Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[RandFan]

Yes. Almost everything Bush has touched turned to ****. It must be because my mind is so clouded by hate.

Oh, I think the answer is hidden in your post.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Yes. Almost everything Bush has touched turned to ****. It must be because my mind is so clouded by hate.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Mephisto]

I believe it is just another example of Pres. Bush tripping over his own tongue, not proof of malice.

Exactly, and in the context of the thread from which it was taken, it made PERFECT sense. I was answering Wildcat's assertion that moderate Muslim's sincerity couldn't be taken seriously because they didn't include a qualifying statement (as though Christian fundies in the U.S. could do the same). I was saying that it was wrong to have greater expectations for Muslims calling for the release of American hostages in Iraq or protesting the idiotic cartoons than the expectations we have for our own President.

Neither can articulate particularly well, but one group is speaking English as a second language and STILL calling for moderation in a potentially violent atmosphere, the other butchers his native language without considering the connotations of the words he chooses.

 

[President Bush]

I don't think the term has a bad name. I'm not sure how that is logically possible. What name would that be? Or are you using a figure of speech? Well, I just think some people don't know the meaning of some words, particularly this word.

Capitalizing on the ambiguity of language is a technique of propaganda. Though I'd say your defense of the practice's function on this thread has largely unsuccessful.

My definition of the term propaganda would be: a persuasive communication carried out through the manipulation of symbols with the goal of affecting basic human emotions. Sometimes people will be grateful for having this done for them in a world of information overload.

In fact, just thinking about it makes me thirsty for a 30 ounce malt liquor.

But propaganda won't work when skeptics are aware of its techniques being employed before their eyes.

 

[Ziggurat]

I haven't seen this yet in the current thread, but I decided I'd hunt down exactly where the original quote came from, in order to give it a little context (for whatever that's worth). You can find the whole transcript here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html

Here's the paragraph where the quote comes from:

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"

 

[President Bush]

I haven't seen this yet in the current thread, but I decided I'd hunt down exactly where the original quote came from, in order to give it a little context (for whatever that's worth). You can find the whole transcript here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html

Here's the paragraph where the quote comes from:

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"

Though not attacked directly in this quote, Social Security did have a couple classic propaganda techniques employed against it in the course of the failed move to privatize it:


1. Name calling. Links an idea or person to a negative symbol. The use of this technique aims to have one reject the idea or person on the basis of that negative symbol instead of actually checking available evidence.

An example how this was done came in Bush's 2005 State of the Union address, when he referred to Social Security headed to "bankruptcy".


2. Glowing generalities. Opposite of name calling. This technique aims to make us accept and approve something without examining the evidence. To buy something through its having been given a name I like.

"Private accounts" which were to replace the current system were described using this device. But they would have to have been intensely regulated. Contributions would have been mandatory. The investment options would have been restricted and retiring account holders would probably have to have been required to have spent their savings on annuities.

"Private accounts" which you don't actually control don't rate the term.

 

[Mycroft]

Here are some bumper-stickers I picked up from a google image search.

"Think globally, act locally."

"Bush family values" (image of bombs falling)

"Buck Fush"

"Friends don't let friends eat friends"

"Support our Troops"

"Question Authority"

"Republicans for Voldemort"

"Don't blame me, I voted Kerry"

"W in 04"

All of which is propaganda, but if it's good or bad depends on your point of view.

 

[President Bush]

"Think globally, act locally."

"Bush family values" (image of bombs falling)

"Buck Fush"

"Friends don't let friends eat friends"

"Support our Troops"

"Question Authority"

"Republicans for Voldemort"

"Don't blame me, I voted Kerry"

"W in 04"

All of which is propaganda, but if it's good or bad depends on your point of view.

Does anyone else find it odd that that the use of propaganda is defended by so many here?

Its only upside is in promoting positive social ends, like campaigns to reduce drunk driving. Haven't seen anyone point that out here. Even then, the devices of propaganda are purely coercive.

Mycroft's list might illustrate how propaganda takes advantage of the ambiguity of language, exploits insecurities, agitates emotions, bends the rules of logic.

Just because the president used the term favorably doesn't mean you have to start embracing what you'd be better off developing strategies against.

 

[hgc]

Does anyone else find it odd that that the use of propaganda is defended by so many here?

Its only upside is in promoting positive social ends, like campaigns to reduce drunk driving. Haven't seen anyone point that out here. Even then, the devices of propaganda are purely coercive.

Mycroft's list might illustrate how propaganda takes advantage of the ambiguity of language, exploits insecurities, agitates emotions, bends the rules of logic.

Just because the president used the term favorably doesn't mean you have to start embracing what you'd be better off developing strategies against.

Frankly, I'm shocked. But why should I be? It's just another case where the most expansive definition of a word possible is used to defend the indefensible. If St George said it, it can't be wrong, and such imperatives overrule logic and democratic ideals. Kind of catapults the ... well, you know.

 

[Mycroft]

Does anyone else find it odd that that the use of propaganda is defended by so many here?

Shouldn't it be? What you do here is propaganda too. All those funny threads where you post pictures of Bush saying goofy things? That's propaganda. That's speech designed by you to have an impact on how people think, which is what propaganda is.

Just because the president used the term favorably doesn't mean you have to start embracing what you'd be better off developing strategies against.

And we do. Not just political propaganda, but propaganda designed for marketing too.

At the same time it's worth noting that propaganda isn't always bad, and it's not always wrong. It's merely a descriptive term for methods used to get an idea across to lots of people. Bad or wrong depends on what the idea is.

