What is “propaganda”? Is it bad, good, or neutral? Who does it? Is it what “the other guy” does but you don’t?
Is something “propaganda” because of its content, delivery, audience, intent, effect, all the above or none of the above?
I’m interested in your thoughts. Next week I’ll post one – possibly two – proposed revisions to the definition of propaganda to continue this discussion.
Related:
-
Defining Public Diplomacy
-
What is the purpose of public diplomacy
-
News or Propaganda? originally published in Time magazine, January 28, 1946
-
Research topic on Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication
Emzy King says:
As a newcomer to the site, I must commend Matt on the quality of the site and to the contributors for the quality of the discussion found on the boards. As to the question at hand I would broaden the definition wider than Steve’s somewhat narrow totalitarianism context, the test has to be broader than who controls the technical means of dissemination.
I would agree with Javad’s point about the asymmetrical and (and therefore distorting ) nature of propaganda, even though “classical” models of totalitarian propaganda are not as valid in open societies. An cursory examination of China proves that more classical models are still possible even in our information based society.
To Maj. Gen. Vallely’s point about the audience’s judgment of the information relative to its source that results in a perception of propaganda. While it should be clear to all viewers of the Super Bowl that they are being willing subjected to propaganda in the pursuit of capitalistic ends, what is sorely lacking among the general audience is the conscientiousness to the source of information, it is this oft lacking awareness that is required for the relativity required to test for propaganda.
Join us for Meet the Press for a roundtable (implying a open exchange of wide ranging varied perspectives) discussion of US foreign policy, produced by a GE owned company sponsored by Boeing. Lacking an independent media, non-corporatist or pacifistic voice in the entire conversation to challenge even the must basic of assumptions on which the conversation is based. Does the average consumer of the information question the source deeply enough to even begin to make the required judgment to relativity as to its creditability?
Max Rodriguez says:
Hey Matt,
I, too agree with Javad on his definition, but I feel that often for messages contained in propaganda are, by natural processes, the sincere belief and message of the authoring party. For a force to provide largely objective information would do little to persuade others to their cause, and be less effective. So I feel there is a place for it as a “necessary evil” in the field.