OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Unsubtle Propaganda

Entry 2246, on 2022-11-02 at 20:27:46 (Rating 4, Politics)

I think it is important that all sides of major social and political issues should be able to be examined, criticised, and supported where that is appropriate. If we give up this principle it is too easy for bad ideas to be given free rein and to adversely affect or hard-won freedoms.

So free speech is the most basic necessity in any society, and that is especially true in democracies where the primacy of the majority is an underlying principle. So censorship and propaganda are two sides of a malicious attitude that has often been seen in fascist and authoritarian governments in the past.

And in the past, these ideas were primarily part of the less desirable aspects of the actions of right-wing governments. But not anymore. Today, at least in Western democracies, it is mainly the left who want to engage in censorship of inconvenient ideas while spreading not so subtle propaganda of their own.

And, of course, our very own government here in New Zealand is a prime example of this.

There are two general unpopular policies which are relevant currently. The first is so-called hate speech laws, and the second is allowing Maori (the indigenous people of New Zealand) undemocratic power on boards and councils, where other races need to go through an election process.

And guess what? TVNZ, which I often refer to as the propaganda arm of the Labour Party, has screened two documentaries recently, which are apropos to this. A few weeks back one propagated various narratives on the disadvantages Maori face due to "system racism", and just last night a second documentary purported to report on the danger of on-line extreme speech.

Is it just coincidence that TVNZ, which is funded by the government, has produced two documentaties, both of which - either through serendipity or deliberate planning - support unpopular government policies? I think not. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, because it is. But some conspiracy theories are true, because sometimes there really are conspiratorial activities by those in power.

I have to admit that I couldn't force myself to watch all of the first documentary, because it was just too awful, but I did watch all of the second one, because it was just such a blatantly awful attempt at brain washing that I could only laugh.

I should clarify something here, before I go any further. I think that racism does exist both by and against Maori, and I do think there is misinformation on the internet. But do they exist to the extent portrayed in these programs? Of course not, but the best propaganda is always that which has an element of truth behind it.

The way I understand it, public broadcasters are expected to provide balance in their programming, and blatantly political material showing only one side of the story is not what we would reasonably expect, but that is unquestionably what we got with the program last night. It was biased, hysterical, and hyperbolic.

How blatant does propaganda have to be when it shows pictures of Nazis and Hitler youth while discussing "far-right" material being distributed on social media? And the subtle (or maybe not so subtle) connection between extremism and Trump was also fairly blatant.

The average person watching this material might easily be convinced that the internet is an uncontrolled source for incitement to extreme violence, and that hate speech laws are essential. As I said, the timing of this program just a week after the government tried to re-introduce the idea after giving up on it in the past due to its unpopularity, is quite remarkable.

But antisocial speech is controlled, and we already have laws against incitement to violence, and other problems this new "hate speech" law is supposed to eliminate.

The government has not specified exactly what form these laws would take, and in the past have had a lot of trouble defining exactly what hate speech is. When a politician tells you they cannot define the terms of a new law but "you would know it when you see it" we should be very worried.

Here's a more precise idea of the sort of thing they are offering: "The new offence would make it a crime to intentionally stir up or maintain or normalise hatred against groups defined by protected characteristics through being threatening, abusive or insulting, including by inciting violence". There's a very fine line there between criticism and hatred, and also is someone being insulted enough to trigger this law? And why apply it to groups with "protected characteristics". If hate speech is bad, surely it's bad for everyone.

I support maximum free speech, even when it occasionally leads to bad outcomes, as long as genuine incitement to harm is controlled, and it is. And anyone who "feels bad" because someone said something they disagree with just needs to toughen up a bit. For example, it is perfectly valid to discuss issues around trans people's participation in sport, and if a trans person feels threatened by that they should either stop reading that material, or reply to it and explain why it's wrong.

And that is a key point: people who have unpopular opinions (like me on occasions) are never going to think those opinions might be wrong unless they are corrected. And the opinion will still exist even if it is not allowed to be expressed. But if it isn't expressed, how can it be corrected?

Even worse, people with genuinely extreme (but not necessarily wrong) opinions who are rejected from standard social network services, like Facebook and Twitter, will be driven to more fringe services, like Parler and Gab, and will only have their ideas reinforced in echo chambers of similar ideas.

So we should encourage the expression of alternative views on mainstream social media platforms, because there will be members of those networks with opposing views who might be able to show where the extreme views are wrong. And if they can't then just maybe they aren't wrong.

I know there are some people who will never be convinced they are wrong, no matter how strong the counter-evidence is, but they represent a minority which are probably beyond hope. Note that these individuals exist on the right and the left.

The phrase often used in the free speech community is that "the problem with hate speech isn't the speech, it's the hate" and by blocking the speech, we just leave the hate behind, possibly in a more extreme form than it was previously.

I'm sure the government genuinely thinks they are doing the right thing by introducing these laws. Actually, I'm not completely sure about that, because it is possible they are doing it to make controlling their political opponents easier. But either way, the end result is the same, and I think that there has been as much harm done with good intentions as there has with malicious objectives.

We cannot make the quality of political ideas better by suppressing them. What we need is more discussion, not less. As I said above, there are some people who cannot be convinced no matter how good the arguments used against them are, but those people are going to maintain those ideas anyway. Pushing them into a situation where they are ignored and ridiculed is not helpful.

The real purveyors of malicious ideas here are the government, not the conspiracy theorists. The small benefits censorship might provide are outweighed by the problems they cause. I am prepared to re-evaluate my ideas once the details of these laws are released, but the principles of free speech, which I take very seriously, are unlikely to be compatible with a law of this type.

Because I believe in free speech I don't want to stop the types of programs I criticised here from being made. It would be rather ironic and hypocritical if I said I want free speech and don't like censorship so I want TVNZ to be censored, but I would like to see programs - especially those made with taxpayer funding - being a bit more balanced and reasonable. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely.

Comment 2 (7331) by OJB on 2022-11-03 at 12:18:31: (view earlier comments)

Even if I don’t watch them, others still do. I'm pretty good at detecting propaganda, but others might not be. As I said, Im not complaining that a program like that exists, I just want to see a more honest and balanced approach.

Comment 3 (7332) by Ken Spall on 2022-11-03 at 17:51:22:

It is the freedom to complain, to watch programmes about which to complain, to criticise, to hear criticism, to argue about, to hear, to listen - this is what freedom of speech is all about.
It is not a government’s task to police a population’s engagement in expression - it is the people’s task to hold each to account over what is expressed. The government should just butt out of what it has no business being concerned with.

Comment 4 (7333) by OJB on 2022-11-04 at 07:58:07:

Of course the government will say that these documentaries are produced by an independent producer and it has nothing to do with them. We know the New Zealand TV industry is very left-oriented, whichever government we have, so I'm not necessarily claiming the government is directly responsible for the propaganda.

Comment 5 (7336) by Anonymous on 2022-11-08 at 11:24:05:

"I'm pretty good at detecting propaganda". Ha ha, unless it comes from David Seymour or Elon Musk right?

I'm sure everybody thinks they are immune from propaganda.

Comment 6 (7337) by OJB on 2022-11-08 at 19:56:19:

OK, there are several things I would say in response. First, I am aware of material from Seymour and Musk which I think is exaggerated or even untrue, and some of it might be classified as propaganda. Second, it is a matter of degree, because this government is the master of it, to a greater extent than any other group. Third, I was primarily worried about such blatant nonsense being broadcast on our national TV service, and I think when they do it, it is a bigger problem than when it comes from politicians, who we expect it from.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.