Powers of Persuasion
The following posts are copied from Suggestions:
16887. concerned - 2/4/02 9:35:12 AM
Salon just started to publish nude pictures of children in its SEX folder. You have to be a paid member to see most of it.
This ties in with what I have posted in the past about the 'liberal agenda'.
16892. judithathome - 2/4/02 9:58:02 AM
This ties in with what I have posted in the past about the 'liberal agenda'.
This ties in with you being gullible enough to believe PoJ's posts.
16893. concerned - 2/4/02 10:07:29 AM
Re. 16892 -
Well, are the pictures there or not? I'm not about to subscribe to the erag to find out for myself.
16894. Ms. No - 2/4/02 10:15:56 AM
Concerned,
I'm not about to subscribe to the erag to find out for myself.
Precisely what those who try to whip you into a frenzy over alleged child pornography are counting on.
2. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:19:24 PM
16895. concerned - 2/4/02 10:23:38 AM
Not sure. Maybe a 'history and our future' thread, but similar's been done before.
16896. Ms. No - 2/4/02 10:46:46 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of a look at Propaganda and the tactics used to make folks do/believe what you tell 'em.
16897. judithathome - 2/4/02 11:02:21 AM
That sounds like fun...;-)
16898. judithathome - 2/4/02 11:04:14 AM
Seriously, one example could be those TRUTH ads they ran last night during the SuperBowl showing the connection between drug money and terrorists...they were fairly powerful. Not sure if they result in less drug addiction but it might give pause for thought.
16899. judithathome - 2/4/02 11:04:51 AM
will result..
16902. CalGal - 2/4/02 11:49:56 AM
I thought the propaganda ads on drugs were offensively bad. There had better be one hell of a connection.
16903. Wombat - 2/4/02 11:51:47 AM
Colombia.
16904. CalGal - 2/4/02 11:55:16 AM
I meant the causal relationship.
16905. judithathome - 2/4/02 12:04:50 PM
How is it offensive to link drug money to terrorist activities? What do you think that money does? Provide education for welfare kiddos?
3. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:27:48 PM
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
-pro·pa·gan·dist /-dist/ noun or adjective
- pro·pa·gan·dis·tic /-"gan-'dis-tik/ adjective
- pro·pa·gan·dis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/adverb
4. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 3:32:00 PM
those anti-drug ads during the superbowl were some of the most laughably inept caricatures of real ads i have ever seen.
the message being that any illegal activity connects you 7-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon style to terrorists and assorted other murderers.
crap like this will have the exact opposite effect of what was intended, imo. how can people take the message (however good it may be) seriously when it comes from a source with such blatant illogical leaps?
5. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:35:03 PM
First let's get the ads correctly attributed. The Truth ads are an anti-cigarette campaign which is separate from TheAntiDrug campaign.
Theantidrug used to get pretty high marks in my book because it stressed communication between parents and kids and being involved in activities that are endangered by drug-use.
The Truth ads have always bothered me because of their self-righteous tone. They assume an authority that they don't have and attempt to shame their audience into good behavior.
I found the drug-money-for-terrorist ads offensive because of this attempt to shame or guilt people into the "correct" behavior. The number one reason drugs raise money for criminals is because drugs are illegal. If they were legal the black market would collapse.
There are a few legitimate reasons not to do drugs but I can think of only one that should have any focus directed at it by the government: people whacked out on drugs occasionally injure innocent bystanders. So increase the penalties for such a crime and then legalize drugs and quit all the sanctimonious bellowing about how people who smoke pot are gonna burn in hell because they're directly responsible for the attacks on the WTC.
6. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:35:31 PM
As to the question posed in the thread teaser-
Yes, propaganda is effective, and American political campaigns and Madison Ave are vibrant testimony to its effectiveness. Do people recognize it when they see it? Somtimes, but it is often effective even when the recipient realizes the bias of the speaker, again see Madison Ave, and to a certain degree, American Politics.
Sadly, a good deal of propaganda is neither recognized nor accounted for by a substantial (and growing) portion of the population, and is blindly consumed whole. Some of the people you can fool all of the time.
7. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:35:38 PM
I agree with Ducky. If the government starts to say "this helps terrorists!" to any behavior they don't like, they won't get far.
8. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:36:21 PM
I guess it was easier than showing all the good done by illegal drugs.
9. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:37:17 PM
I realize that I skipped emphasizing that it looks as if TheAntiDrug campaign is going the way of the TRUTH campaign.
Bad move for exactly the reasons Ducky stated.
10. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 3:37:23 PM
Ms. No:
i'm pretty sure those ads have a direct link to the White House, if i remember my reading correctly.
11. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:41:44 PM
Oh, I was only speaking of the ones I saw during the Superbowl last night, about the drug/terrorism link.
I think the ones where the parent is talking about their kid affectionately and says, "(s)he doesn't use drugs. How do I know? Because I ask, every day." are very good commercials.
12. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:46:03 PM
The AntiDrug ads ARE the TRUTH campaign...at the end of them, they show the TRUTH web address and use the phrase "infectTRUTH". Not inject, which might be logical...or maybe they do say "inject" but if so, it looks remarkably like "infect".
13. mgleason - 2/4/2002 3:47:23 PM
A direct link to the WH? That explains it, then. Any time a president comes up with an idea, no matter how half-baked, there's never anyone to say, 'Dude, you'll look like a dick if you do that.'
14. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:49:49 PM
Of course, I am probably wrong...but I remember thinking it was an odd tact for the Truth people to take...
15. hollyw - 2/4/2002 3:50:47 PM
I thought the new campaign was rather clever of them. I imagine a lot of people would fall for it. They certainly hit in a vulnerable place.
Personally, I think it's a cheap, offensive shot, taking all the lingering fear and panic from 9/11 and spitting it back in the public's face.
But gee, now it's so easy to do our patriotic duty--just don't buy drugs!
16. betty - 2/4/2002 3:51:27 PM
"How is it offensive to link drug money to terrorist activities? What do you think that money does? Provide education for welfare kiddos?"
I have a few answers to these questions...It is offensive to link "drug money" to terrorist activities because not all drug money goes to terrorist activities and plenty of non-drug related money goes to terrorist activities (ask RP). there's also the question of what's terrorist activity and what's not. Are the FARC really terrorists? Or are they people fighting a war? I I also think it's offensive because it exploits the present situation, using highly charged and emotional topics to sell PROPAGANDA.
Does drug money get welfare kids education...well where i lived it did. you pretty much can't send your kids to public school in Philly and I knew a couple of mamas whose baby's daddies sold drugs on the side, in part to send their kids to catholic schools. I'm not naive, I also know that money went in to drug habits or high living but it actually did provide education for "welfare kiddos".
Beyond that, I recommend that everybody take a walk through the "Badlands" of North Philly. It was once a middle class community but has , since the decline of manufacturing, become devastated. If it weren't for illegal employment most of those people would have no employment. Whole communities depend on that drug money to survive. Not just in the badlands, in small rural communities in Southern Ohio where Pot is a major crash crop, in large parts of South America and in Afghanistan.
17. betty - 2/4/2002 3:51:47 PM
Drugs are one of the things that help people in or on the edge of poverty survive...do terrorist get a kick back from that money, Oh yeah, but if the economic policies of the major players aren't designed to help out the very poor and are in fact designed to make the very poorest people's situation more depressing we have to start wondering who the terrorist is.
The US applauded the Taliban when they destroyed the poppy fields in Afghanistan but did they create meaningful employment for those whose livlihood was destroyed. Sure, the FARC gets fat, but without Cocaine production the farmers in the FARC occupied territories would starve to death.
am I saying Drugs are great and everybody should do them, no, but i don't see Truth ads against television or internet discussion sites or the government, all of which can cause addiction and erosion of community.
I worry about "hip" anti-drug commercial targeting young people because I worry about all hip commercials...they don't encourage critical thinking, they encourage obedience.
18. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:52:13 PM
There is a terrible irony in the "drug money funds terrorsim" when it comes from a government that for various reasons at various times either funded terrorists or turned a blind eye to their actions including drug trading. This is not to say that those were objectives that the government has set out to accomplish, but merely that they were considered to be acceptable compromises.
19. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:53:16 PM
Well, I'm not sympathetic about the communities that would shrivel up and die if they didn't have drug jobs to support them.
Honestly, some reasoning makes me long to change my opinion entirely.
Good propaganda: the Post Office commercial.
20. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:55:02 PM
I can't wait until I see the next anti DeBeers ad- "Diamonds- is two months salary too much to give to African terrorists?"
21. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:56:11 PM
Judith,
One of the slogans is "Truth, the anti-drug." but I don't know that the two campaigns are actually associated.
TheTruth.com
TheAntiDrug.com
22. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:56:25 PM
hahahaha!
Actually, the whole diamond supply manipulation is far pretty nasty.
23. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:56:51 PM
scratch that far, and the hahahaha! was to Jones.
24. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:57:23 PM
They aren't...I was about to post my mistake but got sidetracked by the other posts...thanks for the links.
25. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:57:59 PM
Cal-
How's your sympathy for those communities that would dry up if there were'nt other nasty places where they could buy their drugs? Hollywood etc?
26. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:58:00 PM
#24 to MsNo.
27. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 3:58:14 PM
first link for the ButterScotch Bar:
Propaganda 101
28. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:59:33 PM
Are both of those sites run by the government? If so, why don't they have the.gov domain?
I don't like any of the anti-smoking campaigns, particularly because it strikes me as nasty to spend taxpayer money on programs clearly geared towards the upper middle class and their children, when the people who smoke are predominantly low-income and are saving us money by dying early.
29. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:59:42 PM
Sorry Cal, I seem to be sniping at you today. Don't mean to. I know that your comment was aimed at those who participate in the drug trade and not those who are hostage around them.
30. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:59:57 PM
From Ducky's link:
ONDCP accepting student resumes for unpaid internship program until February 15.
31. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:00:41 PM
How's your sympathy for those communities that would dry up if there were'nt other nasty places where they could buy their drugs?
You seriously aren't suggesting that Hollywood would disappear if it weren't for illegal drugs?
Please.
32. judithathome - 2/4/2002 4:01:48 PM
aren't suggesting that Hollywood would disappear if it weren't for illegal drugs?
Probably a lot fewer bad movies would get made, though.
33. betty - 2/4/2002 4:02:32 PM
CalGal,
I'm sure you're not sympathetic...you seem to lack anything that might be misconstrued as compassion for the situation of others.
No one will ever suggest you're a bleeding heart although i suspect you have been accused of having none.
Jones,
not to mention having actually sold drugs itself.
34. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 4:02:45 PM
You seriously aren't suggesting that Hollywood would disappear if it weren't for illegal drugs?
no, just the good movies! hahaha
35. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 4:03:46 PM
X with J@H, hehe
36. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:04:29 PM
I know that your comment was aimed at those who participate in the drug trade and not those who are hostage around them.
Well, yes, it was (at the people who participate).
But I'm sure there are plenty of "innocent" communities who rely on drug trade as a key part of their economy, and I certainly wouldn't advocate for or against a position based on the fact that they'd suffer. One can feel sympathetic, but it won't help to distort one's thinking based on an ill-advised desire to help.
37. betty - 2/4/2002 4:08:51 PM
CalGal,
my issue is if nobody is bringing in opportunity for those displaced by the loses in manufacturing then they will get involved witht he black market because it's open to them.
and in regards to your comment about poor people doing us all a favor by dieing i hope you poke out your own eye today you horrible fucking bitch.
38. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:11:37 PM
Betty,
If you can't read other people's opinions without getting unpleasant, then you really have no basis for complaining about me.
But in any event, you misread.
39. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:14:26 PM
I thought one of the elements of propaganda is, if one looks even glancingly below the surface, the "fact" is clearly flawed reasoning. The question is, will people buy it anyway?
I think a lot of people will buy the "terrorism" ads. Maybe I underestimate.
40. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:14:37 PM
Betty,
You have made some valid and intelligent points here. Please keep the personal invective out of it.
41. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 4:17:00 PM
The point I maladroitly was trying to make with Cal was that it is not fair to saddle the neighborhoods with open drug trade with the responsibility for the evils of the drug trade. A good portion of the buyers in those markets are from elsewhere, they create problems in their own communities, but are less observable to the police and are less targeted by them. That's one of the reasons that crank has scared the hell out of law enforcement in the last few years. It's tough law enforcement work to attack a drug trade that relies on a few ordinary supplies with legal everyday uses, and easily obtainable supplies for its manufacture; in comparison to opium or cocaine based trade where the growing of the raw material would be difficult or impossible due to climate and available acreage in most of the US.
42. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:18:10 PM
I think a lot of people will buy the "terrorism" ads.
I think you're probably right.
But remember, DARE was extremely effective propaganda, too. It was so effective that it could hurt your teaching career to dispute it. The only problem was that it didn't affect the right audience. "Just say no" sold itself to adults. It just didn't do very well with kids.
43. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 4:20:15 PM
A line which is frequently touted by some half crazed conspiracy theorists comes to mind- It isn't homeboys on the corner who have Cigarette boats and turboprops importing cocaine and heroin, it's somebody with money from somewhere else that makes the drug trade possible in those neighborhoods. Or as an elderly gentleman once asked me- "why can't those white boys buy that shit in their neighborhood?
44. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:20:25 PM
The point I maladroitly was trying to make with Cal was that it is not fair to saddle the neighborhoods with open drug trade with the responsibility for the evils of the drug trade.
Yes, this I agree with. For example, if cops are swarming an area to monitor for drug dealing and the like, they may also see a lot of young teens goofing around, doing what teens do. Well, if you swarmed around suburban neighborhoods you might see a bunch of young teens doing much the same things--but if there's no cops around to investigate, nothing happens.
But cops need something to occupy their time, and of course then some percentage of the teens are actually involved in drug use, so all teens in that area get a much higher level of scrutiny.
45. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:22:00 PM
Or as an elderly gentleman once asked me- "why can't those white boys buy that shit in their neighborhood?
Is it the purchasing or the activity around the money that causes the most crime? I thought it was the latter.
46. mgleason - 2/4/2002 4:22:08 PM
The Philip Morris report which touted the cost-effectiveness of premature deaths by smokers caused a firestorm precisely by being truthful. People like propaganda.
47. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:22:21 PM
But you know, we should separate the drug policy questions from the propaganda.
48. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:27:37 PM
"Just say no" was bland. Why say no? What's in it for me? Being a good girl? What if I don't give a shit? Saving my brain cells? What if I'm not interested in them anyway?
In contrast, the terrorism ads pack quite an emotional punch. Everybody gives a shit about terrorism, everybody wants to "stop terrorism".
I think the ads are a low, low blow.
49. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 4:29:22 PM
In certain counties of my state, drug manufacture (especially moonshine and marijuana)provides income to people in areas where the economy is devastated and there are few jobs to be had. In fact, it's said that much of Franklin County's economy is based on M&M.
50. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:29:37 PM
Maria,
You're right. And some propaganda is highly entertaining. Think of all the cartoons that promoted WWII.
51. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:30:21 PM
Holly--it may have been bland, but it was incredibly effective at selling parents and in convincing schools to adopt their program.
I agree that the terrorism ads pack an emotional punch. Part of me doesn't mind if it actually works at convincing teens to quit, as unlikely as it seems. Part of me worries, though, because if it is effective then we have a whole slew of "evil by association" slurs that will start to pop up.
Maria--good point about Philip Morris.
52. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:35:13 PM
This site shows some propaganda posters from WWII.
Powers of Persuasion
53. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:36:50 PM
I love those WWII posters.
54. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:42:37 PM
Aren't they gorgeous? There was a lot of beautiful propaganda art. Have you ever seen any of the Disney cartoons where Donald goes to fight "the Japs"?
55. mgleason - 2/4/2002 4:45:20 PM
Those are great. The best propaganda gives us a clear vision of ourselves as we wish we were, all in sharp relief with no pesky grays to worry about.
56. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:50:32 PM
This site has a lot of info on leaflet propaganda during WWII and examples of such as well as counter propaganda that the Germans sent.
WWII Leaflet Propaganda
Most recently U.S. Psy-Ops bombarded Afghanistan with leaflet propaganda on food packages. I've no idea how much good it did, but it certainly sounds like an intelligent idea.
57. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:50:37 PM
No, but I get a big kick out of those cheesy musicals they made around then, especially what's'her-name in the swimming pool...didn't she make propaganda films too?
I'm waiting for something like that now, but no, we get Arnold in Collateral Damage.
Off the immediate subject, it bothered me somewhat to see U2 at the Superbowl singing "Where the Streets Have No Name" with a backdrop of the names of those who died on 9/11, and then Bono flashing the American flag lining of his coat...to the screaming, gyrating fans.
58. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:51:22 PM
To Ms. No, #54
59. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:52:33 PM
The best propaganda gives us a clear vision of ourselves as we wish we were, all in sharp relief with no pesky grays to worry about.
