I've also started to see NRA sponsored youtube channels [1] doing in-depth reporting on San Francisco's problems. It's not a bad documentary actually, but conveniently leaves out the whole NIMBY movement while featuring a real estate agent as a primary source focusing instead on the failures of local (liberal) government.
I fear we're seeing a massive ramp up in propaganda leading up to the 2020 elections. San Francisco will play a prominent role of "look how bad $FOO are at government!".
Wait, but you just admitted it was in depth, and not bad, parent gp said similar, so my question to both gp and you and those that think like this: why does that automatically equate to propaganda? Because it's not 'your side'? Why is the fact that it is a conservative think tank relevant? Evaluate the content on its merits and evidence. The fact that it doesn't cover one angle as extensively as you would have liked doesn't make it propaganda.
I'll answer, as I guess you're addressing me with this (although I'm not totally sure what "parent gp" means).
As I said, the article, which is on a topic where I'm reasonably well informed, seemed at best badly written to me. When an article is a) bad, and b) bad in a way that's convenient to somebody, it's worth asking how it got published.
Personally, I think "evaluate the content on its merits and evidence" is a bad heuristic for general-audience media like this. If somebody is going to cover a topic like "20+ years of the history of San Francisco crime and its economic and social impacts, plus the implications for urban policy" in 1000 words, they're leaving a lot out. This article lacks both an explicit argument and real evidence. It's basically saying, "Trust me, the writer, that I know what I'm talking about."
That can be fine when the person is an expert who works for an organization that is very good at producing solid journalism. But when it's disinformation, propaganda, or just the sort of bias-confirmation piece that many agenda-driven publishers put out, then it can be enormously harmful. So it's absolutely worth asking who paid for the piece to exist.
This reads as very disingenuous given the time the parents posts tok to supply reasons for their argument. Maybe you should evaluate the totality of their posts rather than seizing on a single word that makes you uncomfortable.
I believe that the video presents itself as an informational resource for understanding the social issues of the city, but instead knowingly omits critical information in order to better support the videos real goal - to galvanize a voting base and support an entirely unrelated agenda to the video's actual content.
I believe this qualifies as propoganda because it intentionally paints a different reality, misinforming viewers and potentially causing them to make meaningful decisions against their best interest.
It is a failure of the government to properly deal with the NIMBY movement. There are NIMBY's everywhere but somehow it's only SF where new apartments don't get built. Also isn't "look how bad $FOO are at government!" a perfectly fair argument for against voting for $FOO?
