NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking, especially back on the WWII years, and

Is Propaganda inherently bad?

I don't think it is. It's more a matter of who does it, for what purpose, and what's said than "brainwashing" (though it's certainly used for that purpose).

Just look at both sides during WWII. Hitler and Nazi Germany pumped out the propaganda, but so did the British, Soviets, and Americans. And our side wasn't lying. It played on our emotions yes, but I think it was good and justified. When properly applied (as the Allies did in WWII) to open eyes, I think it is good. When lies (like the Axis did) are propagated to blind eyes, I think it's bad.

So, is it just bad- or is it just it's abuse that is bad?

All child-rearing, including schooling, is effectively brainwashing. You enforce some things and discourage others.

Edit to add: So no, its not inherently bad.

That's sort of my reasoning. I don't think it's wrong to USE it, but wrong to ABUSE it.

Look, propaganda is not always bad. You just have to be smart enough to sort out the rubbish and the good.

Look, propaganda is not always bad. You just have to be smart enough to sort out the rubbish and the good.
Yea. Which is why I believe any propaganda messages broadcast by the government should be broadcast w/a disclaimer first.

I just look at our forefathers, and their use of it- and I think "why can't we ever use it". Those who currently use it, abuse it, and lie through it. Why can't Western Society whip up support against radical Islam (not ALL Muslims, just the Terrorist wing of it). Because I see a lot of paralells between the portrayal of the "Nazi Hun" and Osama bin Laden. So why not dump the long, boring speeches, and say it more directly and to the point in some form of poster, like we did in WWII. Just as long as we make it clear who our enemy is (terrorists) and who it isn't (Muslims in general), I say go for it.

Propaganda is a powerful social tool that can be used for a variety of causes. It isn't inherently 'bad' per se, it's just important that the average person become media savvy so as not to be completely taken in by it.

Yea. Which is why I believe any propaganda messages broadcast by the government should be broadcast w/a disclaimer first.
The press releases of listed companies must by law, carry a disclaimer stating that forward-looking statements are not intended to be interpreted as an indicator of future economic performance, etc.

I believe that government announcements should carry a disclaimer stating the government's interest in the matter and that the content is not necessarily a guide to actual policy.

The press releases of listed companies must by law, carry a disclaimer stating that forward-looking statements are not intended to be interpreted as an indicator of future economic performance, etc.

I believe that government announcements should carry a disclaimer stating the government's interest in the matter and that the content is not necessarily a guide to actual policy.

That's a good idea. Doesn't have to be long, just a short statement on or attached to the poster.

Trivia fact no. 1274: The word 'propoganda' is the word that Portuguese uses for advertising. You can get a degree here in "Propoganda and publicity".

It is when it is used to refer to ideological advertising that it gets a bad name, which derives from the ideologies that have been advertised in the past and not from the propoganda itself.

So no, propoganda in itself is not bad.

Having said that when advertising is disguised as something else, then there is a problem. When propoganda is presented as news or reporting, then it is wrong.

No. Propoganda is intensive advertising. As they say "Truth told differently" or "Truth well told". Not bad of course.

So let me pose this then.

If Bush started using propaganda to support the war on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Lebanon- and DID put a disclaimer on the bottom of his posters (in readable print, in English, or depending on where it is, a language understandable to the readers) and made sure he was spreading MORE lies by it, would that be acceptable, or would he be targeted for bad propaganda and slander?

I'm not looking for comments that say whether he would do this or not, I'm just asking IF, and we're going to stay with that IF, not go off on "He couldn't tell the truth if it bit him" and all that kind of stuff. We're sticking with the "IF" for a moment.

Anybody read Mother Night?

No, what's it about?

Yes, propaganda is bad.
Example: USS Maine blown up by Spaniards
Result: Spanish-American War

Example: If you don't agree with X policy, you are supporting terrorists/nazis/communists/Etc
Result: Deep hostilities between various peoples in a nation.

"The moral of the story"
The phrase "one moral of this story," is one that comes up several times in the novel. As Vonnegut, posing as Campbell's editor, points out in his introduction: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." Another is "Make love when you can. It's good for you."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Night

Hmmm. Interesting.

The press releases of listed companies must by law, carry a disclaimer stating that forward-looking statements are not intended to be interpreted as an indicator of future economic performance, etc.

I believe that government announcements should carry a disclaimer stating the government's interest in the matter and that the content is not necessarily a guide to actual policy.

This is an official announcement from the Government.

Limitation of Liability
THE POLICIES HEREIN (INCLUDING ALL INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CONTAINED ON THE BREIFING) IS PROVIDED "AS IS" "AS AVAILABLE." THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PROVIDING ANY WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE POLICIES. THE GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND WITH REGARD TO THE POLICIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, FREEDOM FROM AERIAL ATTACK OR OTHER HARMFUL ACTS, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY, OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CONTAINED IN THE POLICY AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE MATERIALS AND INFORMATION. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS LIMITING OR REDUCING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS TO CITiZENS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE GOVERNMENT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE POLICY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN APPRISED OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH DAMAGES OCCURRING AND REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE.

