Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I asked this question in another thread and didn't get much response, but I'd like to try again because in today's political climate, I think it is a valid question for thoughtful discussion of the way propaganda is being used by both ends of the political spectrum (i.e., both the left AND the right).
Propaganda:
1. The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
2. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
3. ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc..
Wikipedia describes propaganda as "information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda."
My question is NOT whether propaganda is being spread by one side or another; I think most people will agree that it is being used in America today. You may see it as coming from the left, or the right, or, if you are a moderate (like me) from both sides.
So, please don't reply if all you want to do is tell me about the propaganda being spread by one side or another. I already see that is happening.
What I am interested in, should anyone be interested in thoughtful conversation, is whether the use of political propaganda is justified or dangerous (or perhaps both?)?
If you reply, please try to explain your reasoning. Feel free to use historical examples. As I said, I think it's probably best that we don't resort to discussing why it is justified for one group or another in America today because, ironically, that tends to just gin up propaganda.
A secondary question I am curious about discussing is what people see are signs or hallmarks of propaganda. Again, please try your best to refrain from statements that begin with statements like "The right always..." or "The left always...."
This is a more theoretical discussion of a very important, and hopefully, interesting, political topic.
I hope that there are some people still left on City Data who are OK with putting aside their partisan leanings to discuss this important topic in a thoughtful way.
Propaganda and Hyperbole, flat out lies.
It's why they need to bring back fairness in media... If we aren't going to get the truth then we should get at least both sides so we can make up our own minds.
I want to add a few more links that might be useful to us in discussing propaganda, especially if you're not quite sure what propaganda is or involves. I tried to pick what seemed to be non-partisan sources which are not discussing propaganda as it exists today, although obviously some bias creeps into most sources.
Of course it is dangerous. It drove the world to murderous madness in the first half of the 20th century. It can destroy nations and whole societies. As to whether or not it is justified, well considering how dangerous it is, no it isn't justified, at least not at the level and sophistication we have seen in the past. People tend to see propaganda from their own side as justifiable but not when it is coming from the other side.
The only partially partisan thing I will add is that in the modern era in America this new rise of sophisticated propaganda seemed to start with the generation of young democrats that came to Washington with the Bill Clinton administration. They were the new generation that was going to take the Capital by storm and change politics forever. And I think they succeeded. Maybe they were the generation that was just far enough removed from the early part of the century that they didn't fully realize how double edged the sword they were weilding was, or just how quickly this sort of thing tends to feed on itself and get out of control. The emerging medium of the internet to disseminate this propaganda only served to grow it even more quickly.
Propaganda and Hyperbole, flat out lies.
It's why they need to bring back fairness in media... If we aren't going to get the truth then we should get at least both sides so we can make up our own minds.
Thank you for responding!
I think I agree with the bolded part of your post, but I just want to paraphrase it, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying seeking information from multiple sides is the best way to counter being influenced by propaganda?
Of course, in addition to weighing information from both sides, we probably also need to seek out information that does not come from either side.
To do that, I think we probably need to be examine where information is coming from in the first place so that we can attempt to differentiate propaganda from more unbiased information.
A little off topic, but I'd be interested in hearing how people are finding ways to do this in today's environment.
For example, when we read a news article that seems to support our beliefs, do we also seek out a news article from a different source that provides a countering argument or different facts?
I think I agree with the bolded part of your post, but I just want to paraphrase it, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying seeking information from multiple sides is the best way to counter being influenced by propaganda?
Of course, in addition to weighing information from both sides, we probably also need to seek out information that does not come from either side.
To do that, I think we probably need to be examine where information is coming from in the first place so that we can attempt to differentiate propaganda from more unbiased information.
A little off topic, but I'd be interested in hearing how people are finding ways to do this in today's environment.
For example, when we read a news article that seems to support our beliefs, do we also seek out a news article from a different source that provides a countering argument or different facts?
I think he is talking about the Fairness Doctrine. The problem with that was that it was typically only enforced in one direction. I don't trust it would be used any more "fairly" in this generation than it was in the last.
Of course it is dangerous. It drove the world to murderous madness in the first half of the 20th century. It can destroy nations and whole societies. As to whether or not it is justified, well considering how dangerous it is, no it isn't justified, at least not at the level and sophistication we have seen in the past. People tend to see propaganda from their own side as justifiable but not when it is coming from the other side.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to edit out the interesting second paragraph of your post for now because I really want this discussion to avoid partisan discussions.
The point you make in bold above is exactly a concern of mine. Here's why: if propaganda is justified for only one side (the side you believe in) then that seems a slippery slope towards the dangerous side of propaganda, which is not being open to new or different facts.