Maria, I once again find myself bowing down to your way with words!
60. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:53:17 PM
oooh, couldn't pass this one up: 
61. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:56:08 PM
Sound familiar?
"Posters often attempted to influence viewers by making them feel that even small failures to support the war effort were providing direct aid to our enemies"
Just substitute "on drugs" for "effort". 
62. betty - 2/4/2002 4:56:13 PM
"the people who smoke are predominantly low-income and are saving us money by dying early"
Uhmmm...I misread?
I re-read your stupid ass comment, the entire thing, and what you wrote is that people dying saves money. And you wrote it in the self congratulatory and smug tone that makes me seriously question your authenticity.
Ms. No,
I seriously have a problem with snide anti-poor comments that I would, yes, consider abusive. I don't care how "depersonalized" they are, they are personal because I am poor. I don't have the luxury of abject affluence to shield me from reality. It's my family who labors and smokes cigarettes because they're jus ignorant red necks who would save us all some money by dropping dead. CalGal's less than clever back hand comments are often anti-poor and if it continues with the OK/silence of other middle class secret objectivist I will start posting relevant anti-rich/middle class posts, something I have avoided doing in the name of dialogue despite the fact that they are my personal opinions. If you want to delete my posts and kick me off the site you can. I really don't give two shits but i want it to be really clear that the anti-poor comments are classist, fucked up and personal.
I don't think the vast majority of people would stand for CalGal making racist comments but classism...that's OK.
63. mgleason - 2/4/2002 4:59:23 PM
Thanks, Holly!
Take a look at this site:
Ministry of Propaganda. It's got some of the leaflets we dropped in Afghanistan.
64. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:00:09 PM
Holly,
I wasn't bothered by the half-time show, but I often have a problem with celebrities who hawk ideologies. Why I expect ideology to be more elevated than any other commodity I don't know. I'm just sentimental, I suppose. ;->
65. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:00:16 PM
Betty, take it to another thread--social for cost of smoking, Suggestions for whining about me. Unless you want to serve as an example of how lots of people prefer propaganda to truth, of course.
66. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:01:49 PM
Holly,
I had trouble with the halftime show, too--although at least I did feel like U2's heart was in the right place. This isn't really a group who adopts ideologies based on fashion.
67. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 5:08:40 PM
Betty
It is true that despite the various claims about smokers costing the government more for health benefits, etc., smokers are actually less costly to the government than are non-smokers (on average, of course). Although smokers may have more ailments, the most expensive health costs that the Government pays are the last week of life. That last week of life in the hospital is likely to be the most expensive of your life, regardless of what actually kills you. Where smokers save money is that we kick off earlier, saving money on Social Security benefits.
Try telling it to the folks who think smokers should be taxed to hell and back for costing more money, though. Actually, I should pay reduced Social Security taxes since I'm not as likely to live as long (assuming I don't give up the evil weed).
So the anti-smoking propaganda that we can tax and shame vice out of existance ignore the fact that those of us living riskier lives are doing the government a favor.
68. betty - 2/4/2002 5:09:21 PM
Holly,
in reference to #57, her name was Ester Williams and though I tried I couldn't find a decent site on her. Seems she's relegated to the world of barely remembered. there is a swimming pool named after her though.
69. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 5:11:23 PM
Of course drug users, illegal gun carriers, speed demons, red-light-runners, sky-divers and the like are often the cheapest to the govenment since death is often immediate requiring neither hospitalization nor pensions.
70. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:13:52 PM
Actually, I should pay reduced Social Security taxes since I'm not as likely to live as long (assuming I don't give up the evil weed).
Exactly. And most smokers are lower income. So we are instituting an extremely regressive tax and spending much of the taxpayer money we collect from lower income smokers on commercials that are clearly aimed at dissuading suburban youth from smoking, even though they are extremely unlikely to stop smoking. But hey, the propaganda pleases those wealthy suburban voters.
Of course, this would mean that my original post was in sympathy with the lower income smokers, which means that betty would have to take that huff and stuff it right back up her ass.
So that can't be what I meant.
71. hollyw - 2/4/2002 5:14:06 PM
Ester Williams, that's it, thank you.
I love U2, and always will. I don't hold it against them. It just seemed slightly crass.
At the same time, I was glad to see another 9/11 tribute. Go figure.
72. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:14:40 PM
they are extremely unlikely to stop smoking
That's "start" smoking, obviously.
73. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:15:31 PM
Esther Williams is still alive, I believe, and was just in the news a couple years ago for something popular she was doing. Can't remember what.
I don't remember her being particularly prominent in propaganda campaigns, though.
74. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 5:16:54 PM
Unlikely to start smoking unless they want to be perceived as "cool" by that bad crowd they run with and coincidentally tweak their parents at the same time.
75. mgleason - 2/4/2002 5:17:36 PM
Talk about propaganda: The Official Esther Williams Website.
76. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:18:13 PM
Bubba,
Happens less and less, since most "bad crowds" don't smoke anymore. Girls may do it for a couple years to lose weight.
But in any event, the majority of smokers are low income.
77. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:18:47 PM
Ah! Swimwear, that was it.
78. betty - 2/4/2002 5:20:31 PM
bubba,
I'm taking this to social issues
79. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:23:15 PM
I haven't been able to get any of these to play, but I also haven't really spent much time in the attempt. At any rate, this page has clips of a bunch of the Warner Bros. propaganda cartoons.
Goopy Geer's Rare Cartoon's Page
80. betty - 2/4/2002 5:28:43 PM
CalGal,
I've read a number of places that those starting smoking are college aged girls, not lower class people. That the "Majority lower class" is because lower class people are less likely to stop.
and yoru post didn't read like you were supporting poor people, perhaps because I come with preconceptions about you and a deep sensitivity to the issue having lost very close people to me because of smoking. If I misread you (i'm not completely sure that i did, but it's hard to tell with that sarcasm dripping everywhere), I apologize for having a temper tantrum...It's been one of those days.
81. betty - 2/4/2002 5:30:01 PM
mgleason,
what search engine do you use?
82. judithathome - 2/4/2002 5:33:04 PM
Probably Google...
83. mgleason - 2/4/2002 5:34:20 PM
Yep, Google, Betty.
84. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:38:29 PM
Betty,
CalGal's views may be offensive to some, but her post was not aimed at anyone here in order to insult, abuse or denigrate them. Whether her opinions themselves are "offensive" or not is neither here nor there. I'm not going to reprimand someone for having an offensive position.
Your comments, on the other hand, were directed specifically at another poster here and clearly meant to insult or abuse. You are free to post such comments in the Inferno but they are inappropriate here.
85. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:41:16 PM
well, fuckety.
I hate it when I'm still scolding after the matter is laid to rest.
86. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 6:03:47 PM
Ms. No-
I'm going to swipe "fuckety" First time I've heard it here in flyover country. Just strikes me as funny.
87. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 6:06:18 PM
Thansk for the link to the Esther Williams website!
88. Al D - 2/4/2002 6:07:32 PM
There is a curious argument being made above. Many people would be harmed, especially poor people if drug use were irradicated. Would it also be true these same people would be harmed were drugs made legal and produced by huge companies that even might form a corporation, and we all know how evil corporations are. So, in order to protect poor people we must strive to keep drugs illegal and the price high. After all, we wouldn't want growers to starve to death with no need to grow poppies and forced to grow food.
89. Al D - 2/4/2002 6:10:21 PM
I have 11 grandchildren, oldest 19, youngest 4. If I could keep them from drug use by making them believe doing so aids terrorists, do any have an objection to this? Or is drug use just another activity, neither good or bad, and no business of government.
90. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:12:53 PM
If I could keep them from drug use by making them believe doing so aids terrorists, do any have an objection to this?
Sure, if it's a lie. I have this odd objection to lies. Particularly when they are government sponsored lies.
91. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:15:30 PM
What was the best propaganda campaign of the 20th century?
92. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:17:46 PM
The thing about government-sponsored lies is that they lead to ever more cynicism when they are invariably exposed.
93. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:18:59 PM
Good question.
I assume by "best" you mean "most effective". Does it have to have been an officially sponsored campaign, or just a concentrated effort to change thought or values?
94. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:20:06 PM
See the USA in your Chevrolet, the catchier version of What's good for GM is good for the country.
95. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:20:58 PM
I also am opposed to government-sponsored lies in general but there are times when they're necessary. Not, however, in the case being discussed.
96. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:22:20 PM
Well, governments may have to lie. But when they lie to change or promote values, as opposed to cover up or distract, I get nervous.
97. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:22:52 PM
cal--
best=effective
Official, I suppose. Government, commercial or otherwise.
98. Al D - 2/4/2002 6:24:50 PM
CalGal
Does your "if" mean you don't claim it's a lie? How would I go about establishing to a fact that there is no truth in claiming drug use aids terrorists?
mgleason
I would imagine you are more than a little cynical about all government.
99. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:26:34 PM
Does your "if" mean you don't claim it's a lie?
I haven't seen the case, but I'm extremely skeptical.
100. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:27:18 PM
Oops--hit enter too soon. Yes, I did mean "if".
101. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:27:47 PM
I am more than a little cynical about all human enterprises, Al D.
102. Absensia - 2/4/2002 6:29:19 PM
20th Century? well, there's WWII of course, and then Nixon's "I am not a crook" and then Reagan's "I can't remember." Those could fall under government propaganda.
103. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:30:01 PM
mgleason 94--
A little-known factoid:
GM's Charlie Wilson has taken an inordinate amount of grief for that statement but it was ripped out of context by his foes.
Wilson's testimony in a Senate hearing was conciliatory and, in essence, tied GM's fortunes to those of the the nation. What's always dropped from the statement is what followed: "...and what's good for the country is good for GM".
Look at the speech.
104. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 6:30:32 PM
If this administration really cared about drugs then Dubbya wouldn't try to pass off his coke-snorting as "chocking on a pretzel."
105. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 6:31:08 PM
AlD,
Post 88 is more to the social issue of the ethics of drug policy so I'm only responding to 89.
I don't think that I would lie to my kids in order to keep them away from drugs, but I imagine that you and I have different views about how much and what kind of harm drug use does. I couldn't rule out the possibility that there might be something I'd be concerned enough about that I'd lie to them, but I really hope not.
The reason for this is that liars get caught and then no matter why you told the lie, you've lost your credibility. Teenagers and young adults go through a period of almost compulsively questioning authority anyway. You're on much stronger gound if you've been straight with them.
This is one of the reasons that I dislike Propaganda in general. It's dishonest. It assumes that its audience is ignorant and gullible and doesn't need or can't use real facts.
106. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:34:20 PM
Thanks, AytchMan. I learned that in a history class, I think.
I have another contender thanks to Abs, not for most successful, but for most self-serving: The Checkers speech.
107. judithathome - 2/4/2002 6:34:42 PM
Would the HUAC be effective propaganda?
108. Absensia - 2/4/2002 6:36:34 PM
wow, you bettcha. How could I have forgotten Joe and the boys?
109. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:37:31 PM
judith--
Yeah, I think that the HUAC witch-hunt represents a major success (at the time). Since then, of course, it has been largely discredited.
Good example.
110. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:39:05 PM
I wouldn't say that HUAC was effective propaganda, since it relied on force and empowerment more than willing adoption.
In fact, one could argue that the current prevalent belief that there weren't any communists to speak of was the result of a far more successful propaganda campaign.
111. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 6:42:21 PM
How about the Cold War in general? I mean, the Russians were starving and fighting over scraps of toilet paper for years before the wall came down, but even in the 80's we were led to believe that Russia was the super-power enemy to be feared.
112. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:43:23 PM
PT-109, which fueled JFK's political career and Jackie's manipulation of the media and the country after JFK's assassination. She created 'Camelot' out of whole cloth.
113. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:45:35 PM
I don't think the information has to be false to be propaganda, does it? The Soviets could indeed have been a threat, but there was also a lot of government propaganda spread in order to make sure everyone was convinced of it.
114. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:45:53 PM
cal--
HUAC was very effective in enlisting the Hollywood moguls and other powers-that-were. They only threatened force against recalcitrant witnesses brought before the committee. Many people throughout the country willingly signed on. HUAC's action notwithstanding, there was a genuine Red-scare at the time.
115. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:46:40 PM
Hey, PT109 is a good one!
116. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:47:26 PM
HUAC was very effective in enlisting the Hollywood moguls and other powers-that-were.
My understanding was that they were just as coerced as anyone else was. I'll have to read up on it.
117. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:49:52 PM
Aytch--I'll look it up, but I think the order went like this:
1) There was a very strong streak of communism in the artist community of the 30s and 40s.
2) HUAC went after the Hollywood 10. I forget how many (if any) of these 10 were actually communists.
3) The studios, in self-defense, agreed not to hire communists. It was fear, not conviction, that spurred them on.
118. joezan - 2/4/2002 6:50:26 PM
The biggest propaganda campaign of the 20th century?
One that has carried over stronger than ever into this century, and which grows more insidious as time passes, defying all evidence of its abject failure:
Multi-culturalism.
I really can't think of any widely posited issue with more hypocrisy - more double-talking, double-dealing, deliberate polarization attached to it.
119. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:54:59 PM
That's the way I remember it, too. Of course, most of them were 'parlor pinks' anyway. The Non-Aggression Pact was the death-knell for the CP-USA.
120. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:56:19 PM
Joe--I was thinking of that, but I was going to be more specific and say the impact of multi-culturalism on education.
Because I have to say that the impact of multiculturalism on American eating establishments was altogether a good thing.
121. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 6:56:34 PM
You're absolutely right joe. What has multi-culturalism brought us?
The Allan Keyes Show.
122. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:57:57 PM
cal--
I also need to read up but I think the scare pre-dated HUAC and the Hollywood 10 -- way back to the Truman administration in '47 or '48.
123. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:58:22 PM
Of course, most of them were 'parlor pinks' anyway.
True. But they were genuinely communists. In fact, I believe that there was a strong bias against anti-Communism in the 30s. Ayn Rand had trouble getting her work published because of her vehement views on Mother Russia.
Not that the world would have been worse off without her books, of course. (g)
124. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 7:00:40 PM
She had trouble getting her work published because it sucked.
I'm still amazed that people shell out money to waddle through her fantasies of getting raped by Frank Lloyd Wright in order to cull nuggets of Alice's "philosophy."
But who am I after all? The Chairman of the federal reserve?
125. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:07:28 PM
Aytch,
But the scare was legitimate. There were real reasons to worry about Communism. I was thinking of HUAC and McCarthy, which is a different thing entirely.
Remember, in the late 40s, you had the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, Alger Hiss. Those are legitimate reasons for concern.
It wasn't until McCarthy took the purge to Hollywood that it became problematic and, again, I don't think the studio chiefs did anything out of conviction, but self-protection.
So I wouldn't say it was a successful propaganda campaign--but I am separating McCarthyism from the government's overall assertion that communism was evil. A separate and largely correct assertion. (g)
126. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:08:21 PM
She had trouble getting her work published because it sucked.
No, it was because it was anti-Communist. This is not to say that it didn't suck, of course.
127. joezan - 2/4/2002 7:10:33 PM
Cal:
Well, even there, the same effect could be gotten (and was gotten) as a benefit of the Melting Pot Theory.
Either way, I think they all have a lot of nerve thinking they're indispensable even after we have their recipes.
128. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 7:12:02 PM
There was no rason to worry about Communism. The studios had hired Mafia thugs like Willie Bioff to destroy the unions-- the basis of popular support. The rest was just a "show trial" staged in order to "disremember" the fact that the Soviet Union was an ally during WWII.
129. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:13:15 PM
CG,
No one was paying any attention to possible Communist infiltration until after the war. When Whittaker Chambers first tried to implicate Alger Hiss in 1939 (after the Non-Aggression Pact), he was given the brush-off by the Ass't. Secretary of State. It wasn't until eight years later that any action was taken. Great biography, btw; you should read it.
130. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:13:37 PM
Joe,
Well, their food is fine, but their literature sucks dead rat.
(that, btw, is a joke.)
Seriously, the propaganda campaign of equivalency has not helped education much.
131. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:15:32 PM
There was no rason to worry about Communism.
That's true when speaking of Hollywood--at least, I share that opinion. But that's quite different from saying that the bias wasn't there in the 30s.
Maria--Whittaker Chambers bio? Or Alger Hiss?
132. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:18:50 PM
In fact, one could argue that the current prevalent belief that there weren't any communists to speak of was the result of a far more successful propaganda campaign.
The reason this is an accurate statement is those who control much propaganda, ie. Major Media, wanted that result. There is even an effort to make people believe that the USSR was never really a threat. While it is true that government played up USSR strength, it is also true that liberal intellectuals assured us that Communism was a more viable system than Capitalism.
Keep in mind that not all lies are propaganda and not all propaganda is lies.
133. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:22:51 PM
Ms. No
#105
I agree that lies can't backfire. For example, telling teenages that use of pot will make them into to dope fiends as was once common, proves harmful when they discover the lie and conclude all drugs are not harmful.
134. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:23:28 PM
OMG can't=can
135. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:28:04 PM
The reason this is an accurate statement is those who control much propaganda, ie. Major Media, wanted that result.
If that were true, surely they would have succeeded in squelching McCarthy's efforts in the first place.
No, I suspect the reason that belief came into being is because so many of the people who were blacklisted in the 50s weren't Communists. So it went from "McCarthyism ruined the careers of many people who weren't Communists" to "none of the people whose careers were ruined were really Communists" to "there wasn't any threat of Communism in the first place".
Nonetheless, I believe this belief system could have been corrected--if only for historical purposes.
I suspect the reason it wasn't has more to do with the government's fall from grace during Vietnam and Watergate. McCarthyism was then retroactively added to the list of sins, and the incorrect beliefs came along with it. No one who knew the truth would have had any motivation to challenge this.
In writing this, I realize that a lot of belief systems aren't necessarily foisted on us by deliberate propaganda campaigns.
136. joezan - 2/4/2002 7:31:28 PM
Cal: Not to derail the theme of the thread, but I have a relevant (to education) story:
I'm on an education task force to develop strategies for Healing Racism in Our Community (don't ask). An administrator from an elementary school with an "exploding" (according to him) minority population -he estimates his SE Asian pop at 5% - suggested rearranging the whole curriculum to include at least 1.5 hours per day to "multi-cultural" issues, with an emphasis on SE Asia.
Never mind that this "SE Asian" population includes students from four entirely different cultures and languages, and forget the fact that these teachers spend most of their time at these strategy sessions bitching about all the classroom time that's taken up preparing for the state performance exams.
But you should have seen the looks I got from every one of these folks when I suggested that it would be much easier acclimating these kids to the culture in which they seek to become successful.
They don't have a clue - I swear, they're brainwashed.
137. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:32:53 PM
The recent Chambers bio by Sam Tanenhaus. Great stuff.
138. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:35:42 PM
McCarthy had nothing to do with the hearings of the Holloywood bunch.
139. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:41:43 PM
McCarthy didn't participate in the 1947 hearings during which the 'Hollywood Ten' were cited for contempt, but he was in charge of the hearings that began in 1951 when many more entertainers were called.
140. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:42:27 PM
Not the original Hollywood Ten, you're right. That was Parnell Thomas.
But generally the whole era was referred to as McCarthyism.
141. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:47:26 PM
How many people today are aware that Robert Kennedy was a McCarthy aide and a great admirer of Joe?
Yes MG, as usual, you know what's what, but nonetheless, popular opinion that McCarthy was responsible for the blacklisting is extant and certainly was manufactured by media.
Why do you suppose FDR had no interest in learning that Hiss was not only a communist but working for the USSR? Off, track question maybe.
142. judithathome - 2/4/2002 7:50:09 PM
So I guess RFK worked closely with Roy Cohn?
143. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:52:48 PM
To see how communists in Hollywood used propaganga in movies of the 30' and 40's, see Holloywood Party by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley.
To get a different slant on Joseph McCarthy, see Arthur Herman's Joseph McCarthy.
144. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:54:31 PM
nonetheless, popular opinion that McCarthy was responsible for the blacklisting is extant and certainly was manufactured by media.
McCarthy was responsible for the blacklisting hysteria of the 50s.
145. betty - 2/4/2002 7:55:48 PM
I think the "best" propaganda campaign was Hearst's anti-hemp campaign. a lot of people make fun of the "Reefer Madness" type films made back in the day but we still have these assinine prohibition laws that conveniently include the non-smokable types of hemp.
Of course Hearst had a huge interest in outlawing hemp as he owned a significant stake in the wood pulp to paper process...
while McCarthism ended Prohibition's end still isn't in site.
146. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:58:03 PM
I've read a bunch of books on the Chambers-Hiss affair, and Tanenhaus does the best job of humanizing Chambers. It's hard to believe the stranglehold the Hiss forces had on the popular imagination, and harder yet to understand how many still defend him.
Why do you suppose FDR had no interest in learning that Hiss was not only a communist but working for the USSR?
Two reasons:
a) No one took the Soviet threat seriously (there's a great book about this time called The Haunted Wood). Remember, the Revolution was only twenty years old, and people looked upon infatuation with the Communist system as youthful idealism.
b) FDR had bigger fish to fry in dealing with the Nazi threat.
147. mgleason - 2/4/2002 8:06:23 PM
You know, we've overlooked the greatest propaganda triumph of the 20th century: Communism. It's down, but by no means out, unbelievably enough.
148. joezan - 2/4/2002 8:10:51 PM
True.
But it's down-but-not-outness is similar to the down-but-not-outness of punk rock.
149. joezan - 2/4/2002 8:11:23 PM
...its, not it's.
150. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 8:30:12 PM
Yep. Bobby worked for Roy.
Wonder if Roy got anything off of him.
Probably not. I gather Roy was faithful to his main fuckbuddy, G. David Schine.
Try and find a copy of Point of Order. If you watch closely you can see Bobby fleeing the scene as Joe McCarthy's ship sinks.
151. Absensia - 2/4/2002 8:53:48 PM
I think most know Bobby Kennedy worked for Joe. Joe's anti commie reached past hollwood..some state legislatures set up their own version of huack and investigated mostly legislators.
In addition, professors were required to take "loyalty oaths" in order to work at a University. A University of Washington Prof attacted the oath, with the help of the ACLU.
The won in federal court and in every appeal all the way up.
One of the attorneys talked years later of what it was like for him. His friends avoided him, some, in public,called him a commie pinko, and many who were not his friends spit on him and said worse. His family was threated and it was devestating.
And during this time, people were off building bomb shelters, stocking them, and looking for commies under every bed and chair.
152. Absensia - 2/4/2002 8:55:43 PM
Joe's anti commie movement
153. Al D - 2/4/2002 9:11:13 PM
MG I've read the Haunted Wood, but it's been a while.
Cellar
Bobby K. was at Joe's funeral but he stayed in the background so he wouldn't be noticed.
Ab
Yeah, wasn't it silly looking under beds for commies when most were in the Universities and still are.
154. amax - 2/4/2002 9:14:49 PM
Came in a little late, but-
You could argue that since the terrorists raised money by running credit card scams, that loyal Americans should burn their credit cards.
There are a couple of holes in that argument, but it intrests me nevertheless.
Moving on to more recent posts, The two really successful propaganda campaigns waged in this country were:
The (mostly non-governmental) campaign to bring the US into what became the Spanish-American war.
The (mostly governmental) anti-German campaign waged by the Wilson administration when the US decided to enter WWI.
155. amax - 2/4/2002 9:16:12 PM
To me the commie scare was pretty minor stuff -- it only affected a handful of people, and it didn't have any major long term effects, except giving academics a sense of persecution that they were desperately searching for.
156. Absensia - 2/4/2002 9:18:29 PM
Naw Al, few if any any more. Many, many in their student days checked out the communist party, just like they checked out other parties. One judge I know was running for re-election and someone dug up that he had been in the communist party for 3 months more than 40 years before. Since then he'd been a republic. And, by the way, was an excellent judge.
157. joezan - 2/4/2002 9:25:21 PM
Hell, *I* was a commie back when I was listening to too much John Lennon and CSN&Y.
An ex-commie who turns Republican has truly found religion. It's the ones who migrate to the dems you have to worry about...it's like switching to lower-tar cigarettes.
158. amax - 2/4/2002 9:33:44 PM
joe:
Like that old spanish proverb eh?
"The converted moor eats pork three times a day"
159. arkymalarky - 2/4/2002 9:37:54 PM
I don't know. I have a thing about attempting to supress people from exercising their basic rights "for the good of the country." No idea is quite so frightening as that.
Joe,
#157 is hilarious and I would actually agree with it, especially if you equate "finding religion" with fanaticism. From one extreme to the other.
160. Absensia - 2/4/2002 9:41:06 PM
Hahahaha, Joe...and I don't think you were joking!
161. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 9:46:57 PM
Yep, I figured that Republicanism must be a religion -- blind faith demanding suspension of disbelief and adherence to dogma.
162. Absensia - 2/4/2002 9:48:40 PM
Yep...and taking only the top GOPS words on anything.
163. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 10:08:59 PM
"I've read a bunch of books on the Chambers-Hiss affair, and Tanenhaus does the best job of humanizing Chambers."
By no means an easy task.
"It's hard to believe the stranglehold the Hiss forces had on the popular imagination, and harder yet to understand how many still defend him."
