>The main goal is for me to decide how much trust to put into sources that do propaganda without lying.
There is no such thing as completely dispassionate reporting, reports are written by humans with opinions. You can only ask for sources that are "more" fact-based, not those that don't give any coloring to the reports.
>I think this is propaganda. :-)
No, it's a valid point. "Caring" for someone is expressed in deeds, not just words. So _if_ Rumsfeld did endanger soldiers needlessly (even in a needed war), his expressions of concern for soldiers ring hollow, and the whole interpretation of the incident described in the letter changes. And using the incident to portray Rumsfeld as a caring guy becomes all the more offensive propaganda.
But you are right: now this if is the key word. And it's a big if. (See what I just wrote in an answer to turgutbakmak up the thread.)
As for dispassionate reporting, of course this is rarely even possible. But often the way the spin works can be understood and then the text unspinned, so to speak. Yet sometimes the "unspinning" does not yield any useful information: whatever was there is getting lost in the process. In my experience, propaganda pieces are often constructed like that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I explained this in an answer to
>I am skipping the references to Rumsfeld's alleged mishandling of the war preparation.
Well I think they're most relevant here. If he did mishandle the war, he loses the moral right to pose for photo-ops with wounded soldiers.
I think this is propaganda. :-)
no subject
There is no such thing as completely dispassionate reporting, reports are written by humans with opinions. You can only ask for sources that are "more" fact-based, not those that don't give any coloring to the reports.
>I think this is propaganda. :-)
No, it's a valid point. "Caring" for someone is expressed in deeds, not just words. So _if_ Rumsfeld did endanger soldiers needlessly (even in a needed war), his expressions of concern for soldiers ring hollow, and the whole interpretation of the incident described in the letter changes. And using the incident to portray Rumsfeld as a caring guy becomes all the more offensive propaganda.
no subject
As for dispassionate reporting, of course this is rarely even possible. But often the way the spin works can be understood and then the text unspinned, so to speak. Yet sometimes the "unspinning" does not yield any useful information: whatever was there is getting lost in the process. In my experience, propaganda pieces are often constructed like that.