Safe Harbor Ass-Covering Doublespeak

This news release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Government Honesty Act of 2003, as amended, and Section 21E of the Government Stop Lying Act of 2004, as amended. The Government intends such forward-looking statements to be covered by the Safe Harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Government Doublespeak Reform Act of 2005, and including this statement for purposes of complying with these Safe Harbor provisions. Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe future plans, strategies and expectations of the Government, may be identified by use of the words, "believe," "expect," "intend," "anticipate," "estimate," "project," or similar expressions. Citizens should not rely on forward-looking statements because they are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Certain factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the Government's ability to successfully integrate the acquired assets and operations of other countries and service the increased debt incurred to finance the acquisition, as well as the risks that the Government will incur unanticipated costs related to the acquired operations (occupation) or not realize expected revenues, synergies and cost savings, and those risks set forth in the Government's Annual Report on its most recent Form 10-K under "Congressional Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and in other reports subsequently filed with the Doublespeak Commission.

HOOOOWEEEEEE! What a mouthful. But very insightful.

the thing is, in a way, propaganda is always bad, but then, everything is propaganda. because, propaganda is used to sway you away from what you believe. so really, even if used to sway you into a good cause, is it the good cause YOU believe in?

You get your beleifs mainly from propaganda anyway

Exactly the point someone made at the start of the thread- so hence, it isn't bad on it's own.

I've been thinking, especially back on the WWII years, and

Is Propaganda inherently bad?

I don't think it is. It's more a matter of who does it, for what purpose, and what's said than "brainwashing" (though it's certainly used for that purpose).

Just look at both sides during WWII. Hitler and Nazi Germany pumped out the propaganda, but so did the British, Soviets, and Americans. And our side wasn't lying. It played on our emotions yes, but I think it was good and justified. When properly applied (as the Allies did in WWII) to open eyes, I think it is good. When lies (like the Axis did) are propagated to blind eyes, I think it's bad.

So, is it just bad- or is it just it's abuse that is bad?Propaganda is "a message designed to influence - aimed at persuading a group or individual to behave or think in a certain way". That is not inherently bad.

Of course, our side never lied and exaggerated, did it? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/PropagandaNaziStabsBible.gif)

The real answer to the question "Is a piece of propaganda good?" is the question "Do I agree with it's point of view?"

Propaganda is the attempt to win over a significant percentage of the population to a specific point of view via mass media methods, or the reinforcement of that point of view among those already won over.

It's quite an art. Each piece must be tailored to it's target audience, and to the environment in which it exists. For example, the Big Lie techniques used in the 1930's and '40's authoritarian regimes won't fly in a cynical, free press democracy beyond the very lowest common denominator. On the other hand, this technique appears to be in common use in Burma and North Korea, where the government can control access to the free press, with greater or lesser success.

Is it a good or a bad thing, propaganda? Neither. It's much more complex than that.

Yes, propaganda is bad.
Example: USS Maine blown up by Spaniards
Result: Spanish-American War

Example: If you don't agree with X policy, you are supporting terrorists/nazis/communists/Etc
Result: Deep hostilities between various peoples in a nation.Indeed, but that was more of an incident of media sensationalism than propaganda. The yellow press wanted to sell its papers more than incite anti-spanish sentiment with the allegation that they blew up the Maine (they didn't. The scenarios propagated by the press were completely overblown and while the true causes are still shrouded to some extent in mists of mystery, most evidence points to an accident).

Is Propaganda inherently bad?
Yesnextquestion.

Yesnextquestion.Imagine what the world would be like without commercials... Television would be a bit nicer to watch, but economically, things might be a bit worse. ;)

Yes, it's a bad thing. It encourages people to go for the idea that's shouted the loudest instead of the most rational one.

I think that propaganda is wrong. It's not the government's place to tell you what to think. Anything that discourages dissent is inherently wrong.

So let me pose this then.

If Bush started using propaganda to support the war on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Lebanon- and DID put a disclaimer on the bottom of his posters (in readable print, in English, or depending on where it is, a language understandable to the readers) and made sure he was spreading MORE lies by it, would that be acceptable, or would he be targeted for bad propaganda and slander?

I'm not looking for comments that say whether he would do this or not, I'm just asking IF, and we're going to stay with that IF, not go off on "He couldn't tell the truth if it bit him" and all that kind of stuff. We're sticking with the "IF" for a moment.

