Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[Mephisto]

1.) The internet is diverse with both partial and impartial sources of information. Your first statement is a non-sequitur.

My first statement is regarding the fact that the Internet is referred to as the "Information Highway" in spite of the fact that an inordinate amount of propaganda is also contained.

2.) CNN is a news organization whose express goal is to objectively and impartially desseminate information. Do you think that CNN lacks impartiality?

I think CNN lacks impartiallity if you're used to watching Faux News (even in spite of the fact that they call themselves - Fair & Balanced). Are there any truly impartial newscasts? I've seen newscasts from all over the world and have always been surprised at how the news is covered and what news is considered newsworthy.

3.) Advertising IS "Sales Propaganda".

Then the President's State of the Union address could just as easily be called, The President's Propaganda about the Union, couldn't it? Can you imagine how quickly a newscaster using that terminology would be quelled?

4.) What "words aren't interchangable"?

Well, it's either apples & oranges, or Mephisto's sig line & propaganda, but if propaganda always means nothing more than information, then I guess everyone's signature line is just propaganda.

There are two issues at hand. The meaning of "propaganda" and the use of the word by the President. I of course could be wrong about both. Please to explain why I'm wrong about the latter irrespective of the former?

Propaganda IS by definition, "information."

You're correct in that THE WORD propaganda isn't necessarily a "bad word" any more than the word, fester (which describes the process whereby organic waste becomes very beneficial compost) is a bad word, but you'll have to admit they can both have negative connotations and are generally used in that manner.

I've heard that Eskimos (Native Americans that like it a lot colder than I do) have several different words for different types of snow. In the Spanish spoken in the SW U.S. we have words to differentiate between hot (temperature-wise) and hot (spicy-hot). English is the same, some words work better in some situations than others, while words like propaganda should NEVER be used by a politician who wishes to be taken seriously.

 

[Mycroft]

You seem interested in evading a rather simple point.

I’m not evading anything.

Nobody really cares what I post here. Rather unlike the position, say, the President…

The definition of “propaganda” doesn’t depend on how big your audience is. It’s the same directed toward a few dozen users of an internet forum or if it’s directed towards the entire world.

If you think my making some kind of obvious joke or visual pun rises to this level of significance, well, I think that you ought to maybe start paying me for the service.

Who said your jokes rise to the level of significance of the statements of the POTUS? That wouldn’t make any sense, and it’s not a claim of mine. However, jokes and puns can be a significant part of propaganda.

I do not, for example, claim that Randfan's characterization of me as a sock puppet to be propaganda. Though, perhaps, more people here believe that RandFan knows who I really am rather than my denial of this woo.

Non-sequitur. Not only has no one made that claim, but it makes no sense at all.

What isn't propaganda in your definition of the word?

That’s easy enough. Anytime information is disseminated for its own sake and without the intent of swaying opinion towards a specific cause or point of view, then it’s not propaganda.

 

[RandFan]

As far as I'm concerned, propaganda is about technique. Appeals that come at us not through the give and take of argument and debate, but rather through clever wording or images specifically designed to get us to accept or reject some idea or person on the basis of the symbol supplied instead of actually checking available evidence are dishonest.

Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion. You didn't answer the questions so I'm limited to my response. Yes, this is a typical use of propaganda. Not the only one. Not exclusively but it is common.

I don't care to have this technique applied against myself (by people in authority). I make the assumption that people who would wish to be self determining necessarily feel the same (if the people playing these games hold no legitimate authority a variety of options are available).

Assuming that is the only way that politicians (people in authority) use to convey information what is the alternative? Propaganda exists because it works. We live in a free and open society and politicians, pundits, activists, etc. have a constitutionally protected right to zealously advocate their positions. Propaganda to a large extent is incidental to those who zealously advocate their positions. I understand that you don't like it. The answer is for citizens to educate themselves and to practice skepticism and critical thinking.

Compare this to the situation of the technique applied by myself (necessarily in authority if my actions are to be meaningful) to help people process their complicated world in a way that's best for them. I assume this is what you are defending...

? I'm not defending anything. I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion about the usage of the word "propaganda". I don't believe that the word is by default pejorative. I don't believe that the President's usage of the word is anything nefarious or that it reflects badly on him. If he is educated he understands that his purpose is, in part, to influence people. That is what politicians do whether we like it or not. That is inherent in a Democratic society. Some would argue that is why Anarchy is a better system. I don't agree but I can see the argument. Perhaps. In any event I don't see any utility in getting upset that Democracy breeds propaganda. I get angry sometimes when leaders use it in a cynical and deceptive manner. But this isn't the only way leaders in a free and open society use propaganda.

