Friday, April 29, 2005

Propaganda in the Daily D

The Daily Dartmouth has published a mass-produced op-ed submitted to several student newspapers by the Humane Society. Nearly identical pieces were published in the Daily Californian, Boston University's Daily Free Press, the Ball State Daily News and the Bowling Green News.

9 comments:

Ben said...

That article made me hungry. I think I could go for some KFC right about now.

Anonymous said...

How about equal time for People Eating Tastey Animals?

George Wukoson said...

Hey cool dude, remember that time that the Bush administration used federal money to produce their own little propoganda segments and local newscasts all over the country carried those. Oh yeah, that was fucked up.

Love,
George

Emmett said...

A mass-produced op-ed is not really "propaganda" (an abused term anyway), although it is deceptive, because it gives the impression that the thoughts are original and unique to the supposed author. But liberal defenders here probably don't have a leg to stand on -- unless they are willing to say that the Bush Campaign's planted op-eds last year were also legitimate. (I, for one, don't think they were, and I don't think this is either.)

Emmett said...

Hey cool dude, remember that time that the Bush administration used federal money to produce their own little propoganda segments and local newscasts all over the country carried those. Oh yeah, that was fucked up.

George, Bill Clinton did this too (though to a lesser extent). What are your thoughts on that?

George Wukoson said...

"George, Bill Clinton did this too (though to a lesser extent). What are your thoughts on that?"

I think that it's an inappropriate use of federal money. I don't know the details of what Clinton did, but if they are anything like the current administration's informative little propoganda segments, then I would find them reprehensible.

Anonymous said...

"George, Bill Clinton did this too (though to a lesser extent). What are your thoughts on that?"

Tu quoque!

TO said...

I think that mass-produced op-eds are less deceptive when the author identifies his institutional affiliation (as this person did), and when the op-ed has very few references to the individual news outlet.

I don't think that many people would read the op-ed thinking that Josh Balk is "just a concerned guy who reads the D" or someone who pays much attention to what goes on in New Hampshire. It's still a little shady, as it has a sort of spam-like quality to it.

I wonder if David Horowitz would have fared better if he'd simply written op-eds, or if the PC thought police at Brown might have reacted differently (i.e. maybe in their heads printing an op-ed does more to distance the paper from the speech at issue than printing it as a paid ad). My guess is no.

http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2001/04/09/horowitz_ad_ignites_controversy_newspapers.php

Chris Bateman said...

Were you guys the kids who would torture animals when you were in elementary school?