[Submitted] Yellowed Journalism

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:28 pm

A fun little issue for our autocratic friends.

Draft 2: Cut out some stuff.

Yellowed Journalism

Validity: Must have autocracy and state-run media.

Description
All hail @@LEADER@@! As your radiant nation enters yet another glorious year, your infinitely dedicated and even more competently selected advisors are working hard to secure your further consolidation of power. A critical weapon will be the undeniably-correct state-run media, and the time has come for you to decide how your flawless government will wield it.

Option 1
"We must ensure that you forever hold the people's hearts and minds, not that there was any doubt to begin with," says your Minister of Truth, patriotically cutting failed Ministers out of official photographs with a pair of safety scissors. "You must be on the front page of every edition, and your heroic benevolence must be referenced in every article! Long live the @@TYPE@@!"

Effect: newspaper editors that don't use state-approved superlatives for describing @@LEADER@@ tend to disappear

Option 2
"A glorious regime is nothing without its unrivaled military might!" declares Supreme General @@RANDOMNAME@@, who's had your back since the beginning. "Undying trust in our armed forces begets undying trust in you. We must use our media apparatus to tell wonderful yet plausible and completely correct tales of our military triumphs in faraway lands and our soldiers' hourly heroism. Long live the @@TYPE@@!"

Effect: the nation won three wars with Brancaland this weekend

Option 3
"We should make our populace learn to love you, not fear you, even though no sane person would ever fear you," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, a promising yet often confused Junior Minister. "If people are constantly reminded of the high standard of living the government provides for them, alongside the implementation of even more progressive social policies to back up the media, your rule will be seen as more legitimate than ever. Long live the @@TYPE@@!"

Effect: students spend the school year learning how great the education system is

Option 4
"Dare I say your guidance has proven so potent, that we no longer require the unnecessary burden of operating a state-run media," says former media tycoon @@RANDOMNAME@@, choosing @@HIS@@ words carefully. "With your divine blessing, reintroducing privately operated media will demonstrate to our eternally grateful people that you hear the voices of others, however flawed those voices may be compared to yours. Long live and all that."

Effect: calling @@LEADER@@ a tyrant is seen as the ultimate compliment

Option 5
"Have you all gone daft?!" screams an elderly advisor, smashing his fist on the table so hard that cracks are beginning to form. After taking a moment to compose himself, he continues, "The purpose of having a state-run media is to keep it impartial. If you allow the government to corrupt the media as its own mouthpiece, there's no point anymore! The media should remain publicly funded, but be given freedom to report as it chooses."

Effect: journalists who do nothing are praised for their lack of bias

by **Pythaga** » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:36 pm

Description wrote:your infinitely determined and even more competent hand-picked advisors

I believe that changing this to "your infinitely determined and even more competently hand-picked advisors" makes more sense and flows better in this case.

Otherwise I quite enjoy this one.

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:38 pm

Pythaga wrote:
Description wrote:your infinitely determined and even more competent hand-picked advisors

I believe that changing this to "your infinitely determined and even more competently hand-picked advisors" makes more sense and flows better in this case.

Otherwise I quite enjoy this one.

Done.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:30 am

While IRL state-run media is generally there to promote the agenda of an autocratic regime, I think there's plenty of NS nations that are pitched as benevolent dictatorships, and which might be controlling the media in order to keep it free from corporate bias, sensationalism and the like.

I think there should be room for an option that says something along those lines, perhaps saying that the state run media should be free to report as it chooses, with the only caveat that it should remain publically-funded rather than a private enterprise, to protect it from corporate influence and the sort of fake news sensationalism that a profit-motive engenders.

Not that I believe in such a thing IRL, but I think you should definitely consider it as an option.

by **Cretox State** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:26 am

I added option 5 as per CWA's suggestion. Now the description and options are in descending order of reverence.

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:02 pm

Cretox State wrote:Option 5
"Have you people forgotten our history?!" screams an elderly advisor, smashing his fist on the table so hard that cracks are beginning to form. After taking a moment to compose himself, he continues, "The purpose of having a state-run media is to make it free from corporate influence and sensationalism. If you allow the government to corrupt the media as its own mouthpiece, you're no better! The media should remain publicly-funded, but be given freedom to report as it chooses."