Good luck.

Thanks, I really appreciate your taking the time to break character to have this discussion. I appreciate your tone and your response.

Good luck to you too.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

My first statement is regarding the fact that the Internet is referred to as the "Information Highway" in spite of the fact that an inordinate amount of propaganda is also contained.

Again, propaganda IS information. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is not. Propaganda is information from an impartial source. Since it is demonstrable that the Internet has both partial and impartial sources it would be invalid to simply call it propaganda.

I think CNN lacks impartiallity...

You are entitled to your opinion and I won't correct you if you use the word propaganda to describe CNN.

...if you're used to watching Faux News (even in spite of the fact that they call themselves - Fair & Balanced). Are there any truly impartial newscasts?

I didn't pick Fox New. I cited CNN.

Then the President's State of the Union address could just as easily be called, The President's Propaganda about the Union, couldn't it? Can you imagine how quickly a newscaster using that terminology would be quelled?

Yes, the President's State of the Union could just as easily be called propaganda. Those who are adovcates might not want to call it that.

Well, it's either apples & oranges, or Mephisto's sig line & propaganda, but if propaganda always means nothing more than information...

But this isn't true and it is not what I have been saying. Propaganda is information from a partial source.

You're correct in that THE WORD propaganda isn't necessarily a "bad word" any more than the word, fester (which describes the process whereby organic waste becomes very beneficial compost) is a bad word, but you'll have to admit they can both have negative connotations and are generally used in that manner.

Agreed.

I've heard that Eskimos (Native Americans that like it a lot colder than I do) have several different words for different types of snow. In the Spanish spoken in the SW U.S. we have words to differentiate between hot (temperature-wise) and hot (spicy-hot). English is the same, some words work better in some situations than others, while words like propaganda should NEVER be used by a politician who wishes to be taken seriously.

I won't argue.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, I think President Bush's posts are more in tune with irony as he frequently uses the President's words (and pictures) to convey a subtle humor. I sincerely appreciate President Bush's post (and pictures) as they often lighten a tense mood in a particular thread.

Okay, I can agree with all of that. Except maybe the use of the word “subtle.”

However, none of that contradicts his words being propaganda. Propaganda can be ironic, it can convey humor, or it can lighten a tense mood.

Propaganda DOES have negative connotations…

Propaganda has come to have negative connotations, I won’t disagree there. I’m only reminding people that it doesn’t necessarily need to be though of in a negative way, and is often overlooked if it supports your point of view.

…otherwise the internet would simply be "The Propaganda Highway," or CNN would simply be the "24 Hour Propaganda Network" and advertising would be simply "Sales Propaganda." The words (to me) aren't interchangable for obvious reasons - people don't respond well when they KNOW they are being steered (like me at a Steven Spielberg movie) either mentally or emotionally.

Well, CNN is supposed to be informative without swaying your opinion. There is certainly a lot of propaganda on the internet, but I would hesitate to call it all propaganda.

Advertising? Yes, that’s all propaganda. Nobody expects advertisers to be unbiased.

An important element of propaganda is the mixing of truth and fiction in a manner that might confuse the viewer or listener…

I would disagree very stronger there. Propaganda may involve the mixing of truth and fiction, but that’s by no means necessary. In fact, one could make a powerful argument that propaganda is far more effective when it’s true.

When the "Truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert) is shown to be an outright MISTRUTH the propaganda laughingly falls apart (as RandFan aptly demonstrated in the OP). To excuse the head of one of the most powerful countries in the world for his misuse of the term makes you one of three things:

A. an apologist

B. someone who can categorize Goebbels as merely, "An Information Expert" or

C. someone who has drunk more than his share of the Kool-Aid or

This is just an ad hominem attack on me. Why can’t you argue without doing that?

I’m not a supporter of President Bush, but it’s reasonable that if he made that statement about propaganda that he had a more neutral definition in mind. That you refuse to consider it, in my opinion, says more about you than it does about the President.

 

[Mycroft]

Propaganda good or bad? What a grotesque question. When does a mental shortcut designed to help one avoid thinking about difficult questions have an upside?

Where did you come up with this definition?

 

[Bjorn]

Propaganda IS by definition, "information."


prop·a·gan·da
n.

1. The systematic propagation of ...information.

You snipped a part of it, the full text you quoted from goes like this:

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Compare this to Mycroft's statement about what is not propaganda:

Anytime information is disseminated for its own sake and without the intent of swaying opinion towards a specific cause or point of view, then it’s not propaganda.

