Ralph Nader was discussing the auto industry. He believes that they should have more safety
measures to protect motorists as they drive on the highway. Better brakes and seatbelt safety was
emphasized in his book. A lot of
accidents happen due to people not buckling up or having their brakes fail
them.
can you please translate to english please?
Answer:
To create public sympathy for wartime opponents.
Explanation:
Wartime propaganda can be defined as ideas, informations, allegations, or facts that are spread deliberately and methodically by a party, so as to demoralize, confuse and further it's cause against the enemy.
This ultimately implies that, wartime propaganda is focused on annihilating the will of an opponent to continue fighting in a war by ensuring that their morale is demoralized and broken down.
Hence, creating public sympathy for wartime opponents was not a purpose of wartime propaganda.
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
