Yes. It's a long, well thought out post that's entirely non-sequitur. The poster doesn't understand the difference between true propaganda and spin.
The NYTimes has its own opinion, but it is definitely not an instrument of the US Government.
He also implies that because China has clunky methods which are obvious they don't have any subtle ones. Having clunky methods doesn't rule out having subtle ones. I don't speak Chinese, but I find it exceedingly hard to believe that China doesn't employ both clunky and subtle forms of propaganda.
Having clunky and detectable methods isn't better, either, as you claim, it's worse, because they're more invasive. That's the whole point. That's why we don't want censorship, or the great firewall, or our non-violent dissenters rotting in jail.
Anyway, maybe you live in a relativistic world where everybody's country is only as good as they're told, but I'm smart enough to discount my own bias, and I know that the US is a freer place to live than China.
The NYTimes has its own opinion, but it is definitely not an instrument of the US Government.
He also implies that because China has clunky methods which are obvious they don't have any subtle ones. Having clunky methods doesn't rule out having subtle ones. I don't speak Chinese, but I find it exceedingly hard to believe that China doesn't employ both clunky and subtle forms of propaganda.
Having clunky and detectable methods isn't better, either, as you claim, it's worse, because they're more invasive. That's the whole point. That's why we don't want censorship, or the great firewall, or our non-violent dissenters rotting in jail.
Anyway, maybe you live in a relativistic world where everybody's country is only as good as they're told, but I'm smart enough to discount my own bias, and I know that the US is a freer place to live than China.