Abstract

Popaganda is proliferating

Article

The ABC and SBS are lending themselvesto Western propaganda, unfortunately.

They feature the UN Human Rights spokesman in condemnationof the Syrian government,but his condemnation of President Trump'sracism and xenophopia appears to have been overlooked'

They regularly condemn the mainland Chinese government, but have never, in my hearing saida good word about anything it has done, or with massivve negative qualification. No doubt its treatment of political freedom departs significantly from our own, but theremay be some issue as to whether it fears a Western attempt to destabilise it, or could that not possibly be the case?  And it seems to have been making some slow progress towards greater freedoms.

It also permits unrelentingly critical ABC journalists to remain there and freely develop critical material.

In Hong Kong, the people who attacked "pro-democracy protesters" were a masked gang of thugs, but the masked people who viciously attacked police and damaged buildings were democracy protestors. (Beware a group which calls itself democratic - it usually refers to their democracy here they rule, and with the same violence they use in their "protests".) Both should be traduced EQUALLY. And there has been no investigative journalism as to whether the "protest' leaders and instigators may have ulterior motives or may have had assistance from foreign sources. Or are these thoughts unthinkable?

The ABC and SBS justify the 'protesters' violnce as a reaction to the "brutality" of the police, who use truncheons, tear gas and water cannon in much the sameway as the countries of the Westeern bloc, and rubber bullets less. The 'protesters', who attack the police, and use steel poles, molotov cocktails, slings and arrows, presumably of outrageoous fortune, brick missiles and pointed javelins against the police are never described as brutal.  Perhaps, determined. And their dropping bricks on cars which are passing below a bridge though the police are not present, receives no pejorative term of any kind.

The language says it all.  The ABC recently ran on its website:" Hongkongers are devising how to help protesters holed up at a university escape authorities' clutches."  In fact, the 'Hongkongers' were reported by other media as being supporters of those who were surrounded and who set the university on fire, used molotov cocktails and chemicalbombs, fired bricks from catapults, and shot arrows, hitting a police meia officer in the calf.  Then there is the description of the 'authorities' clutches'!!!!!

The "pro-democracy protesters" are interviewed at length.  The citizens who support the government and the police are sometimes given a very short token interview.

It has been mentioned in passing that there have been pro-government rallies in HK, but unfortunately the footage of them has not reached our Tv screens, or certainly not at the timeswhen most people watch.  And while we regularly hear from the protest supporters, there are no interviews of those ordinary people who denoounce the violent protestors - or is it suggested that there are none?

It would facilitate our acceptance of US missile sites aimed at China in Australia if we could be brought to hate and fear the target.

The issue is balanced reporting.  Propaganda over time can lead to a national state of mind that allows the country to be led dishonestly into war. The public has, as it is claimed, the right to know - BOTH SIDES.

The same applies to anti-Putin demonstrators in Moscow.  They are a very small opposition party who do badly in the elections and cannot obtain the mandatory 6000 signatures to run in an election (a requirement which is not unworthy of consideration here). Without applying for approval to hold a protest, they hold an unlawful one, and the Western media just happen to be present to film their arrest.

A policemen is shown beating a protestor on the ground, which certainly seems to be excessive, but we do not have the benefit of having seen what preceded it.  May the participant in a staged propaganda piece have seriously provoked the policeman in order to provide the nearby cameraman withedited footage for the purpose of the occasion?

The trouble is that we do not know because of the manifest nature of the performance. Wher is the public's right toknow (the true state)?

It is no doubt true that the authoritarian governments use propaganda to impose a biased message on their people.  That does not mean that we should be imposedd upon in the same way. Our society should be above that.