So first, this made me wonder how this would fit with socialist nations, where corporate influence isn't much of a possibility anyway. Then I started to think that in a socialist nation, pretty much any media would have to be state-run media by default, even if you don't have the policy. Sure, you could allow individual workers' collectives the freedom to run their own media separately from the central government, but that's pretty much what this option is doing in a non-socialist nation.

by **Daarwyrth** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:17 pm

"We must ensure that you forever have the people's hearts and minds,

Consider changing this to "We must ensure that you hold the people's hearts and minds forever,".

patriotically cutting failed Ministers out of official photographs with a pair of safety scissors

Omg, I love this sentence!

newspaper editors that don't use state-approved adjectives for describing @@LEADER@@ are jailed

Consider changing "adjectives" to "superlatives", I believe it will aid in selling the line better

Option 3
"We must demonstrate what a progressive and enlightened leader you are, which everyone already knows, of course," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, a promising yet often confused Junior Minister. "Our populace will learn to love you, not fear you, even though no sane person would ever fear you. If people are constantly reminded of the high standard of living the government provides for them, alongside the implementation of already-existing progressive social policies to back up the media, there will be no question as to the legitimacy of your rule, not that there ever was such a thing. Long live the @@TYPE@@!"

Effect: citizens who don't love their lives disappear from their beds in the middle of the night

Of course I wouldn't support such a thing IRL, but I love the inclusion of this for nations that are played as benevolent dictatorships. For their sake, I am glad it was added in!

This is the type of issue that I am always hoping to encounter, as it adds in customization opportunities for the policies which you have installed in your nation. I think the way it is written makes it a solid issue and with some polishing here and there, it can become even better! I sincerely hope that the issue will be accepted and added to the issue pool, as I'd love to get this on the nations where I have state-controlled media!

by **Dominioan** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:23 pm

Option three's effect sounds like the nation description for a Libertarian Police State.

This issue is so good though XD

by **Cretox State** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:34 pm

Trotterdam wrote:
Cretox State wrote:Option 5
"Have you people forgotten our history?!" screams an elderly advisor, smashing his fist on the table so hard that cracks are beginning to form. After taking a moment to compose himself, he continues, "The purpose of having a state-run media is to make it free from corporate influence and sensationalism. If you allow the government to corrupt the media as its own mouthpiece, you're no better! The media should remain publicly-funded, but be given freedom to report as it chooses."
So first, this made me wonder how this would fit with socialist nations, where corporate influence isn't much of a possibility anyway. Then I started to think that in a socialist nation, pretty much any media would have to be state-run media by default, even if you don't have the policy. Sure, you could allow individual workers' collectives the freedom to run their own media separately from the central government, but that's pretty much what this option is doing in a non-socialist nation.

I don't see socialism as really being a problem here. The argument stands that a state-run media, in the eyes of the speaker, exists to be unbiased and impartial, regardless of if the nation as a whole is socialist or not.

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:36 pm

Cretox State wrote:I don't see socialism as really being a problem here. The argument stands that a state-run media, in the eyes of the speaker, exists to be unbiased and impartial, regardless of if the nation as a whole is socialist or not.

Media can't be biased by "corporate influence" if you don't have corporations.

You might still be worried about other sources of bias, but you'd use different language, and it would take more to get rid of non-bribery-related sources of bias than simply making the media government-funded.

by **Cretox State** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:41 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Media can't be biased by "corporate influence" if you don't have corporations.

The media is already state-run as part of the issue's validity. How would the media be privately-run in a socialist nation?

Trotterdam wrote:You might still be worried about other sources of bias, but you'd use different language, and it would take more to get rid of non-bribery-related sources of bias than simply making the media government-funded.

The media is already government-funded. The speaker's argument is that the media should remain state-controlled, but should be given a longer leash.

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:02 pm

Cretox State wrote:The media is already state-run as part of the issue's validity. How would the media be privately-run in a socialist nation?

Dunno, but there are definitely nations in the game that have the Socialism policy but not the State Press policy, whatever that means. In fact, there are much such nations then are nations with the State Press policy at all, socialist or otherwise. (Socialist nations are at least more likely to have state press than capitalist nations: 25.38% versus 14.78%.)

This is not just a problem with your draft (it's just what made me realize it), but it is relevant.

Cretox State wrote:The media is already government-funded. The speaker's argument is that the media should remain state-controlled, but should be given a longer leash.

The speaker is saying that the media is already government-funded, and this is a good thing because <reason>. If <reason> does not actually apply, the argument breaks down and becomes nonsensical, regardless of what he continues with.

by **Cretox State** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:27 pm

Trotterdam wrote:The speaker is saying that the media is already government-funded, and this is a good thing because <reason>. If <reason> does not actually apply, the argument breaks down and becomes nonsensical, regardless of what he continues with.

