Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[President Bush]

Okay, do you understand now that effectiveness isn't part of the definition of propaganda?

You're right. Must've been the bumper sticker.

 

[Mephisto]

*LOL*

I think you've just demonstrated that effectiveness also has nothing to do with intelligence.

 

[President Bush]

Thanks, Mephisto.

Mycroft, you posted earlier that you found air raid warnings to be informative, not persuasive. Therefore, not propaganda.

You maintain that the Surgeon General's warning (on a pack of cigarettes) is propaganda. Not informative, but persuasive.

OK. This propaganda is designed to affect group behavior to benefit what sponsor?

 

[Mephisto]

I think so, but then when has an air raid warning been used to sway public opinion?

Just because an air raid warning siren HASN'T been used to sway public opinion doesn't mean it couldn't be. I'm sure the 9/11 color-coded terrorist alert system wasn't thought up to bolster the idea that the Bush administration is taking care of terrorists, however, it's noteworthy that they (the terrorist alerts) have dropped significantly since the elections.

If propaganda is simply information, then a air raid siren OR a color-coded terrorist alert sytem both fit into that definition (information regarding an impending attack). However, when alternative reasons are used to sound the alarm (a' la "boy who cried wolf") how can they NOT be seen as propaganda (in the generally accepted sense)?

 

[Mephisto]

Perhaps, and if they did it would of course be propaganda.

Unless you're making apologies, then it's just information. Completely off topic, but it's much the same as shooting a guy in the face - it's a completely typical hunting accident, unless you're the Vice President and didn't report the incident for nearly 24 hours, then you've got to call in the heavies at Faux News to sort of . . . catapault the propaganda.

 

[RandFan]

Just because an air raid warning siren HASN'T been used to sway public opinion doesn't mean it couldn't be.

Not very compelling argument. Yes, it could be.

If propaganda is simply information, then a air raid siren OR a color-coded terrorist alert sytem both fit into that definition (information regarding an impending attack). However, when alternative reasons are used to sound the alarm (a' la "boy who cried wolf") how can they NOT be seen as propaganda (in the generally accepted sense)?

The fact that they are informational does not make them propaganda. They do not become propaganda until used as such. Information become propaganda when it is used in an impartial way.

 

[Mephisto]

The fact that they are informational does not make them propaganda. They do not become propaganda until used as such. Information become propaganda when it is used in an impartial way.

Well then back to the OP. How was my citing Dubya in what you mistook as my sig line, propaganda - keeping in mind now that I was originally quoting him regarding his lack of English skills?

 

[Mycroft]

Thanks, Mephisto.

Mycroft, you posted earlier that you found air raid warnings to be informative, not persuasive. Therefore, not propaganda.

RIght.

You maintain that the Surgeon General's warning (on a pack of cigarettes) is propaganda. Not informative, but persuasive.

Both informative and persuasive. Not fully informative.

OK. This propaganda is designed to affect group behavior to benefit what sponsor?

Don't understand your question. Say again?

 

[RandFan]

Well then back to the OP. How was my citing Dubya in what you mistook as my sig line, propaganda - keeping in mind now that I was originally quoting him regarding his lack of English skills?

I never claimed that your sig line was propaganda. Only that the president's use of the word wasn't necessarily contradictory, wrong or bad. Propaganda isn't axiomatically false, wrong or bad. Even false propaganda can be argued to be beneficial some times. I think the point is that most of us feel exploited when we are manipulated by propaganda. Odd since most of us don't take the steps to avoid being manipulated. People don't read the newspaper, employ critical thinking seek alternative sources and view ALL political leaders, party lines and political platforms and agendas with skepticism. Many if not most people don't even bother to read up on the issues or candidates that they are voting for. Many if not most people respond to sound bites and their favorite talk radio show host (AKA ditto heads for Limbaugh fans). Propaganda, good or bad, true or false, is used to the extent that it is because we take the bait.

The purpose of this thread was to convey the following:

1. That someone takes a biased or partisan position on a given issue doesn't make that person bad. Political leaders included.
2. One sided messages are not axiomatically bad.
3. The use of propaganda is not axiomatically bad when given to us by political leaders. On the contrary it is what they do. All of them. Almost always. To be an effective political leader you must believe in your convictions and advance an agenda. We have a term for leaders who take a neutral and unbiased opinion on issues. "Voted out of office".
4. The extent to which our leaders use propaganda is to a large degree our own fault.

I hope this helps.

RandFan

 

[Mephisto]

I never claimed that your sig line was propaganda. Only that the president's use of the word wasn't necessarily contradictory, wrong or bad. Propaganda isn't axiomatically false, wrong or bad. Even false propaganda can be argued to be beneficial some times. I think the point is that most of us feel exploited when we are manipulated by propaganda. Odd since most of us don't take the steps to avoid being manipulated. People don't read the newspaper, employ critical thinking seek alternative sources and view ALL political leaders, party lines and political platforms and agendas with skepticism. Many if not most people don't even bother to read up on the issues or candidates that they are voting for. Many if not most people respond to sound bites and their favorite talk radio show host (AKA ditto heads for Limbaugh fans). Propaganda, good or bad, true or false, is used to the extent that it is because we take the bait.

The purpose of this thread was to convey the following:

1. That someone takes a biased or partisan position on a given issue doesn't make that person bad. Political leaders included.
2. One sided messages are not axiomatically bad.
3. The use of propaganda is not axiomatically bad when given to us by political leaders. On the contrary it is what they do. All of them. Almost always. To be an effective political leader you must believe in your convictions and advance an agenda. We have a term for leaders who take a neutral and unbiased opinion on issues. "Voted out of office".
4. The extent to which our leaders use propaganda is to a large degree our own fault.