Actually it isn't. The entire affair might best be described as an "incomplete forward pass."
But you won't find anything about that in Tanenhaus.
When my boyfriend Bill worked at the 8th Street Bookstore in new York back in the 60's he used to see Hiss quite a lot as Hiss worked for a stationary company that delivered to the store. He found him to be a very nice gentleman.
There's a very funny bit in the Edie book where Edie Sedgewick and her pal Ed Hennessey are stopped by a TV reporter in Boston and asked what they thought of the phrase "Better dead than Red." Terminally dizzy, they fancied it had something to do with reading, and solemnly told the reporter that edcuation was critical for the young people of today and that literacy rates MUST improve. Some time later they were at a party where they met Alger Hiss and told him about it.
He didn't get it.
164. mgleason - 2/4/2002 11:25:39 PM
Actually it isn't. The entire affair might best be described as an "incomplete forward pass."
But you won't find anything about that in Tanenhaus.
I don't know what you mean.
165. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 12:58:38 AM
Surely you know me by now, dear.
166. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 1:41:25 AM
mgleason 147--
Bingo. Hands down, the most successful propaganda campaign of the 20th century. Beginning with Lenin in 1917 and running to 1947 when the West finally figured it out with the fall of Czechoslovakia. As you allude, quite a few people still haven't figured it out.
Runner-up: Hitler's deceptions regarding his aggressive intentions throughout the '30's.
167. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 1:45:01 AM
Those are both good, but I like Betty's offer as well. Especially considering that we're using the same no-information scare tactics today to wage the war on drugs.
168. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 1:56:49 AM
ms no--
If you're referring (reefering?) to the anti-hemp campaign, it was quite successful but small potatos compared to the scams perpetrated by the Soviets and Nazis.
169. CalGal - 2/5/2002 2:11:44 AM
Aytch--I've reviewed a number of links, as well as SAG's own history, and there's no question that the studio blacklist was out of fear, not conviction.
In fact, the first HUAC investigation, with the Hollywood 10, was relatively reasonable. All ten were communists, after all. It was the second round of subpoenas, sent out in 1951, that set off the real blacklist terrors.
170. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 2:13:04 AM
Aytch,
On a global scale, yes, but the Soviets and the Nazi ideals are pretty much dead in the water these days while the U.S. still maintains that any illicit drug use will not only destroy your own life but now apparently threatens the existence of the free world. The anti-hemp campaign has become the disasterous War on Drugs.
There's certainly no way to know, but what if hemp hadn't been outlawed? Paper, clothing and fuel from a cheap, plentiful, easily cultivated source rather than clear-cutting and reliance on fossil fuels might've had a tremendous environmental impact.
This is all beside the issue of drug abuse and addiction which have only grown worse since the 50's. It affects us in so many arenas---the ghettoization of the inner city, the explosive growth of the prison population and the proliferation of violence.
171. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:28:52 AM
ms no--
You just made a small part of my point by referring to Soviet and Nazi "ideals". They had no ideals. They ran their campaigns to cover their respective grabs for power.
But to get to the real point: consider the relative effects on history and our present-day life. Note that the anti-hemp campaign was US-originated and -run, the Soviets and Nazis operated in and on Europe. IMO, the results are not even in the same league: a relatively few jail sentences and destroyed lives versus worldwide cataclysm and the Cold War.
172. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 2:30:46 AM
It's hard to beat the Soviets or the Nazis for propaganda, but Madison Avenue comes in a close third.
Some of the best propaganda lines of the last 100 years:
10. I am not Crook/I did not have sexual relations with that woman/I will cut taxes, increase defense spending and cut the deficit, a.k.a. Supply side economics 9. Duck and Cover
8. Peace with Honor
7. The National Rifle Association
6. The Moral Majority/Creation Science
5. Term limits
4. The War on Drugs
3. The Democratic Republic of X, or the X Worker's Party (insert favorite regime here)
2. Separate but equal
1. You'll be (popular, attractive, wealthy, or something else you're not) if you buy X.
173. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:41:15 AM
jones--
The only thing that downgrades Madison Avenue is that it's decentralized -- it's not a monolithic organization as were the Masters Of The Thirties. Still, the advertising machine of the late 20th century was tres formidable.
174. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:46:01 AM
cal--
I'll accept your point on the studios. Nevertheless, I believe HUAC was instrumental in fanning the early flames of the Red Scare in the late '40's. Yes/no?
175. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 2:47:23 AM
The Drug War(s) [include prohibition as the first one] have cost us dearly. Warped foreign policies in Asia, South and Central America; promoting disrespect for the law while at the same time erroding personal freedoms and privacy; the corrosive social and political effects of organized crime here and abroad; damaged mental and physical health because we led one of our largest generations astray with campaigns based on Reefer Madness; an astronomical murder rate fueled by gangs and other organized crime; another "objective" excuse for racism; billions of tax dollars down a rathole that we could have used so much better either in our own pockets or in creating something of lasting public worth.
176. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:47:43 AM
ms no--
Thanks for starting up the thread. Great idea.
177. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 2:49:10 AM
Aytch- Good point about Madison Avenue. I think it's like poison fed in small doses, one build's up a resistance and aren't killed by what should be toxic.
178. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:53:58 AM
jones--
You've expanded the original proposition greatly -- Hearst's anti-hemp campaign of the Thirties. The overall century-long fight against drug use is a horse of substantially different color.
179. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:59:13 AM
jones--
One does build up resistance to advertising. I can't help but think of those Cold War stories of defenseless East European exiles utterly unable to cope with the bombardment upon arrival in the US.
180. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 3:06:24 AM
Incidentally, where does one draw the line between advertising and propaganda?
Truth versus lies? Nope.
Good versus evil intent? A little better perhaps, certainly not definitive.
181. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 3:12:28 AM
Aytch- I don't draw much of one, since propaganda is aimed at creating a need and simultaneously suggesting the means for filling the need created.
182. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 3:21:16 AM
I understand what you're saying but there must be a significant distinction since most people believe advertising is, on balance, good while propaganda is bad. Yes/no?
Tangential point: it seems like propaganda often tries to destroy a need, thus eliminating the need to fill it. That is, it encourages inaction.
183. RustlerPike - 2/5/2002 4:16:08 AM
Propaganda is my life.
184. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 5:19:45 AM
For the single most successful and enduring propaganda effort I nominate The Protocols of the Elder of Zion.
185. mgleason - 2/5/2002 6:49:30 AM
Cellar,
You mean that Chambers was attracted to Hiss? Tanenhaus does explore that side of Chambers; It seems that Chambers had a few encounters with men.
186. betty - 2/5/2002 9:39:25 AM
I think it's impossible to seperate Hearst's anti-hemp campaign from the larger "war on drugs"...it was with his funding and the ground work of the anti-hemp "movement" that allows for further degradation of civil rights.
MsNo and Jones sue it up nicely...the anti-drug campaign has cost the US (and unfortunately much of the world because of the US's influence on the UN) huge amounts of money and human resources. It hasn't decreased drug use and yet most americans are still opposed to decrim. of drugs. although that's really changing especially in reference to hemp.
also, bush the elder was probably more of an anti-drug nut (ironic? given his ties to the CIA) than any other president...like Hearst he had financial interest in keeping hemp illegal...he was director of Eli Lilly (from 1977-1979) which has been trying to synthesize the active ingredients in cannabis and could loose many of it's patents (like Darvon) if the weed were legal.
side note, prohibition laws do work in that they keep *some* people from smoking...my Mom has admitted that she would smoke pot if it were legal but is afraid that she might get arrested.
187. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/5/2002 12:00:03 PM
Propaganda doesn't deceive people--it just helps people deceive themselves . . . and much of our thinking is specific propaganda for our appetites.
188. judithathome - 2/5/2002 12:16:35 PM
I believe HUAC was instrumental in fanning the early flames of the Red Scare in the late '40's. Yes/no?
Yes.
189. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 12:17:55 PM
Good point, Wiz.
190. Macnas - 2/5/2002 12:18:31 PM
What was that again? the house comittee for unamerican activites or some such was'nt it?
191. judithathome - 2/5/2002 12:25:55 PM
Yep, that was it.
192. CalGal - 2/5/2002 12:30:40 PM
Jones list is pretty funny. I didn't realize that propaganda was nothing more than a list of ideas that pisses him off.
Most of the items on his list are simple lies, and unsuccessful ones at that. A few are political beliefs that he doesn't like.
Madison Avenue is only successful at propaganda if they change belief systems. That doesn't happen very often.
