Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - Dubya, May 24, 2005

Click to expand...

Since this is in Mepthisto's sig I suppose he thinks there is something ironic about it. Forgive my patronizing but I wanted to take a moment to explain what exactly propaganda is.

First, propaganda isn't defacto lies or untruth.

prop·a·gan·da Pronunciation Key (pr

p

-g

n

d

)
n.

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.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, truth can be used as propaganda. Wikipedia defines propaganda as

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

Click to expand...

Since the purpose of propaganda is to influence rather than inform it is quite appropriate for skeptics to be wary of propaganda. However it would be fallacy to dismiss propaganda out of hand and assume that it is only lies. In fact the truth can be quite influential and it can be in the best interest of politicians to tell the truth. Sadly, human nature being what it is lies are often more influential than the truth. I was in marketing for 8 years and the constant refrain was that "perception is greater than reality". Which explains why messages that are meant to influence are often deceptive if not down right false.

I'll let others decide if Bush's propaganda is the truth but unless I miss the mark the purpose of Mephisto's sig is a non sequitur. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I had a history teacher tell us once "Propaganda is more about what you leave out, not what you put in."

One can tell the truth, and still be guilty of propoganda. Similarly, deciding whether or not the media is biased is not dependant on deciding whether or not they are reporting factually correct information. They can report the truth, and still be guilty of bias. It is a matter of deciding WHAT to report. And how much attention to give it.

Freakshow said:

I had a history teacher tell us once "Propaganda is more about what you leave out, not what you put in."

One can tell the truth, and still be guilty of propaganda. Similarly, deciding whether or not the media is biased is not dependant on deciding whether or not they are reporting factually correct information. They can report the truth, and still be guilty of bias. It is a matter of deciding WHAT to report. And how much attention to give it.

Click to expand...

Agreed except I'm not certain that propaganda is something that one should be guilty of. Attempting to influence others is not immoral or unethical. Further one can be completely honest without any omissions and still engage in propaganda.

RandFan said:

Agreed except I'm not certain that propaganda is something that one should be guilty of. Attempting to influence others is not immoral or unethical. Further one can be completely honest without any omissions and still engage in propaganda.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure. I didn't necessarily mean "guilty" in a pejoritive sense. It was just a quick and easy way to write "they really did it".

Except I did mean it in the most pejoritive way possible, when talking about media bias. There are not words in the English language to properly explain the contempt I have for the media. Maybe I should try Klingon...

Freakshow said:

Oh, sure. I didn't necessarily mean "guilty" in a pejoritive sense. It was just a quick and easy way to write "they really did it".

Except I did mean it in the most pejoritive way possible, when talking about media bias. There are not words in the English language to properly explain the contempt I have for the media. Maybe I should try Klingon...

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I think (rightly or wrongly) the word propaganda has acquired certain negative connotations. It is rarely used in a good context. Just look at the Columbia Encyclopedia's article on the subject. It is rife with negative references (communism, Hitler, Mussolini, brainwashing, indoctrination, etc.).

I think that this article hits the nail on the head with:

Generally, however, the term is restricted to the manipulation of political beliefs.

Click to expand...

Not educating or informing (which, ostensibly was the whole reason behind the President's social security PR roadtrip during which he uttered that phrase), but manipulating, which has it's own negative connotations.

Sure, all politicians do it. But few, if any, will admit what they are doing is "propaganda." That said, I think this is just another case of Bush mis-speaking, not admitting to anything nefarious or devious, and I'm sure his handlers collectively cringed when he said it.

Educating and informing are also ways of manipulating political beliefs, and make very effective "propaganda."

The word propaganda has taken on a strong negative connotation, even though it's not always negative.

RandFan said:

Since this is in Mepthisto's sig I suppose he thinks there is something ironic about it. Forgive my patronizing but I wanted to take a moment to explain what exactly propaganda is.

Click to expand...

Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

zakur said:

I think (rightly or wrongly) the word propaganda has acquired certain negative connotations. It is rarely used in a good context. Just look at the Columbia Encyclopedia's article on the subject. It is rife with negative references (communism, Hitler, Mussolini, brainwashing, indoctrination, etc.).

I think that this article hits the nail on the head with:
Not educating or informing (which, ostensibly was the whole reason behind the President's social security PR roadtrip during which he uttered that phrase), but manipulating, which has it's own negative connotations.

Sure, all politicians do it. But few, if any, will admit what they are doing is "propaganda." That said, I think this is just another case of Bush mis-speaking, not admitting to anything nefarious or devious, and I'm sure his handlers collectively cringed when he said it.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how the use of the word with negative connotations should change the word.

kalen said:

Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

I do what I can Kalen. It's part of a higher calling given me by the almighty. In any event you are welcome.