That's how many Germans fell into the trap they did in Nazi Germany. Hitler was a madman, but he was a smart propagandist. He knew that Germans were p*ssed off at how Germany's economy was going after WWI, so he found a group to blame: Jews.
Then he used propaganda to convey the message that went something like this: "The economy is terrible, someone must be at fault, the people at fault are Jews, let's get rid of the Jews and solve our problem."
Most Germans agreed with the first two statements (the economy is terrible, someone must be at fault) and once they accepted those two statements as facts and started looking at them through an emotional lens, instead of a logical lens, it was easy to accept the propaganda that the people at fault MUST be Jews.
In other words, once Hitler got Germans to believe the first two statements, it was easy to believe the others, and to only seek out propaganda that confirmed and reinforced thinking that all of the statements were true.
Hitler used another propaganda technique to keep those who didn't reach that point from speaking up. He dismissed them as dangerous, and made it clear that those who disagreed were part of the problem, not the solution. In short, he frightened those who didn't buy into the entire line of thinking enough that they no longer offered countering information or opinions. They became afraid to speak up.
I think it is important to add that I am simply using Nazi propaganda as an historical example. My intention is NOT to say that any group today is aligned with Nazi beliefs I am merely using Nazi Germany as an example.
There are other historic examples we could use as well. I think, for instance, it is fair to consider how previous American presidents did or did not use propaganda, but since that will likely lead us into partisan fighting rather than actual conversation, let's avoid that for now so that the discussion doesn't go off track right at the outset. But perhaps we can return to that later on.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to edit out the interesting second paragraph of your post because I really want this discussion to avoid partisan discussions.
The point you make in bold above is exactly a concern of mine. Here's why: if propaganda is justified for only one side (the side you believe in) then that seems a slippery slope towards the dangerous side of propaganda, which is not being open to new or different facts.
That's how Germans fell into the trap they did in Nazi Germany. Hitler was a madman, but he was a smart propagandist. He knew that Germans were p*ssed off at how Germany's economy was going after WWI, so he found a group to blame: Jews.
Then he used propaganda to convey the message that went something like this: The economy is terrible, someone must be at fault, the people at fault are Jews, let's get rid of the Jews and solve our problem."
Most Germans agreed with the first two statements (the economy is terrible, someone must be at fault) and once they accepted those two statements as facts and started looking at them through an emotional lens, instead of a logical lens, it was easy to accept that the people at fault MUST be Jews. In other words, once Hitler got Germans to believe the first two statements, it was easy to believe the others, and to only seek out propaganda that confirmed and reinforced thinking that all of the statements were true.
Hitler used another propaganda technique to keep those who didn't reach that point from speaking up. He dismissed them as dangerous, and made it clear that those who disagreed were part of the problem, not the solution. In short, he frightened those who didn't buy into the entire line of thinking enough that they no longer offered countering information or opinions. They became afraid to speak up.
I think it is important to add that I am simply using Nazi propaganda as an historical example. My intention is NOT to say that any group today is aligned with Nazi beliefs I am merely using Nazi Germany as an example.
There are other historic examples we could use as well. I think, for instance, it is fair to consider how previous American presidents did or did not use propaganda, but since that will likely lead us into partisan fighting rather than actual conversation, let's avoid that for now so that the discussion doesn't go off track right at the outset.
The Soviets were just as effective with propaganda as the nazis were but they used class instead of race. People will always find a way to divide people and pit them against each other, often to devastating effect. The reason people tend to think it is justified when their side does it is for the same reason it is so dangerous...it is so bloody effective.
I think he is talking about the Fairness Doctrine. The problem with that was that it was typically only enforced in one direction. I don't trust it would be used any more "fairly" in this generation than it was in the last.
I'm not familiar with the term "Fairness Doctrine." Can you explain?
The Soviets were just as effective with propaganda as the nazis were but they used class instead of race. People will alwaus find a way to divide people and pit them against each other, often to devastating effect. The reason people tend to think it is justified when their side does it is for the same reason it is so dangerous...it is so bloody effective.
Yes, exactly.
And, that brings up another point. There may be situations where government propaganda (as opposed to propaganda from political groups) is justified because you need to rally the populace around a cause.
For instance, in WWII, the U.S. government used propaganda to keep Americans supportive of the sacrifices required for the War efforst. Think of all the posters with slogans like "Uncle Sam Needs You," or "We can Do It" that the Government distributed. Even victory gardens had a bit of propagandist feel -- "VICTORY" gardens.
The propaganda message was: with your help and sacrifice, America can win.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