The way I thought about it was:

Capitalist: "A state-run media protects journalism from the profit-minded corporate influence present in our society."
Socialist: "Could you imaging if we let a private company run anything, especially the media? Thank Violet we live in a socialist society that places people above profit."

If it's problematic, I could change the option a bit.

by **Minskiev** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:02 pm

Alright, first off. The effect lines are golden, however I think 3 is only gilded. I’ll try to think of something to replace it.

Second, what if you’re some autocratic nation that isn’t trying to be enlightened or progressive? What if it’s purposefully anti-enlightenment? Probably a validity of low primitiveness is necessary for option three.

by **Cretox State** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:39 pm

I added another potential effect line for option 3.

by **Minskiev** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:28 pm

Ooh, better.

by **Electrum** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:05 am

Just some minor things.

Cretox State wrote:All hail @@LEADER@@! As our radiant nation enters yet another glorious year, your infinitely dedicated and even more competently selected advisors are working hard to secure your further consolidation of power. A critical weapon will be the undeniably-correct state-run media, and the time has come for you to decide how your flawless government will wield it.

I think the description is in the third person, so saying "our" threw me off. I would also delete 'even more' because 'infinitely dedicated' is already a superlative.

As for the options I think one of them spells unrivalled incorrectly, with just one l. Also, the descriptions of the speakers can be a bit more humorous, so instead of the elderly advisor banging on the table, you could have the elderly advisor speaking with such ferocity that globules of spittle are flying everywhere.

by **Cretox State** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:30 am

Electrum wrote:
Cretox State wrote:All hail @@LEADER@@! As our radiant nation enters yet another glorious year, your infinitely dedicated and even more competently selected advisors are working hard to secure your further consolidation of power. A critical weapon will be the undeniably-correct state-run media, and the time has come for you to decide how your flawless government will wield it.

I think the description is in the third person, so saying "our" threw me off. I would also delete 'even more' because 'infinitely dedicated' is already a superlative.

My intention here was for the description itself to be propaganda, hence the "our." This is also why I used "even more," since it suggests that the competence with which your advisors were selected is somehow greater than infinite.

Electrum wrote:As for the options I think one of them spells unrivalled incorrectly, with just one l. Also, the descriptions of the speakers can be a bit more humorous, so instead of the elderly advisor banging on the table, you could have the elderly advisor speaking with such ferocity that globules of spittle are flying everywhere.

The American spelling of "unrivaled" has one l. The elderly advisor is unique because he isn't even trying to be deferential. The "smashing his fist on the table so hard that cracks are beginning to form" is supposed to represent the cracks he's showing in the other speakers' arguments and the way you're using the media in general. It's a minor thing, and I could easily change it if it's a problem.

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:13 am

How are options 1-4 different?

by **Cretox State** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:16 am

Australian rePublic wrote:How are options 1-4 different?

Option 1- Media focuses on you.
Option 2- Media focuses on the military.
Option 3- Media focuses on social policies.
Option 4- Privatize the media.
Option 5- Let the media report as it pleases.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:10 am

Glad to see the extra option, but with five options in total, each individual one should be about one third shorter, at least.

by **Cretox State** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:42 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Glad to see the extra option, but with five options in total, each individual one should be about one third shorter, at least.

Alright, I cut out some stuff.

by **Daarwyrth** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:27 am

As our radiant nation enters yet another glorious year, your infinitely dedicated and even more competently selected advisors

Perhaps you could consider changing the "our radiant nation" into "your radiant nation"? Last I heard autocrats weren't big on sharing

especially because you use "you" and "your" in the rest of the premise text!

by **Cretox State** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:40 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
As our radiant nation enters yet another glorious year, your infinitely dedicated and even more competently selected advisors

Perhaps you could consider changing the "our radiant nation" into "your radiant nation"? Last I heard autocrats weren't big on sharing especially because you use "you" and "your" in the rest of the premise text!

Done.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:45 am

Effect: newspaper editors that don't use state-approved superlatives for describing @@LEADER@@ are jailed

Some nations ban jails, so we normally say "prosecuted" instead. Admittedly, some nations lack courts too, but we work on the assumption that prosecution just has a different meaning in those countries.

Effect: students spend the school year learning how great the education system is
Alternate: citizens who don't love their lives disappear from their beds in the middle of the night

Definitely the first one.

reintroducing privately-operated media

media should remain publicly-funded

I believe the rule is that you don't need a hyphen after adverbs ending in -ly. I'm not the best person to ask on these things, though.

Looking good otherwise.

[Submitted] Yellowed Journalism

[Submitted] Yellowed Journalism

Who is online