Propaganda is a taboo word - I don't think so. I think propaganda is about taking a viewpoint and sharing it with others at a degree so massive they adopt said viewpoint. The word isn't bad in itself - I think that it is used often, albeit correctly, in a negative context.
The key to propaganda isn't quality. It's volume. Contradictory stances are often glaring, but they drown in the incessant pool of ideas that are crammed down people's throats. For example, no matter how many late-night TV shows try to dissect the hypocrisies of Fox News, the truth is that they are small fish in an ocean of cable coverage that is almost stubbornly incessant.
Just today, on the 6th of March*, Marca posted five posts about Rayo. Five. At 11:34 CET**, an interview with Quini was posted about the game (read it here). At 12:06 CET, they published a video about the best saves of the Segunda this week (here). At 12:55 CET, one quote by Míchel was baked into a piece about how long it took for Sandoval and Baraja to win their first games, and whether Míchel can beat that (here). At 17:37 CET, Rafael Salas, Betis' director, admitted on a talk radio show that Zozulya was a bad player for Betis and that there are many difficulties surrounding the management of the club (here). Finally, at 20:11 CET, a Javi Guerra interview stated that "the team feels identified with Míchel's football" (here).
The interview with Quini revealed that "it's only a matter of time that the games reap us points". However, notice that in the second-to-last paragraph, they state that: "With the arrival of Míchel at the helm, Rayo has returned to the style of game that was played in La Liga with Paco Jémez, since he was assistant of the team in that league." No, this wasn't a quote. It was a blanket statement, with no explanation.
The second piece was just a video, while the third, a 253 word piece was just a show off of statistics. However, the fourth one, which revealed systemic problems in Real Betis, was just 163 words long. It said that there are a "number of intangibles that determine the signing of the footballers", and that "Anyone who says that Zozulya is a good footballer for Betis is foolish or blind".
But who cares when after three hours you see Javi Guerra, your best striker, say that Míchel is doing so well with the team and calling the team to arms with stuff like "every game is a final now".
I'm not an expert on journalism, and obviously a newspaper without a viewpoint is meaningless. But good journalism should be like chocolate chips on the cookie that is the news. And right now good journalism is increasingly more like raisins. Here's the thing though.
Nobody wants fucking raisins on a cookie.
* For those confused, I write these posts a day earlier and schedule them for the day after at 10 AM UK time.
**Central European Time, one hour ahead of the UK.
The key to propaganda isn't quality. It's volume. Contradictory stances are often glaring, but they drown in the incessant pool of ideas that are crammed down people's throats. For example, no matter how many late-night TV shows try to dissect the hypocrisies of Fox News, the truth is that they are small fish in an ocean of cable coverage that is almost stubbornly incessant.
Just today, on the 6th of March*, Marca posted five posts about Rayo. Five. At 11:34 CET**, an interview with Quini was posted about the game (read it here). At 12:06 CET, they published a video about the best saves of the Segunda this week (here). At 12:55 CET, one quote by Míchel was baked into a piece about how long it took for Sandoval and Baraja to win their first games, and whether Míchel can beat that (here). At 17:37 CET, Rafael Salas, Betis' director, admitted on a talk radio show that Zozulya was a bad player for Betis and that there are many difficulties surrounding the management of the club (here). Finally, at 20:11 CET, a Javi Guerra interview stated that "the team feels identified with Míchel's football" (here).
The interview with Quini revealed that "it's only a matter of time that the games reap us points". However, notice that in the second-to-last paragraph, they state that: "With the arrival of Míchel at the helm, Rayo has returned to the style of game that was played in La Liga with Paco Jémez, since he was assistant of the team in that league." No, this wasn't a quote. It was a blanket statement, with no explanation.
The second piece was just a video, while the third, a 253 word piece was just a show off of statistics. However, the fourth one, which revealed systemic problems in Real Betis, was just 163 words long. It said that there are a "number of intangibles that determine the signing of the footballers", and that "Anyone who says that Zozulya is a good footballer for Betis is foolish or blind".
But who cares when after three hours you see Javi Guerra, your best striker, say that Míchel is doing so well with the team and calling the team to arms with stuff like "every game is a final now".
I'm not an expert on journalism, and obviously a newspaper without a viewpoint is meaningless. But good journalism should be like chocolate chips on the cookie that is the news. And right now good journalism is increasingly more like raisins. Here's the thing though.
Nobody wants fucking raisins on a cookie.
* For those confused, I write these posts a day earlier and schedule them for the day after at 10 AM UK time.
**Central European Time, one hour ahead of the UK.
Comments
Post a Comment