion, you've got yours. As long as he's not lying about the film somehow, he's free to have his opinion, and you're free to not agree with it. If you're only sticking to one news source, or one reviewer, you're doing yourself a disservice.

[Edge-]

Every news site has their own agenda and bias and consciously or subconsciously sets out to influence their audience. Besides, propaganda doesn't have to be deceptive to be considered as such. Just the selective reporting that the US and European news outlets are so expert at is a great example of technically veracious news that I'd consider propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias#Biases_in_media
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

Again, not remotely the same thing. Biases exist and are impossible to be completely free of, no matter how hard many (not all) journalists may try to account for their own biases in their reporting. You can be blatantly biased, but you're still largely dealing with facts and reality as that point.

Propaganda is both something you have to intentionally do (vs. bias which may be unintentional) and relies heavily on rejecting reality in favor of the propaganda reality. The two are very broadly part of a similar problem, but they're very much two very different problems in their root causes.

[PC2]

Okay so different people use different news sources and then when those people get together they have a debate about the truth and which explanations best account for current events. This is how society works and there's never going to be one ultimate source for receiving the pure truth.

[Vankrys]

Well thankfully I don't watch CNN.

i have to admit, i have a hard time to understand why everyone says CNN is either garbage or outright lie to the public.
In fact, i have seen clips of CNN simply having a Trump speech and comment section is filled with "CNN fake news"
How is that fake news, it's only a speech of the president.

Now opinion's show are that, opinion's show. They present opinions, you can agree or disagree. But the data presented, save a honest mistake, have never been a gross lie. Granted, CNN can chose to give more air time to whoever fit their agenda, but i have never really seen a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Again, opinions are opinions, it's important you understand that when watching any opinion show

[Edge-]

i have to admit, i have a hard time to understand why everyone says CNN is either garbage or outright lie to the public.
In fact, i have seen clips of CNN simply having a Trump speech and comment section is filled with "CNN fake news"
How is that fake news, it's only a speech of the president.

Now opinion's show are that, opinion's show. They present opinions, you can agree or disagree. But the data presented, save a honest mistake, have never been a gross lie. Granted, CNN can chose to give more air time to whoever fit their agenda, but i have never really seen a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Again, opinions are opinions, it's important you understand that when watching any opinion show

Because CNN tends to lean leftward and Trump has singled them out frequently, potentially the most frequently, for his attacks against the "FAKE NEWS" media. And because he's a big brain some people listen to him.

[kail]

i have to admit, i have a hard time to understand why everyone says CNN is either garbage or outright lie to the public.
In fact, i have seen clips of CNN simply having a Trump speech and comment section is filled with "CNN fake news"
How is that fake news, it's only a speech of the president.

Now opinion's show are that, opinion's show. They present opinions, you can agree or disagree. But the data presented, save a honest mistake, have never been a gross lie. Granted, CNN can chose to give more air time to whoever fit their agenda, but i have never really seen a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Again, opinions are opinions, it's important you understand that when watching any opinion show

CNN has a leaning towards the blue team. I don't see it bad enough to call it a terrible news company but the bias does exist. Fox is free to be biased as well for the red team. The problem with Fox is not their blatant bias, it's the downright lies and dangerous opinions they air to millions who take their statements as fact.

CNN has yet to be as misleading as these nuts.


Outside of how dangerous they have been during this epidemic, their news beforehand was mostly emotional to appeal to their deep red viewers. This is their "news" most of the time.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Just to be clear on the terminology for others; "Bias" just means "has an opinion about things". If the people behind CNN support a particular policy shift, it's absolutely reasonable for them to use that platform to support it. Journalistic integrity does not require that one avoid having opinions and viewpoints; in fact, it demands it. Journalists are not expected to be neutral.

Having said opinions will, naturally, mean you tend to use more-friendly language towards people and viewpoints you support, and less-friendly language towards those you don't. Again, this is fine, and not an issue of journalistic integrity.

Where we enter into propaganda is when you start misrepresenting the facts, whether by deliberately making shit up, omitting major parts of the story, or by including the narrative of idiots and propagandists alongside that of experts, to cast false uncertainty upon an issue. This isn't "bias", it's just straight-up lying and disinformation.

Bias is fine, and to be expected. Propagandizing is not. CNN definitely engages in the former (and that's fine). They pretty much don't engage in the latter. Fox, on the other hand, clearly does engage in propagandizing.


Taking issue with an outlet having a "bias" is like complaining that a movie reviewer is "wrong" and "lying" because he gave a movie 8/10 and you think it's a 4/10. He's got his opinion, you've got yours. As long as he's not lying about the film somehow, he's free to have his opinion, and you're free to not agree with it. If you're only sticking to one news source, or one reviewer, you're doing yourself a disservice.

Yeah your reasoning and arguments are pretty rock solid, however this particular point I'm going to disagree with unless I am missing your point. Journalistic integrity absolutely requires a journalist to be impartial when reporting the news.

The problem I see is that there is no way to report the news without having some kind of bias, I think the problem is when reporting the facts and pretending the person presenting them doesn't have bias.

Meaning to be a journalist you have to report ALL the facts, but to be a better journalist you need to be upfront about which position you lean towards.


Hannity, Maher, Ingram, Piers, Miller, Rogan, Defranco are not journalist, they are talk show host.