RATE THIS EXAMPLE FROM "BENEFICIAL" TO "HARMFUL"
BENEFICIAL HARMFUL
Translate to other languages
SpyGate from Epoch Times
Background Information
Epoch Times, a newspaper linked to the Chinese religious/political party Falun Gong, is defending Donald Trump’s presidency. The newspaper published articles and graphics that lay out the paranoid claims from the Trump administration and its defenders. This infographic, called Spygate, claims that the real heart of the Russia investigation was the illegal American spying on Trump’s campaign.
China has labeled Falun Gong a “cult” in the 1990s and it is illegal there. The Epoch Times has been intensely focused on courting Trump and publishes flattering articles that Trump is thought to read. Lately, the paper made it into the headlines again when one of its photographers handed President Trump an envelope during an event at the White House last month. It’s still unclear exactly what the envelope contained.
China has labeled Falun Gong a “cult” in the 1990s and it is illegal there. The Epoch Times has been intensely focused on courting Trump and publishes flattering articles that Trump is thought to read. Lately, the paper made it into the headlines again when one of its photographers handed President Trump an envelope during an event at the White House last month. It’s still unclear exactly what the envelope contained.
Technique Used
Attack Opponents
This is propaganda because
As Trump is facing impeachment, this is a counter-move to distract people by attacking Democrats with false claims. The poster is propaganda and the content is disinformation.
Source
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hayesbrown/epoch-times-trump-administration-falun-gong
The Buzzfeed source does not at all refute the Spygate timeline established by Epoch Times, which means this accusation of propaganda is as yet unfounded.
Even if Buzzfeed did dispute the timeline, Buzzfeed is capable of their own propaganda and no effort is made for any critical examination of either Buzzfeed or Epoch Times.
The author has simply levelled claims of propaganda. With such shoddy analysis, how do we know the author is not now committing propaganda? Ironically, the technique would be "attacking opponents."
Share Your Ideas
Share this content