I hope this helps.

RandFan

Alright, I'll grant you all those things, but I still don't understand why you thought the quote I used was ironic? BTW, I wasn't quoting that statement because I thought it held propaganda, but because it was a good example of his inability to articulate.

I guess you could say that although Bush didn't use the term in its negative connotations, he did trip himself up by using the word at all (I'm sure most politicians are careful not to use the word when talking about their own policies). Sort of a positive-negative statement, eh?

 

[President Bush]

This propaganda is designed to affect group behavior to benefit what sponsor?

Don't understand your question. Say again?

The Surgeon General's propaganda on cigarette packs benefits who? Propaganda benefits the interest sponsoring it. I am politely asking you who you think that is.

 

[RandFan]

Alright, I'll grant you all those things, but I still don't understand why you thought the quote I used was ironic?

I didn't think that.

BTW, I wasn't quoting that statement because I thought it held propaganda, but because it was a good example of his inability to articulate.

That's why I pointed it out. I'm not convinced that he was being inarticulate. Perhaps he told the truth when he should have been political and perhaps he wouldn't have used such a word if he had greater political acumen.

I guess you could say that although Bush didn't use the term in its negative connotations, he did trip himself up by using the word at all (I'm sure most politicians are careful not to use the word when talking about their own policies). Sort of a positive-negative statement, eh?

I'll grant that he could have let the word unintentionally slip out.

 

[Mycroft]

The Surgeon General's propaganda on cigarette packs benefits who? Propaganda benefits the interest sponsoring it. I am politely asking you who you think that is.

So you're adding something new to the definition of propaganda?

 

[President Bush]

So you're adding something new to the definition of propaganda?

How so?

 

[Mycroft]

How so?

So far the discussion, at least my end of it, has been about the definition of the word. When you put forth the assertion that ”Propaganda benefits the interest sponsoring it” and ask me who benefits from Surgeon General's warnings, I get the idea you might try to claim Surgeon General’s warnings aren’t really propaganda because the sponsor, the US government, isn’t the beneficiary. The beneficiary would be those who are cajoled into quitting smoking.

I may be wrong on this, but if I’ve anticipated you correctly, it would require a change to the definition of propaganda to exclude propaganda that doesn’t directly benefit the sponsor. As far as I know, it's not a requirement of any definition available now.


Edited for syntax.

 

[President Bush]

So far the discussion, at least my end of it, has been about the definition of the word. When you put forth the assertion that ”Propaganda benefits the interest sponsoring it” and ask me who benefits from Surgeon General's warnings, I get the idea you might try to claim Surgeon General’s warnings aren’t really propaganda because the sponsor, the US government, isn’t the beneficiary. The beneficiary would be those who are cajoled into quitting smoking.

I may be wrong on this, but if I’ve anticipated you correctly, it would require a change to the definition of propaganda to exclude propaganda that doesn’t directly benefit the sponsor. As far as I know, it's not a requirement of any definition available now.


Edited for syntax.

Good. Glad I helped motivate you to finally think.

Now I get to ask you for other examples of propaganda that don't benefit its sponsor. (HINT: when one starts believing that propaganda is benefiting someone other than its sponsor they are likely the victim of propaganda.)

 

[Mycroft]

Good. Glad I helped motivate you to finally think.

Now I get to ask you for other examples of propaganda that don't benefit its sponsor. (HINT: when one starts believing that propaganda is benefiting someone other than its sponsor they are likely the victim of propaganda.)

The requirement of benefiting the sponsor is still not a part of the definition of propaganda, and that will still be true if I can name hundreds of such examples or none at all.

At what part of this process do you become motivated to think?

 

[President Bush]

The requirement of benefiting the sponsor is still not a part of the definition of propaganda, and that will still be true if I can name hundreds of such examples or none at all.

To believe that a party might sponsor propaganda without actively benefitting from that campaign seems naive to me. Why else would that party seek to persuade others towards the ends it promotes?

 

[Mycroft]

To believe that a party might sponsor propaganda without actively benefitting from that campaign seems naive to me. Why else would that party seek to persuade others towards the ends it promotes?

It's not very likely, is it? And yet we have one example where it happened. It may make that one example unique, but we don't need to alter the definition of the word merely to exclude this one example.

Or, if one wanted the exercize, one could argue that it is in the governments best intrest to encourage people to quit smoking. I can think of several good arguments for this, one being health care costs.

 

[President Bush]

It's not very likely, is it? And yet we have one example where it happened. It may make that one example unique, but we don't need to alter the definition of the word merely to exclude this one example.

Or, if one wanted the exercize, one could argue that it is in the governments best intrest to encourage people to quit smoking. I can think of several good arguments for this, one being health care costs.

I can blow smoke rings, too. The definition of propaganda need no altering.

In a narrower and more common use of the term, propaganda refers to deliberately false or misleading information that supports a political cause or the interests of those in power...

... All active propaganda techniques can be tested by asking if they tend the target audience to act in the best interests of the distributor of the propaganda.

If I may paraphrase you (from your most recent post quoted here): Or, if one wanted the exercize, one could argue that it is in the governments best intrest to encourage people to heed air raid warnings. I can think of several good arguments for this, one being health care costs.


To be clear: I do not really consider air raid warnings to be propaganda. I suggest that they are only to show parallels with the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packs (which you, for some stubborn reason, continue to maintain is propaganda).