What's really funny is that Jones' lists things that are at best a marginal attempt at changing thought, while missing the real success story in the area.
For example, far more interesting than the NRA's blatant campaign is the fact that in the late 60s, liberals were pro 2nd amendment. The government was something you protected yourself from, not something that solved your problems. Then lo! a few years later, gun control is a key platform issue. Everyone has changed their mind.
Many people think it's always been that way.
That's propaganda, baby.
I will say that any marketing campaign that manages to shift the variables of a debate--even if ostensibly aiming for a different goal--is successful propaganda. So I would go along with the moral majority/creationism selection, but not for the reasons that you put it on the list. Instead, they managed to shift the debate. They made creationism a player. They were able to make their version of "morality" a talking point.
They weren't successful at getting people to adopt it. But putting it in play counts as success, so far as I'm concerned.
193. CalGal - 2/5/2002 12:32:54 PM
I believe HUAC was instrumental in fanning the early flames of the Red Scare in the late '40's. Yes/no?
I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree. I think much of the red scare in the late 40s was justified. I would say that McCarthy turned it from a legit concern into mass hysteria in the early 50s.
194. CalGal - 2/5/2002 12:38:02 PM
I don't think that propaganda can be considered automatically bad. Nor is all propaganda by definition a lie, is it?
Dictionary definition, just for a basis to begin with:
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Maria mentioned Communism and Naziism as successful propaganda. I agree. What's interesting is that their success within the population was achieved in part by locking out other ideas, preventing choice. On the other hand, their success fooled a lot of people on the outside looking in, who had plenty of input to other ideas and yet accepted the ideas--either for themselves, or as just another ideology.
On the other hand, it seems that those people who have choice adopt communism for a while, but almost always abandon it in the long run.
So the propaganda successes that interest me are the ones that are adopted by people as truth even though they had plenty of access to opposing viewpoints.
195. mgleason - 2/5/2002 12:41:33 PM
If nothing else, HUAC and McCarthy gave the Soviets a nice yuk. The serious recruits were never permitted to join CP-USA, and the sleepers had been in place a good, long time thanks to the inattentiveness of the gov't.
196. glendajean - 2/5/2002 1:54:27 PM
Eli Lilly ... which has been trying to synthesize the active ingredients in cannabis...
Who know that the Prozac City,Indianapolis, home of Eli Lilly could be Maryjanesville. Ha!
This reminds me of those stories about tobacco companies and Kentucky farmers planning for marijuana legilation.
For example, far more interesting than the NRA's blatant campaign is the fact that in the late 60s, liberals were pro 2nd amendment.
Did I miss something? Of course, I was quite young in the 60s, but my memory is that proposals for gun control legislation came in waves after the deaths of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. If people on the left were advocating for gun protection, then perhaps it was the New Left/SDS types, people who actually hated liberals of the day.
It is also my memory that the heavy politicalization of the issue (left v right) came in the late 70s.
197. glendajean - 2/5/2002 1:55:01 PM
or "Who knew..."
198. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 2:01:25 PM
I think Wiz hit it on the nail. Successful propaganda aims at reinforcing prejudices that are already there. The Nazi demonisation and dehumanisation of the Jews is a prime example.
199. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 2:07:44 PM
"You mean that Chambers was attracted to Hiss? Tanenhaus does explore that side of Chambers; It seems that Chambers had a few encounters with men."
What's with this "encounters" bit? I see it cropping up in disussions of Nash's life re A Beautiful Mind. "Encounters" is a weasel word. He had sex with with men. Period. He wanted Hiss and he didn't get him.
So he got him.
Get it?
Good.
200. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 2:09:56 PM
"Successful propaganda aims at reinforcing prejudices that are already there."
And this is why the Anti-Clinton jihaad failed. There was no great public dislike of him to begin with, therefore only a certain degree of antipathy could be stirred up. Not enough to make the impeachment work.
201. mgleason - 2/5/2002 2:15:55 PM
'Encounter' is a fine word to use under the circumstances; look up its etymology.
202. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 2:23:37 PM
Aytch,
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not at all arguing that the War on Drugs should replace Communism or Naziism on the list of best propaganda campaigns, I'm just saying it ought to be included in the list.
Communism and Naziism were both highly successful, but the War on Drugs is STILL successful. This is a line of bull that people are still buying like hotcakes and they've now made it not just about personal morality but about national security.
203. DanDillon - 2/5/2002 2:42:39 PM
Based on the definition CG provided in her Message # 194, all advertising and all news qualify as propaganda. Have we already agreed on that point?
(Nice thread, btw.)
204. dusty - 2/5/2002 2:51:35 PM
I think of propaganda as information with a mission.
It is popularly considered to be misleading, lying, or half-truths, but it doesn't have to be.
The mission is the key. Your mission is to persuade someone to believe something. You supply them with information intended to make them believe.
Broadly speaking, you can choose:
205. dusty - 2/5/2002 2:53:11 PM
Oops, item #4 should be:
Information which is not true and irrelevant
206. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 3:02:19 PM
DanDillon,
I haven't agreed. As I see it: Advertising sells products. Propaganda sells belief systems or ideas. There's certainly some cross-over, but they aren't the same thing.
207. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 3:04:58 PM
Relevant in relation to what?
208. mgleason - 2/5/2002 3:06:22 PM
Advertising is the handmaiden of propaganda.
209. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 3:07:07 PM
Chance is the fool's name for Fate.
210. betty - 2/5/2002 3:07:15 PM
#199
the propaganda of omission. queerness is just not something politely discussed unless it's the butt of someone's joke. (All puns intended)
It amazes me how true this still is.
ABM is a moving drama, we can't have personal idiosyncracies mucking up the girl-boy-oscar love story.
my larger question is, can propaganda be silent?
211. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 3:08:41 PM
No, never. Propaganda is always spoken.It can't be implied to be truly effective.
212. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:13:05 PM
I agree with Dan in the case of advertising. In high school, we did a short, but extremely interesting segment on propaganda. I've forgotten all of the taxonomy, but I recall that we had to find examples of each type, and in most cases, we used advertising to illustrate the form.
213. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:18:10 PM
PelleNilsson
Relevant in relation to what?
Relevant to the mission.
If I want to sell cigarettes, and I show a picture of a lovely actress and a cigarette, the information is true, in the sense that it really is a picture of the actress, but there is only an implication that cigarettes have anything to do with being or being with a lovely actress. In truth, the information is not relevant to the questions of whether someone should purchase that brand of cigarettes.
214. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:22:50 PM
betty
my larger question is, can propaganda be silent?
I think I'm missing your question.
Obviously, it doesn't have to be spoken, or even verbal.
Do you ask whether omission can be propaganda?
I would think so.
215. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 3:23:22 PM
So the suggestion that Jews slaughter and eat Christian babies for ritual purposes would be "not true but relevant"? (I'm not challenging you, just tring to establish the definition.)
216. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 3:25:02 PM
Maria,
Yes, I can agree with that. I could even agree that the most successful ads are selling a way of life as much as a product. There's a difference, though, when IKEA is showing me how beautiful, hip and happy I can be if I just buy their furniture they're not really invested in whether I'm beautiful, hip or happy, their bottom line is to get me to lay down the bucks for a couch named Bjorn that I'm going to have to assemble myself. They're only interested in my ideology as it relates to their product.
217. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:28:33 PM
PelleNilsson
Yes, assuming yuor mission was to convince people to dislike Jews.
218. mgleason - 2/5/2002 3:39:26 PM
That's the beauty of capitalism, Ms No. You get to part with your money and your mind. ;-)
219. betty - 2/5/2002 3:42:38 PM
dusty,
I think it is true that ommission can be propaganda, but i can't get my head around it enough to create an actual example. Perhaps because as CD said propaganda can't be silent...but I'm not sure.
220. concerned - 2/5/2002 3:46:49 PM
Just thought I'd pop in for this:
Is Propaganda always a lie?
Not always. But don't ever count on it being the whole or unslanted truth.
221. concerned - 2/5/2002 3:49:11 PM
...campaigns....
222. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 4:05:21 PM
Betty,
What about television in general? It tells us that we are a nation of mostly white, upper-middle-income, attractive, educated, healthy, youthful people. By omitting people of color, the poor, the blue collar, the uneducated, the elderly and the unattractive---or even just plain, do we send the message out to society that those things are undesireable and therefore unacceptable?
223. concerned - 2/5/2002 4:07:21 PM
Dunno about that. During a recent advertisement cycle during CNN news, I saw about half a dozen people of color, at least as many women, several girls, a couple of oriental/hispanics, and one ad even had a white guy.
