I'm sick of the supposed brilliance of rejecting the validity of statements because their sources and the organisations that provide them venues for expression aren't perfect, or don't match with ideologue's perspectives.
What does it mean to proclaim something as propaganda when many times it's apparent that proof of the propaganda either doesn't exist, or the evidence doesn't pertain to the issue at hand?
The tactic is so incredibly fallacious to me, that I believe its very use, seeming to stem from cynicism, borders on being unethical. From FNC to BBC, these venues are rejected, regardless of relevant evidence of distortion, by associations and stereotypes. Even if there's evidence or proof of patterns of distortion, any given statement's validity must be individually assessed. Without evidence to support a claim that a statement is invalid, any given source and venue must be called a propagandist; for without evidence, that capacity is resident in any source and venue.
2006-08-10
23:20:20
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics