Meanwhile, things are quietly developing in Czech Republic...

[Sar1n]

A little topic to discuss here.

My little country is currently setting up the "Center against terrorism and hybrid threats" under the ministry of the Interior. Currently, it has no executive powers, but one of its main tasks will be revealing of misinformation, propaganda and fake news, and when possible, pass the information to the organs capable of prosecuting. One of more interesting, and potentially quite dangerous, tasks is monitoring internal political debate. As long as it remains impartial, it might be beneficial, but even without executive powers, simply a press release about misinformation by, say, a presidential candidate, something that IS within the Center's powers, can seriously affect the elections.

A few links about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/eu...ake-news-unit/
http://praguemonitor.com/2016/05/13/...rrorism-centre
http://www.mvcr.cz/terorismus/clanek...d-threats.aspx

So what do your think...step in the right direction, or Big Brother rising? Or is it just another ineffective, costly organization, which purpose is to give some politican's relatives a well paid, easy work?


In other news, Ministry of the Interior is also putting together proposal to introduce contitutional right ot bear arms. Right now, gun law here is qute strict regarding the obtaining and especially carrying the firearms....except for historical ones (AFAIK any weapon manufactured before 1880 can be obtained without permit). The goal is to enable citizens to defend themselves and other people in case of terrorist attack...kinda strange because there wasn't any terror attack here yet, and we've been keeping a tight lid on immigrants.

And frankly, I don't think such measures are effective. How many attacks were stopped by civilian carrying a firearm in US? Because it's not just about having the gun. It's about will to use it, and 99% of untrained civilians, when in fight or flight scenario, choose flight.

[Copperknickers II]

Interesting. When you say 'under the ministry of the interior', will it be actually controlled by the ruling political party, or will it be independent, like British non-ministerial government departments? Information on Wikipedia about the structure of the Czech government beyond the most basic elements is sorely lacking. Is the Czech Republic generally also leaning in the direction of Hungary and Poland in recent months, with regard to increasing authoritarianism and government control of the media?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

that sounds like a waste off money and effort.
and easier access to guns O.o

[Sar1n]

Generally, media here is a mess. Some lean left, some lean right...I wouldn't call them impartial, but not government controlled either.

As for government system...goes like this. President names prime minister, this is usually done based on parliamental election results, but they're not binding, and prime minister and his cabinet can be dismissed by parliamental vote at any time. Prime minister names the ministers, and ask a vote of confidence from the parliament. If he doesn't get the vote, the thing starts again from the president.

So in order to get the vote of confidence, there are usually careful negotiations between the prime minister's party and parties in parliament (we don't have two-party system) and compromises about the ministers...so usually there are ministers from several parties. It rarely happens that one party alone gains majority necessary to push through one party cabinet.


Basically, when it comes to Czech government, it's usually so fragmented that its effectivity is quite doubtful, and the media kinda reflect that...it's not like US "two parties, two worlds" kind of system.

[removeduser_487563287433]

A little topic to discuss here.

My little country is currently setting up the "Center against terrorism and hybrid threats" under the ministry of the Interior. Currently, it has no executive powers, but one of its main tasks will be revealing of misinformation, propaganda and fake news, and when possible, pass the information to the organs capable of prosecuting. One of more interesting, and potentially quite dangerous, tasks is monitoring internal political debate. As long as it remains impartial, it might be beneficial, but even without executive powers, simply a press release about misinformation by, say, a presidential candidate, something that IS within the Center's powers, can seriously affect the elections.

A few links about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/eu...ake-news-unit/
http://praguemonitor.com/2016/05/13/...rrorism-centre
http://www.mvcr.cz/terorismus/clanek...d-threats.aspx

So what do your think...step in the right direction, or Big Brother rising? Or is it just another ineffective, costly organization, which purpose is to give some politican's relatives a well paid, easy work?


In other news, Ministry of the Interior is also putting together proposal to introduce contitutional right ot bear arms. Right now, gun law here is qute strict regarding the obtaining and especially carrying the firearms....except for historical ones (AFAIK any weapon manufactured before 1880 can be obtained without permit). The goal is to enable citizens to defend themselves and other people in case of terrorist attack...kinda strange because there wasn't any terror attack here yet, and we've been keeping a tight lid on immigrants.