Do you still hold that propaganda IS information, not a special breed of "information"?

Edited to add:

You are now posting that Propaganda is information from an impartial source. How does that fit with the definition you linked to ("propagation of a doctrine", "reflecting the views ... of those advocating such a doctrine")?

 

[Mycroft]

As far as I'm concerned, propaganda is about technique. Appeals that come at us not through the give and take of argument and debate, but rather through clever wording or images specifically designed to get us to accept or reject some idea or person on the basis of the symbol supplied instead of actually checking available evidence are dishonest.

In other words, persuasion.

I don't care to have this technique applied against myself (by people in authority). I make the assumption that people who would wish to be self determining necessarily feel the same (if the people playing these games hold no legitimate authority a variety of options are available).

It’s important for a leader to build consensus. It’s impossible for a leader to personally debate with each and every one of his constituents.

 

[RandFan]

You snipped a part of it, the full text you quoted from goes like this:

I snipped it to highlight that it is information. Please note I included both ellipses and link so anyone could find the entire definition. Please note also that I included the definition in my very first post without snipping the text.

Do you still hold that propaganda IS information, not a special breed of "information"?

I've never held that propaganda is just information. Please see the OP and pay special attention to the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia definition.

Here, let me re-quote the Wikipedia definition.

...a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.

Do you honestly not understand my position after reading that?

You are now posting that Propaganda is information from an impartial source. How does that fit with the definition you linked to ("propagation of a doctrine", "reflecting the views ... of those advocating such a doctrine")?

I see no conflict in any of my quotes.

Propaganda is, in part:

1.) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

2.) Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

3.) a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.

If there is something incompatible in any of the above statements would you please explain it to me.

RandFan

 

[Bjorn]

If there is something incompatible in any of the above statements would you please explain it to me.

RandFan

Here I go:

You quote again the definition:

...a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.

I take it that we agree, then, that propaganda is not impartially providing information.

However, two posts ago you stated that:

Propaganda is information from an impartial source.

It certainly seems incompatible to me, either it is impartially providing information or it isn't? Or maybe I'm overlooking something.

 

[RandFan]

Here I go:

You quote again the definition:

...a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.

I take it that we agree, then, that propaganda is not impartially providing information.

However, two posts ago you stated that:

It certainly seems incompatible to me, either it is impartially providing information or it isn't? Or maybe I'm overlooking something.

No, just carelessness on my part.

Propaganda is by defninition partial (at best, at worst it is false). Thank you for the correction.

 

[Bjorn]

No, just carelessness on my part.

Propaganda is by defninition partial (at best, at worst it is false). Thank you for the correction.

I disagree with you a lot, but I'll give you this: You admit mistakes when you do them to a degree that it gets on my nerves ...

 

[RandFan]

I disagree with you a lot, but I'll give you this: You admit mistakes when you do them to a degree that it gets on my nerves ...

Thanks.

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks.

As I say, this gets on my nerves ...

 

[President Bush]

I’m not evading anything.



The definition of “propaganda” doesn’t depend on how big your audience is. It’s the same directed toward a few dozen users of an internet forum or if it’s directed towards the entire world.



Who said your jokes rise to the level of significance of the statements of the POTUS? That wouldn’t make any sense, and it’s not a claim of mine. However, jokes and puns can be a significant part of propaganda.



Non-sequitur. Not only has no one made that claim, but it makes no sense at all.



That’s easy enough. Anytime information is disseminated for its own sake and without the intent of swaying opinion towards a specific cause or point of view, then it’s not propaganda.

The size of the audience makes no difference if you don't care about your propaganda being meangful and effective. If the systematic marketing of a cause or doctrine (reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a cause or doctrine) consisted of a xeroxed rant stapled to a telephone pole in the Gobi desert... well, what do you think? I wouldn't call that propaganda, though it fits the definition. That would be lunacy.

Marketing a cold remedy, do you invoke the Halls of Medicine or space penguins from Zeta Reticuli?

Though I know which image I'd choose if posting something here on JREF. And you'd call that propaganda?

I wouldn't claim that finding equivalence between someone goofing for self-amusement and the President invoking false imagery in an effort to discredit Social Security rises to the level of propaganda, however.

Because nobody really cares what you post either.

My points about propaganda necessarily needing to be both meaningful (as in having function or purpose) and effective (as in producing a strong impression or response) to rate the term come from my own interpretation of the word. As does the definition of propaganda (a mental shortcut designed to help one avoid thinking about difficult questions) you asked about (in a post subsequent to the one above).

 

[Mycroft]

The size of the audience makes no difference if you don't care about your propaganda being meangful and effective. If the systematic marketing of a cause or doctrine (reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a cause or doctrine) consisted of a xeroxed rant stapled to a telephone pole in the Gobi desert... well, what do you think? I wouldn't call that propaganda, though it fits the definition. That would be lunacy.

The size of the audience makes a huge difference in how effective your propaganda may be.

It makes no difference in if it's propaganda or not.

Marketing a cold remedy, do you invoke the Halls of Medicine or space penguins from Zeta Reticuli?

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make now, but bad propaganda doesn’t stop being propaganda just because it’s bad. (and I mean bad as in ineffective)

Though I know which image I'd choose if posting something here on JREF. And you'd call that propaganda?

As I said, scale doesn’t change definition. It’s still football if it’s an impromptu game of touch with you and your buddies in the park, or if it’s the Superbowl watched by hundreds of millions.

I wouldn't claim that finding equivalence between someone goofing for self-amusement and the President invoking false imagery in an effort to discredit Social Security rises to the level of propaganda, however.

Equivalence? It’s the same action, the difference is a matter of scale. You’re audience is only whoever reads you on this forum. The audience of the POTUS is the entire nation.

Because nobody really cares what you post either.

Except you, apparently.

My points about propaganda necessarily needing to be both meaningful (as in having function or purpose) and effective (as in producing a strong impression or response) to rate the term come from my own interpretation of the word.

Okay, so if your own personal definition of the word differs from the dictionary definition, why are you arguing? Wouldn’t you concede that it’s probably also different from the definition used by the POTUS?

 

[President Bush]

The size of the audience makes a huge difference in how effective your propaganda may be.

It makes no difference in if it's propaganda or not.



I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make now, but bad propaganda doesn’t stop being propaganda just because it’s bad. (and I mean bad as in ineffective)



As I said, scale doesn’t change definition. It’s still football if it’s an impromptu game of touch with you and your buddies in the park, or if it’s the Superbowl watched by hundreds of millions.



Equivalence? It’s the same action, the difference is a matter of scale. You’re audience is only whoever reads you on this forum. The audience of the POTUS is the entire nation.



Except you, apparently.



Okay, so if your own personal definition of the word differs from the dictionary definition, why are you arguing? Wouldn’t you concede that it’s probably also different from the definition used by the POTUS?

Not sure how the President would feel about having his speech compared to a xeroxed rant stapled to a telephone pole in the Gobi desert. I suppose as long as the black-tailed gazelles and marbled polecats were carefully screened...

I'll start by partially conceding your point, as my definition of the term "propaganda" is, indeed, a qualified one. Imagine that, on a skeptics' forum...

Still (I believe) someone in a position of power who uses phrases and images designed to persuade you to accept or reject something on the basis of the symbol he supplies (Jesus, the flag, the safety of your kids) instead of encouraging or enabling you to actually go and check available evidence abuses his power. The President doing this as an appropriate way to build consensus (as you suggested earlier) would make the way government is run indistinguishable from a Marx Brothers movie...

Come to think of it, I concede your point entirely.

 

[Mycroft]

Not sure how the President would feel about having his speech compared to a xeroxed rant stapled to a telephone pole in the Gobi desert. I suppose as long as the black-tailed gazelles and marbled polecats were carefully screened...

You keep hammering away about the size of the audience even though I've already responded to it. Let me repeat:

The size of the audience makes a huge difference in how effective your propaganda may be.

It makes no difference in if it's propaganda or not.

So by that standard the President's speach is not at all comparable to a xeroxed rant stapled to a telephone pole in the Gobi desert. People actually pay attention to what the President says.

Still (I believe) someone in a position of power who uses phrases and images designed to persuade you to accept or reject something on the basis of the symbol he supplies (Jesus, the flag, the safety of your kids) instead of encouraging or enabling you to actually go and check available evidence abuses his power. The President doing this as an appropriate way to build consensus (as you suggested earlier) would make the way government is run indistinguishable from a Marx Brothers movie...

At some point the job of the POTUS is to make a decision and then sell it. He is not a librarian who should direct you to dispassionate sources of information on issues, he's a politician who was elected on a party platform. You're still free to check your sources of information, and our system is set up so that there is an opposition party who will give the opposing point of view.