The George Bush Protection Racket strikes again.

What do you think Bush meant by it, Randfan? Have you ever heard the word used in a positive context by propagandizers or anyone else since Goebbels resigned abruptly as Germany's Propaganda Minister on May 1, 1945? Did Bush intend to say that out loud? Is he just too stupid to know that no one today wants to be the target of propangandizing by their president? Or is Bush a few steps ahead of the likes of myself, and knows that propaganda, like torture and indefinite detention without charge, is coming into favor in post-democratic America?

I can't think of the last time I heard "propaganda" used in a positive light.

RandFan, why don't you head the commission to take the word back!

I have noticed that propaganda is a rather slippery term: generally, it seems to be selectively applied only to views with which one disagrees.

It is true that the actual definition of the word has nothing to do with truth or falsehood.

hgc said:

The George Bush Protection Racket strikes again.

What do you think Bush meant by it, Randfan?

Click to expand...

What the hell do you think he meant by it? That he was trying to further the truth by lying? He says "truth" not message. If he honestly didn't mean "truth" then why use the word?

Have you ever heard the word used in a positive context by propagandizers or anyone else since Goebbels resigned abruptly as Germany's Propaganda Minister on May 1, 1945? Did Bush intend to say that out loud? Is he just too stupid to know that no one today wants to be the target of propangandizing by their president? Or is Bush a few steps ahead of the likes of myself, and knows that propaganda, like torture and indefinite detention without charge, is coming into favor in post-democratic America?

Click to expand...

Yeah, just what I figured. Logically Bush could have only made such a statement if he is "too stupid" to understand that his use of the word might be lost on some. He must have been "too stupid" to make such a statement and mean he was trying to use the word as it is defined and influence people with truth. He was too stupid not to realize he was thinking out loud and failed to use a different word.

No, I don't think any of that. Why should I? Bush understands that propaganda is what it is. A means to influence. Yeah I know, you only feel contempt for Bush. I think we all get that. Yeah I know, you think Bush incapable of any intelligent thought. We get that too. Yeah, and I also know that anyone who dare offer an honest opinion that doesn't square with left wing propaganda must be an apologist for Bush. And it is your duty to jump on that person because Ed forbid that something like the meaning of propaganda be discussed. Oh, and never mind that I have been very critical of Bush on many occasions including starting threads denouncing his response to Katrina, his cronyism, his inappropriate restrictions on protesters rights, his spending, etc., etc.. That would take a bit of intellectual honesty that doesn't quite square with your world view. No, I'm part of some "protection racket" evidence to the contrary be damned.

I'm sorry I don't fit into your neat little dichotomy of a Bush lover or Bush hater. I gotta tell you though that your rhetoric is wasted on me. If you want to make an argument I would recommend logic and skip the propaganda yourself.

shecky said:

I can't think of the last time I heard "propaganda" used in a positive light.

Click to expand...

How would you know? I don't think it is used pejoratively that often. I suppose to those that misunderstand the word my usage of it, and I use it often, is pejorative. It isn't.

RandFan, why don't you head the commission to take the word back!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is needed. There are a number of words that are misunderstood. That some people don't get it doesn't mean that no one gets it. Just because you believe that the word is only used pejoratively doesn't mean that it is. Those who know better should simply point out to those who would misuse or misunderstand words the correct usage or correct meaning.

I just realized that this is not Mephisto's sig. I was wrong. Sorry.

RandFan said:

I just realized that this is not Mephisto's sig. I was wrong. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Thus providing an excellent demonstration of forum propaganda.

Goood God, man, what are you on? Just how far are you into illegal states of mind?

RandFan said:

I was in marketing for 8 years and the constant refrain was that "perception is greater than reality". Which explains why messages that are meant to influence are often deceptive if not down right false.

Click to expand...

I was in sales and marketing for more than 8 years. After all that time, the one lesson that pops (poops?) into mind was that one should never use words with more than 8 letters in a promotion, or was it 6? Anyway, the lowest common denominator rules. Right?

In Islam the rule is never use more than one cartoon at a time, and make it an abstract.

Mark said:

I have noticed that propaganda is a rather slippery term: generally, it seems to be selectively applied only to views with which one disagrees.

It is true that the actual definition of the word has nothing to do with truth or falsehood.

Click to expand...

Propaganda is more commonly known as BS! It may technically be true, but even the speaker knows its BS.

RandFan said:

I just realized that this is not Mephisto's sig. I was wrong. Sorry.

Click to expand...

So what does my sig mean?

Click to expand...