Seems to me that propaganda is about trying, first of all, to manipulate people to think in a particular way about something, not primarily about presenting the story in the manner in which you really see it, including the details that might be thought of in a different way by the reader. It is 'strategic action', not communicative action.
On the other hand, claiming objectivity is about presenting all the material that you believe is important, but that's always based on some mode of thinking about things that you have, that you may not be too aware of (i.e., we're all ideologists, though some of us are more aware of our ideology than others) - this is often called 'common sense'. Seems to me that if common sense were all that reliable we'd be running the world a bit better than we are - anyway, commonsense is very different for different people in different situations and/or with different indoctrinations.
Neither is necessarily the same as lying, though propaganda is sometimes a matter of lying, but the most effective propaganda is usually a matter of what you don't say, not what you do - plus, perhaps, emotional flag-waving, or whatever. .

And that's why analytical articles, presented from a background point of view that both reader and writer more or less understand, or that the writer can, or anyway is willing to try to, honestly make clear to the reader, are important. This is often called 'subjective', but subjectivity with attempts at rationality and logic and explanation are about the best we can do, because actual objectivity presupposes complete knowledge and perfect understanding - and we're never there.
In my opinion the French reading public understand all this a bit better than many other publics - some kind of theory is not something 'added to' 'the facts', it's what allows you to select that which you see as important in the first place. A lot of things are not going to be included, because there can never be a 'full report'.
And that's what we happen to be stuck with. Maybe the best we can do is to be honest - and there are a hell of a lot of characteristics of of systems that take ego competition for social/economic/political positions as the sole, or necessarily most important, foundation of 'human nature' that produce deception, often intentionally. Take the advertising industry, for example, or whatever politicians, social climbers and f*ck-yr-buddy denizens of the business world come up with.
One of the 'nice' things about open censorship is that everybody pretty much knows where it's coming from, and can then get to work figuring out why it's as it is.

propygandy in its trad form is wot eye sea when story led and managed to fit gubmint view. not when story slanted to fit politycal view of owners. this is different to roopert merdock backing his faviorite horse www.theguardian.com/[...]

Dazzer: My thought about the article - yeah, it figures. I don't agree with your restricted definition of propaganda, though in this case the censorship, like I said - well, everybody knows where it's coming from.

All in all, I'd rather know that I don't really know than to be told that I do, or to tell other people that I do - Karl Popper, (idealized) philosophy of science: things can't be proven, they can only be falsified, and it's on this basis that science (or anything) can become more accurate. 'Knowing' doesn't lead anywhere, it just sits there on the ground playing with itself, waiting to be tested - it will be. And hell yeah, I'll listen to what the Party has to say...too. And think about it.

As for loyalty, I think it's important to be loyal to the person you're talking to, in terms of what you say - you'll still make mistakes, of course, but that's what the other guy's brain is for. - otherwise you're really just fighting, and 'communication' is just another way to go about it.

Eladi, still want to study journalism in China?

@hammer I'll try my best to define propaganda though I do not not by any means claim to be a historian in this matter neither am I as you rightly pointed out unbiased. Therefore I wish to declare that my views on propaganda are those of my own or aquaired by myself through stuff I have read.

Propaganda is information, ideas, and rumors debliterately spread widely to harm a person, group, institution, nation or government, to assist or damage another government, influence opinion, and carefully select for political effect. Way back in 1622 a college of propaganda was established by the pope for the education of priests for foreign missions. Would you say my definition is sound hammer?

..

So back to eladi. If you go on forums using text slang like u-you. Ur-you're, n-and you're not going to get any respect from a publisher or newspaper. If you have a point of view on something that you could write about in proper English you'll get noticed more. Who knows who may be reading? Elaborate and expand on your journalistic talent and amuse us further, you whom I respect more for your non commitment to a degree in the matter

When the mass media...serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous propaganda. – Norman Solomon

As an independent writer, would you have an opinion on anything eladi? Or anything to report? Discuss?

Thanks vicar, actually I just wanted to place the meaning propaganda in your argumentation, somehow.

Got it, thanks.