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's Common Sense? That’s propaganda. Very good propaganda, to be sure, such that people still read it almost a quarter of a century later, but it’s still propaganda. He had an opinion, he wanted as many people as possible to agree with him, so he produced a rather brilliant pamphlet to convince them.

Should he not have done that? Should he instead have encouraged to seek out information for themselves and make up their own mind?

No. What would be the point? He didn’t want people to make up their own minds, he wanted people to agree with him.

Propaganda is bad when it seeks to change people’s minds with false information, or to convince them to do something wrong, but there are plenty of examples of good propaganda.

Have you ever seen the Surgeon General’s warnings on cigarette packs? That’s propaganda. So are those advertisements you sometimes see on television telling people how deadly smoking is. Is that a bad thing?

Not only is virtually all political speech propaganda, but we have propaganda to educate us on social issues. AIDS awareness, domestic violence, drug use, even keeping good credit have all been subjects of propaganda campaigns in the US. It it all bad?

 

[President Bush]

You keep hammering away about the size of the audience even though I've already responded to it. Let me repeat:

The size of the audience makes a huge difference in how effective your propaganda may be.

It makes no difference in if it's propaganda or not.

So by that standard the President's speach is not at all comparable to a xeroxed rant stapled to a telephone pole in the Gobi desert. People actually pay attention to what the President says.



At some point the job of the POTUS is to make a decision and then sell it. He is not a librarian who should direct you to dispassionate sources of information on issues, he's a politician who was elected on a party platform. You're still free to check your sources of information, and our system is set up so that there is an opposition party who will give the opposing point of view.

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's Common Sense? That’s propaganda. Very good propaganda, to be sure, such that people still read it almost a quarter of a century later, but it’s still propaganda. He had an opinion, he wanted as many people as possible to agree with him, so he produced a rather brilliant pamphlet to convince them.

Should he not have done that? Should he instead have encouraged to seek out information for themselves and make up their own mind?

No. What would be the point? He didn’t want people to make up their own minds, he wanted people to agree with him.

Propaganda is bad when it seeks to change people’s minds with false information, or to convince them to do something wrong, but there are plenty of examples of good propaganda.

Have you ever seen the Surgeon General’s warnings on cigarette packs? That’s propaganda. So are those advertisements you sometimes see on television telling people how deadly smoking is. Is that a bad thing?

Not only is virtually all political speech propaganda, but we have propaganda to educate us on social issues. AIDS awareness, domestic violence, drug use, even keeping good credit have all been subjects of propaganda campaigns in the US. It it all bad?

Long as you invoke Common Sense let me quote something from the introduction:

The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet

Propaganda advising you to not bother with it? Is that some little known third category? If so, where is it positioned relative to "good' propaganda and "bad" propaganda?

Can't be "good" propaganda, like some public health campaign. Last thing you'd think that the Surgeon General intends is for you to disregard his health warning on a pack of cigarettes.

Now that I think about it, didn't you say this?

Anytime information is disseminated for its own sake and without the intent of swaying opinion towards a specific cause or point of view, then it’s not propaganda.

I thought that the science on the dangers of smoking was pretty well established by now. If so, how can a warning like this be defined as propaganda to begin with?

 

[Mycroft]

Long as you invoke Common Sense let me quote something from the introduction:


Propaganda advising you to not bother with it? Is that some little known third category? If so, where is it positioned relative to "good' propaganda and "bad" propaganda?

My position is that if propaganda is good or bad is subjective and depends on the individual. My goal in citing public health examples was to find examples where we would probably agree that it was "good" despite our different viewpoints.

Can't be "good" propaganda, like some public health campaign. Last thing you'd think that the Surgeon General intends is for you to disregard his health warning on a pack of cigarettes.

Now that I think about it, didn't you say this?

Anytime information is disseminated for its own sake and without the intent of swaying opinion towards a specific cause or point of view, then it’s not propaganda.

I thought that the science on the dangers of smoking was pretty well established by now. If so, how can a warning like this be defined as propaganda to begin with?

The surgeon general's warning is for the purpose of swaying opinion away from smoking. That's why you will never see a surgeon general's warnings like, "Cigarette smoking may be relaxing and relieve symptoms of nicotine withdrawal.", "Cigarette smoking may make beer taste better.", "Cigarettes may make it easier to lose weight or to prevent weight gain." or my favorite, "Cigarette smoking is a social activity and may lead to relationships with other cigarette smokers." All of which is true, but if the Surgeon General were to state them as they do the nasty warnings, the anti-smoking campaign wouldn't be nearly as effective.