 

[Mycroft]

Frankly, I'm shocked. But why should I be? It's just another case where the most expansive definition of a word possible is used to defend the indefensible...

I bet even if we narrowed the definition to something you feel comfortable with, we would still be able to find plenty of examples of propaganda you're very comfortable with, so long as it supports your point of view.

 

[Elind]

I bet even if we narrowed the definition to something you feel comfortable with, we would still be able to find plenty of examples of propaganda you're very comfortable with, so long as it supports your point of view.

But, by that defintion, it is not propaganda is it? This is a word that some people think only applies to the other side.

More semantics, without substance (not directed at you, BTW).

 

[President Bush]

Shouldn't it be? What you do here is propaganda too. All those funny threads where you post pictures of Bush saying goofy things? That's propaganda. That's speech designed by you to have an impact on how people think, which is what propaganda is.



And we do. Not just political propaganda, but propaganda designed for marketing too.

At the same time it's worth noting that propaganda isn't always bad, and it's not always wrong. It's merely a descriptive term for methods used to get an idea across to lots of people. Bad or wrong depends on what the idea is.

If you find what I post to be coercive I would urge you to resist. As far as propaganda not always being bad I've already pointed out how it might be employed for social ends, like MADD. Still purely manipulative. Do you like being coerced?

Is it propaganda good or bad? What a ridiculous question. When does a mental shortcut designed to help one avoid thinking about difficult questions have an upside? I would instead recommend analyzing the tricks that propagandists employ against you.

 

[hgc]

I bet even if we narrowed the definition to something you feel comfortable with, we would still be able to find plenty of examples of propaganda you're very comfortable with, so long as it supports your point of view.

Give it your best shot.

 

[RandFan]

Does anyone else find it odd that that the use of propaganda is defended by so many here?

Depends on what you mean by propaganda. Your efforts here on JREF can only be viewed as propaganda.

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

You are not suggesting that you are here to impartially provide information are you?

Its only upside is in promoting positive social ends, like campaigns to reduce drunk driving. Haven't seen anyone point that out here. Even then, the devices of propaganda are purely coercive.

Again, depends on what you mean by propaganda. Or is propaganda, to you, what the other guy does?

Just because the president used the term favorably doesn't mean you have to start embracing what you'd be better off developing strategies against.

Nobody said we should embrace it. I council against it all of the time. I call blindly accepting of propaganda "drinking the kool aid".

The point is to not simply dismiss the other side because it doesn't fit with your world view or accept those things that do fit with your world view with out some healthy skepticism. Those that do are guilty of drinking the kool aid.

 

[RandFan]

Frankly, I'm shocked. But why should I be? It's just another case where the most expansive definition of a word possible is used to defend the indefensible. If St George said it, it can't be wrong, and such imperatives overrule logic and democratic ideals. Kind of catapults the ... well, you know.

This is just rhetoric. How are your words any different than any other propaganda?

 

[Kopji]

Skeptical and rational people acknowledge doubt - we might be wrong. There must always be some measure of hope for compromise, or some give and take in our positions.

Propaganda is a position or argument delivered from a position already cemented in place. Propaganda will not, CAN NOT admit the possibility of being wrong, or there being alternate views.

Whether the propaganda is true or false, it undermines our ability to communicate with each other with reasonableness.

 

[President Bush]

Depends on what you mean by propaganda. Your efforts here on JREF can only be viewed as propaganda.

You are not suggesting that you are here to impartially provide information are you?

Again, depends on what you mean by propaganda. Or is propaganda, to you, what the other guy does?

Nobody said we should embrace it. I council against it all of the time. I call blindly accepting of propaganda "drinking the kool aid".

The point is to not simply dismiss the other side because it doesn't fit with your world view or accept those things that do fit with your world view with out some healthy skepticism. Those that do are guilty of drinking the kool aid.

You fail to make an important distinction when you say that posting anything here on JREF amounts to propaganda. We are not dealing from a position of power here on JREF. Our appeals here aim (mostly) to persuade through the give and take of argument and debate. Not through the manipulation of symbols and human emotion, as practiced by politicians, journalists, advertisers, radio personalities and so on.

 

[Mycroft]

Give it your best shot.

First of all, you claim I expanded the definition. I didn't, I just used the dictionary definition.

But to meet the challenge, we will need a definition that is acceptable to you.

 

[RandFan]

You fail to make an important distinction when you say that posting anything here on JREF amounts to propaganda. We are not dealing from a position of power here on JREF. Our appeals here aim (mostly) to persuade through the give and take of argument and debate. Not through the manipulation of symbols and human emotion, as practiced by politicians, journalists, advertisers, radio personalities and so on.

Ok, we are not dealing from a position of power.

1.) Much of what is posted on this forum is still, by definition, propaganda.
2.) The use of propaganda by people in authority doesn't by default make the message bad or wrong.

I concede your points that politicians seek to manipulate symbols and human emotion. Therefore what? Does that invalidate the message? Of course not. Such an argument is fallacy. By such logic all messages become wrong or bad by virtue of being conveyed by people in authority. By such logic all political leaders are bad simply by virtue of being in authority. Again, such logic is fallacious.

People should be wary of propaganda for good reason. However people should not dismiss propaganda out of hand. Yes, it is arguably in the best interest of citizens to avoid emotional pleading and manipulation through the use of critical thinking to analyze the messages. Sadly to few of us do that. However Democracy is an adversarial system. There are competing ideologies with competing propaganda. It seems to work reasonably well for us. Though I concede it would work better if we were more skeptical and critical of our political leaders.

Bottom line, that a politician uses propaganda to further his or her message does not in and of itself make the message wrong or bad.