Opinion: The Difference Between Opinion and Propaganda. How Legacy Media Became Propagandists
Mainstream outlets like CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post—have increasingly crossed into propagandistic territory,
As an opinion writer, I often face accusations of spreading propaganda, a charge that misrepresents my work and muddies the waters of public discourse. This article aims to educate readers on the critical differences between opinion writing and propaganda.
Opinion Writing expresses a personal viewpoint, supported by reasoned arguments, facts, and transparency about bias. It invites discourse, acknowledges counterarguments, and respects the reader’s critical thinking. Found in editorial sections or blogs, opinion pieces are labeled as subjective and aim to engage rather than manipulate.
Propaganda is a deliberate, often deceptive effort to shape public perception for a specific agenda, prioritizing control over truth. It uses emotional manipulation, selective facts, omissions, and repetition to enforce a narrative, demanding compliance rather than inviting debate. While historically tied to authoritarian regimes, modern propaganda thrives in democratic societies through media manipulation.
Legacy media have shifted from journalistic integrity to propagandistic tactics due to ideological alignment, corporate interests, and a need to retain influence in a fragmented media landscape. Below are reasons for this shift, with examples.
1. Narrative Over Truth
Legacy media prioritize narratives over facts, framing stories to fit ideological goals. During the 2020 George Floyd protests, CNN and The New York Times called events “mostly peaceful” despite widespread violence, downplaying chaos to align with a narrative of justified unrest, misleading audiences.
2. Selective Reporting
Propaganda curates information to shape perceptions. In 2020, the Hunter Biden laptop story, raising questions about Joe Biden’s family dealings, was dismissed as “Russian disinformation” by The Washington Post and NPR. Only post-election did they acknowledge its legitimacy, protecting a preferred candidate.
3. Emotional Manipulation
Propaganda exploits emotions to bypass critical thinking. During COVID-19, MSNBC and CNN amplified worst-case scenarios, shaming dissenters as “anti-science.” CNN’s portrayal of the unvaccinated as public health threats ignored nuanced discussions, fostering division.
The Joe Biden Cognitive Decline Cover-Up
A glaring example of legacy media propaganda is their handling of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline during his presidency. From 2020 to 2024, as Biden exhibited visible signs of mental and physical frailty—stumbling over words, appearing disoriented at public events, and struggling with basic tasks—outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times downplayed or ignored these concerns. They dismissed videos of Biden’s gaffes as “right-wing misinformation” or “out of context,” while framing his leadership as steady and competent.
For instance, in 2022, when Biden wandered off during a White House event, CNN described it as a “minor moment” rather than addressing broader patterns. This coordinated effort to shield Biden’s image, despite mounting evidence of his confusion was undeniable. The lack of media coverage suppressed public discourse and misled voters about his fitness for office. By gaslighting audiences and refusing to investigate credible concerns, legacy media acted not as journalists but as propagandists protecting a political agenda.
Legacy Media’s Bias on Election Night 2024
The 2024 election, pitting Kamala Harris against Donald Trump, exposed legacy media’s propagandistic tendencies. On election night, CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times openly rooted for Harris, undermining their credibility.
CNN’s Coverage: Anchors Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper framed Harris’s campaign as a fight for “democracy,” portraying Trump as a threat. As Trump gained in swing states, CNN speculated about uncounted votes, delaying calls to soften Harris’s defeat—an advocacy tactic, not analysis.
MSNBC’s Cheerleading: Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid celebrated Harris as a “trailblazer,” dismissing Trump’s gains as “misinformation-driven.” Reid’s emotional appeals ignored Harris’s economic weaknesses, resembling propaganda’s glorification of a favored figure.
The New York Times’ Spin: The Times’ live blog emphasized Harris’s “energized base,” even as she trailed. Opinion pieces, labeled “analysis,” warned of “dark times” under Trump.
There are consequences to media propaganda. Legacy media’s propagandistic tactics erode trust, polarize society, and undermine democracy. Their 2024 election coverage, cheerleading Harris, further damaged credibility, as seen in declining viewership. By dismissing concerns—like economic anxieties or Biden’s cognitive decline—as “misinformation,” they alienated audiences, driving them to alternative sources. This likely fueled resentment, as voters in 2024 rejected media narratives for candidates addressing real concerns.
Opinion writing and propaganda may both persuade, but their methods and ethics are worlds apart. Opinion writing fosters dialogue with transparency and reason; propaganda manipulates with deception and control.
Legacy media, once trusted gatekeepers, have increasingly embraced propagandistic tactics, prioritizing narratives over truth, as seen in their selective reporting, emotional manipulation, and coordinated messaging.