And frankly, I don't think such measures are effective. How many attacks were stopped by civilian carrying a firearm in US? Because it's not just about having the gun. It's about will to use it, and 99% of untrained civilians, when in fight or flight scenario, choose flight.

Fake news needs to be tackled, you only need look at this forum to see the how damaging it is to gullible people. And when it get used by foreign states to disrupt democracy, its an existential threat.

[Copperknickers II]

Fake news needs to be tackled, you only need look at this forum to see the how damaging it is to gullible people. And when it get used by foreign states to disrupt democracy, its an existential threat.

But debunking fake news can itself be a form of propaganda, since editorial staff have to make a decision which stories to give priority to and this decision will be based on at best biases, at worst state-sanctioned narrative construction.

[Sar1n]

But debunking fake news can itself be a form of propaganda, since editorial staff have to make a decision which stories to give priority to and this decision will be based on at best biases, at worst state-sanctioned narrative construction.

That's what the problem is, because the center is under minstry, not an independent organization. And from the sources...it's thirty people, checking news for ten milion. There's no way they can cover more than a fraction. They'll be selective at best, relying on tips at worst.

[removeduser_487563287433]

But debunking fake news can itself be a form of propaganda, since editorial staff have to make a decision which stories to give priority to and this decision will be based on at best biases, at worst state-sanctioned narrative construction.

Editorial or bias is not propaganda. The Guardian can run a left-leaning article and The Telegraph are right-leaning article and neither are propaganda, regardless of bias. That's not what propaganda is, and no, debunking a lie is not propaganda.

[Love Mountain]

Editorial or bias is not propaganda. The Guardian can run a left-leaning article and The Telegraph are right-leaning article and neither are propaganda, regardless of bias. That's not what propaganda is, and no, debunking a lie is not propaganda.

He's talking about calling real news propaganda because they don't fit the Government's framing. Imagine Trump labeling every major news outlet as libel. Which he does already, but imagine if it was institutionalized.

[removeduser_487563287433]

He's talking about calling real news propaganda because they don't fit the Government's framing. Imagine Trump labeling every major news outlet as libel. Which he does already, but imagine if it was institutionalized.

Well that would be unconstitutional, a clear violation of the freedom of the press.

[Cope]

Editorial or bias is not propaganda. The Guardian can run a left-leaning article and The Telegraph are right-leaning article and neither are propaganda, regardless of bias. That's not what propaganda is, and no, debunking a lie is not propaganda.

Google's #1 definition of propaganda is: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."

Based on this definition, I would hazard that it is in fact plausible to accuse a variety of mainstream news outlets - including both the Guardian and the Telegraph - of producing material which might broadly be defined as propaganda.

[Copperknickers II]

Editorial or bias is not propaganda. The Guardian can run a left-leaning article and The Telegraph are right-leaning article and neither are propaganda, regardless of bias. That's not what propaganda is, and no, debunking a lie is not propaganda.

1. I said 'can be', not 'is always'.

2. We are talking about government controlled media here, not independent newspapers and news websites.

3. Media and government are not always as separate as they appear: a network like CNN which has dyed-in-the-wool political leanings towards a particular party is not in itself a propaganda operation, but it does in effect participate in voluntary propaganda on behalf of a political party. Because there is no other way of describing a very obvious set of editorial biases intended to promote a way of thinking favoured by said political party, especially when there is blatant coordination and cooperation between the two.

4. Debunking lies by itself is not propaganda. Selectively debunking some lies and covering up other lies absolutely is propaganda if it is used to further the cause of governmental policy. Do you think propaganda is by definition fake news? The definition of propaganda is media intended to support a given political cause or faction, chiefly but not necessarily the government of a given country. It has a variety of tools at its disposal, from all-out lies, to selective use of the truth, and reporting true events in a misleading way.

[Heathen Hammer]

Fake news needs to be tackled, you only need look at this forum to see the how damaging it is to gullible people. And when it get used by foreign states to disrupt democracy, its an existential threat.

And who gets to determine what is fake news and what isn't?

[ggsimmonds]

And who gets to determine what is fake news and what isn't?

Reality

[Heathen Hammer]

Reality

And who will determine what is real? Politicians? Unelected government officials? Legacy media?

[Roboute Guilliman]

And who will determine what is real? Politicians? Unelected government officials? Legacy media?