That would be no more acceptable than claiming that my special mixture of vitamins and minerals will cure all known illnesses. If propoganda is just advertising for ideologies (which is what it is) then it should be bound by the same rules of honesty that commercial advertising is. i.e. claiming something to be true that you know is not, is wrong.

Imagine what the world would be like without commercials... Television would be a bit nicer to watch, but economically, things might be a bit worse. ;)
I, for one, would like to see truely unbiased news. sure, tell us how many American troops died, but at the same time, also tell us howmany insurgents/terrorists/bombers also died. tell us when a building is blown up but also give the same airtime for when a school is opened, or utilites are restored in a warzone.

I think that propaganda is wrong. It's not the government's place to tell you what to think. Anything that discourages dissent is inherently wrong.
The ironic thing is, you're engaging in propaganda at this very moment :p

Propaganda bad?

Yup.

Next?

I, for one, would like to see truely unbiased news. sure, tell us how many American troops died, but at the same time, also tell us howmany insurgents/terrorists/bombers also died. tell us when a building is blown up but also give the same airtime for when a school is opened, or utilites are restored in a warzone.
That would be nice.

But...

some reporters have their own political axe to grind....

and some news organizations care more about ratings, so they need "shocking" news alone - and a few Photoshopped images are not a problem until a conservative blog points them out...

That would be nice.

But...

some reporters have their own political axe to grind....

and some news organizations care more about ratings, so they need "shocking" news alone - and a few Photoshopped images are not a problem until a conservative blog points them out...

and all spectators have their own perspective, against which anything is either neutral (in accordance) or biased (opposed to).

Even if a reporter has no axe to grind on a subject, they will be seen by some as biased. Go read some semiotics - I suggest C. S. Peirce.

and all spectators have their own perspective, against which anything is either neutral (in accordance) or biased (opposed to).

Even if a reporter has no axe to grind on a subject, they will be seen by some as biased. Go read some semiotics - I suggest C. S. Peirce.

Photoshopping extra smoke and ordnance in at least two photos is bias in anyone's book - unless that person is completely stupid.

That would be nice.

But...

some reporters have their own political axe to grind....

and some news organizations care more about ratings, so they need "shocking" news alone - and a few Photoshopped images are not a problem until a conservative blog points them out...Have you heard about the picture with the doctored flares yet?

I think we should define propaganda first, or put it into categories.

Govt. Propaganda
Private Propaganda

I personally beleive the Govts. should serv the peoples whim, and not the other way around (Democracy, socialism, whatever). Therefore govt propaganda is inherintly wrong as it is telling the people what to think as opposed to the people telling their govt what position totake.

Private propaganda, however, is a constitutional right explicitly garunteed (the particular word isn't used). Private propaganda is any persuasion or teaching used by private individuals (like this).

In application though, these ideas mean radical things, for instance public schools should not exist the same way they do now by the standard above (because schools are govt propaganda), but radical things are the best anyway.

Photoshopping extra smoke and ordnance in at least two photos is bias in anyone's book - unless that person is completely stupid.

If you feel I was attacking you, that is your privelege. I said nothing about the photos, because in respect of those you are right. I was only addressing the issue of reporters (readers/listeners/watchers) with axes to grind.

gimme more beer and some shots and I'll let you know .

http://backspace.com/notes/images/quiet.jpg
Yes, propaganda is bad.

Maybe you guys don't see it as much, but looking at these pictures (http://images.google.com.au/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=wwii+propaganda) makes me feel queasy. Quite aside from the racist imagery in most of them, which pretty much has to come up when you make propaganda (how else are you going to make sure people make a clear distinction in their heads between good & evil).

Propaganda, by its very nature, encourages you not to think- it says "this is the only version of events you need bother listening to".

That's an extremly dangerous attitude to encourage, which, I believe, overshadows any benefit which might be gained from a truthful message which that propaganda might help to spread.

I think people have a wrong perception of what propaganda is. Propaganda isn't inherently wrong or inherently right. It is meant to motivate you to do something. One of my English teachers spewed all sorts of propaganda on the topic of thinking for yourself (accompanied by actions that forced us to think for ourselves). The commercials telling you to buy something are propaganda. So are the ones asking you to donate to the victims of the Tsunami or other disasters. Is that bad?

I think people have a wrong perception of what propaganda is.
But let's be honest, the OP didn't ask for just any sort of propaganda. He asked for posters motivating people to stand behind the "War on Terror".

I think that's bad, just as bad as all the crap made in all the wars before, regardless on who exactly the enemy is.

But let's be honest, the OP didn't ask for just any sort of propaganda. He asked for posters motivating people to stand behind the "War on Terror".

I think that's bad, just as bad as all the crap made in all the wars before, regardless on who exactly the enemy is.Yeah, I know. My personal favorite is a poster about the symbols of dignity and humanity, showing an American and a Japanese flag. It was from world war one. A few decades later, things looked differently.