Independant news agencies? Youtubers? Me and you? Who to believe?


Sadly today it is easy to pick news you want to hear than the news you don't want to hear. Word of advice, reading/watching news of different political spectrum and then using common sense. If you are lacking common sense, then don't read/watch the news. Currently this witch hunt on the news is getting tiresome.

[Love Mountain]

A little topic to discuss here.

My little country is currently setting up the "Center against terrorism and hybrid threats" under the ministry of the Interior. Currently, it has no executive powers, but one of its main tasks will be revealing of misinformation, propaganda and fake news, and when possible, pass the information to the organs capable of prosecuting. One of more interesting, and potentially quite dangerous, tasks is monitoring internal political debate. As long as it remains impartial, it might be beneficial, but even without executive powers, simply a press release about misinformation by, say, a presidential candidate, something that IS within the Center's powers, can seriously affect the elections.

A few links about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/eu...ake-news-unit/
http://praguemonitor.com/2016/05/13/...rrorism-centre
http://www.mvcr.cz/terorismus/clanek...d-threats.aspx

So what do your think...step in the right direction, or Big Brother rising? Or is it just another ineffective, costly organization, which purpose is to give some politican's relatives a well paid, easy work?

The trouble is, like everyone has already mentioned, is this could be used for propaganda purposes. In my eyes this "Fake News" thing has been vastly overblown. An Op-Ed section is certainly now news, and even then the majority of people simply don't carefully read articles. Myself being guilty of this many, many times. Mobs are fairly stupid and it's the mobs that are most upset by "fake news". This could be done right though, if this agency responds to real fake news and foreign propaganda by increasing the transparency of their Government and responding to such attacks with facts and common sense, then everyone will be a winner for it. Not to mention that this could create jobs for young and old talent.

In other news, Ministry of the Interior is also putting together proposal to introduce contitutional right ot bear arms. Right now, gun law here is qute strict regarding the obtaining and especially carrying the firearms....except for historical ones (AFAIK any weapon manufactured before 1880 can be obtained without permit). The goal is to enable citizens to defend themselves and other people in case of terrorist attack...kinda strange because there wasn't any terror attack here yet, and we've been keeping a tight lid on immigrants.

I welcome any expansion of freedom, but yes, there are costs to society for such freedoms. I have been pro-gun for a couple years now and I've seen massive amounts of data on both sides of debate. I haven't made up my mind about what story the facts really tell, but in my opinion the right to bear arms does not instill a culture of mass shootings like suggested by mass media. There are many countries that are not United States, that have fairly liberal gun controls yet suffer far lower crime. A marginal increase in crime for some peace of mind when it comes to protecting your family is worth it in my eyes.

A

nd frankly, I don't think such measures are effective. How many attacks were stopped by civilian carrying a firearm in US? Because it's not just about having the gun. It's about will to use it, and 99% of untrained civilians, when in fight or flight scenario, choose flight.

Quite a few actually, and making education or training required to own a gun is something I am not at all opposed to, and I am very pro-gun. Gun-related statistics are tricky and I'll be the first to admit that while there are hundreds if not thousands of justifiable gun-related self defense shootings, there are probably far more gun thefts, burglaries, fatal "accidental" shootings, and so on. This stems largely from a very poor gun control policy in America, and poor gun culture among the owners. Introducing regulation limits the poor from acquiring a weapon, a group that arguably needs them the most, but it maybe necessary if we are to minimize cases that give guns such a bad name. Namely stolen guns and fatal shootings that aren't done in justifiable self-defense. Like drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol though I don't believe that simply banning them completely is the right answer either.

[ggsimmonds]

Seems like a waste of resources to me. I didn't click the links but based on the OP it sounds like its just a state controlled fact checking organization.

My suspicion is that when it highlights fake news those who subscribe to the same ideology of the fake news will only claim it is government propaganda meant to cover up and manipulate the public.

[Mithradates]

Because it's not just about having the gun. It's about will to use it, and 99% of untrained civilians, when in fight or flight scenario, choose flight.

Here we have 25 civilian shooting ranges but the government is planning to build 197 new ones so shooting could be integrated in the physical education classes of the elementary schools, best to learn it at an early age I guess.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

When are we supposed to start calling it Czechia anyways?