224. concerned - 2/5/2002 4:09:34 PM
Perhaps some people won't believe discrimination is dead until there's no white people in the media.
225. DanDillon - 2/5/2002 4:09:47 PM
Ms. No,
But what, pray tell, is the difference between your ideology and your ideology as it relates to [a] product? Doesn't one directly inform/influence the other? (My god, what an incredibly American question.)
226. dusty - 2/5/2002 4:20:30 PM
betty
Suppose someone formed a foundation with millions of dollars, and funded an advertising campaign.
The theme is "role models". It consists of advertisements in popular magazines, featuring well-known people. A nice pic, and a blurb explaining the good works they have done.
Suppose there are men and women, of various ethnic backgrounds, but none of Arabic descent.
Isn't this propaganda by omission?
227. dusty - 2/5/2002 4:24:01 PM
Ms. No
Did you stop watching TV somewhere around 1968?
I don't watch much TV these days (other than Columbo reruns, Taxi reruns and sports), but your tv doesn't sound like mine.
228. wonkers2 - 2/5/2002 4:24:26 PM
Discrimination may be dead in the media, but it's alive and well elsewhere.
229. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 4:34:58 PM
Dan,
It's mainly a matter of scope---all Propaganda is Advertising, but not all Advertising is Propaganda.
Propaganda is a specific subset of advertising that sells a particular doctrine or cause. Paul, the King of Big-Screen TV isn't selling an ideology, he just wants you to buy his televisions. If it helps him to appeal to your sense of affluence or privelege to sell those TVs then fine, but his ultimate goal isn't to sell you on the idea of being affluent it's to sell you a television.
230. betty - 2/5/2002 4:41:40 PM
MsNo,
concerned begins to make an interesting point...commercials are more representative of the US population than the actual "shows"...is it because advertisers care about including the masses where as TV execs don't?
also, I'm guessing most people who write for TV are from the "mostly white, upper-middle-income, attractive, educated, healthy, youthful" background, hence they write what they know (as all writers are taught to do).
231. betty - 2/5/2002 4:44:08 PM
actually discrimination does live on in "entertainment" asian american and latino families are all but completely unrepresented on TV. think of a show about an asian family or a latino family then tell me about it because I haven't heard of it.
232. CalGal - 2/5/2002 4:47:17 PM
Advertising occurs in a competitive market. Thus all consumers have a choice between competing "truths", so to speak.
233. mgleason - 2/5/2002 4:54:05 PM
I don't think that the makers of commercials care more about being inclusive, but rather they're able to target niches in the market more effectively than the networks.
234. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 4:55:23 PM
Dusty,
I'm not much of a television watcher at all, but according to Nielsen:
For the week of Jan. 21-27, the top 20 shows were:
1. Friends
2. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
3. Fox NFC Championship Post-Game Show
4. Everybody Loves Raymond
5. ABC Premiere Event: Stephen King's Rose Red,
6. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
6. Will & Grace
8. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
9. Judging Amy
10. JAG
11. CBS Sunday Movie: My Sister's Keeper
11. Law and Order
13. ER, NBC
13. NBC News Special: Bush White House: Real West Wing
15. The West Wing
16. Frasier
17. Becker
18. The Guardian
19. Will & Grace
20. Crossing Jordan
Are these shows not primarily peopled by white, educated, upper-middle-income folk?
235. mgleason - 2/5/2002 4:57:04 PM
BTW, PBS is running original episodes of a show about a Mexican family in LA that was originally commissioned by CBS (I think), and then dropped.
236. CalGal - 2/5/2002 4:59:18 PM
Christin, I thought your assertion was that this was propaganda. Are you saying that television producers deliberately put out shows that are only white, educated, upper middle class? If not, then how can you call it propaganda?
In fact, TV shows often blatantly propagandize, and they always do it in favor of the poor, the minorities, and so on.
Response to market demands can't be considered propaganda.
237. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:02:14 PM
Maria, CBS may have passed, but they also gave PBS the pilot for free, when it cost them $1 million to make.
238. mgleason - 2/5/2002 5:04:14 PM
One of the reasons that there aren't more shows directed at a Spanish-speaking audience is that there is a ton of parallel programming (in Spanish) to meet their needs.
239. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:04:20 PM
CG,
No, I didn't make any assertion either way. I asked a question. At least, I think I did. I'll have to go back and look. I'm trying to do too many things at the office while also staying plugged in here.
240. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:06:50 PM
Yep--to mgleason.
Christin, I was responding to your question "what sort of message does television send"? That implies it is deliberate.
I believe it does send this message, I believe it is inadvertent due to response to the market, and I believe they do a fair amount (but could do more) to compensate for the market failure.
Also, the top 20 shows among blacks is completely different from the top 20 shows among whites, which means they are getting their needs met.
241. mgleason - 2/5/2002 5:09:14 PM
CG,
Yes, I'd read that CBS had given PBS the pilot. I wondered why they developed it in the first place.
242. dusty - 2/5/2002 5:23:24 PM
Are these shows not primarily peopled by white, educated, upper-middle-income folk?
I've seen Frazier. Two stars in that category, but two others, while white, not in that category.
I've seen Law and Order (CG's recommendation, I think.) Some fit the category, many do not.
I haven't watched any of the others.
243. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:26:16 PM
Law & Order is certainly not exclusively white, educated, upper middle income. Of the three cops, two are black--and cops aren't upper income.
Certainly most of the rest of them are as Christin describes. It's true that Frasier's dad and Daphne aren't educated upper middle income, but they live like they are.
244. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:28:38 PM
Cal,
I think an entity must be cohesive in order to have an intent. "Television" isn't. There are too many different networks and producers involved for it to have a collective will. This doesn't prevent it from presenting a particular point of view, though, and I agree with you that it's market driven rather than coersive.
The ratings I pulled were collective---not separated by ethnicity, income or gender. I wasn't particularly surprised by the lack of color in the top-rated shows because regardless of the urban population, America is still predominantly white, but I am curious about the missing blue collar world.
I think I'm preoccupied because of something I caught briefly on television the other day. The E! True Hollywood story is what I call hangover television and I happened to see some of the Larry Flynt bio on Sunday. There was some muckety-muck from a feminist organization going on and on about how offensive Hustler magazine is. She wasn't ranting about the degradation of women but about how Hustler appeals to a pool-hall mentality of sexuality.
My jaw literally hung I was so shocked. Not shocked that she'd hold such an opinion, but shocked that she thought she would sway great hoardes of people to her side by insulting the majority population. I mean, there are more Americans with "pool hall mentalities" than there are with Ivy-League degrees.
But maybe it's not that big a deal. Soap operas are still going strong and they're certainly not representative of their target audience in many ways.
And what has this got to do with Propaganda? Beats me, but I just couldn't help myself.
245. mgleason - 2/5/2002 5:37:31 PM
It's got everything to do with propaganda!
246. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:37:45 PM
Cal,
It's true that Frasier's dad and Daphne aren't educated upper middle income, but they live like they are.
Yeah, like the Friends who work in coffee bars and play open mics for change yet live in luxury apartments in Seattle.
This is the result of writing what you know as Betty pointed out. TV writers can create a character with a low-income job, but they generally don't lead low income lives. Shows that come immediately to mind that were/are truer to real life in this regard would be:
NYPD Blue(cop shows are generally really good about this)
Cheers
Rosanne
Good Times
Taxi
Sanford & Son
All in the Family
(yes, I know most of these are loooong gone from TV)
247. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:38:04 PM
The ratings I pulled were collective---not separated by ethnicity, income or gender.
Oh, I know. I was just pointing out that the difference is substantial. Blacks and whites are not watching the same thing at all--although I bet that for blacks it is income based. Probably not for whites, though.
And don't confuse feminists with television. Feminists are an evil all their own.
In fact, "feminist statistics" is an entire category of propaganda that is also largely lies or twisted facts.
248. concerned - 2/5/2002 5:38:11 PM
Suppose there are men and women, of various ethnic backgrounds, but none of Arabic descent.
Isn't this propaganda by omission?
Not at all. Just lump them in the generic Semite category with Hebrews.
249. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:38:55 PM
Maria,
Whew! Good, I'd hate to be off topic in my own thread.
250. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:41:35 PM
CG,
I wasn't confusing feminists with television, she just happened to be on television.
251. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 5:47:33 PM
Advertising is not propaganda. The issue at hand is being trivialised.
252. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:48:56 PM
Advertising is not propaganda.
I did say that, I thought. It seems to me that propaganda purports to be education or information for your own good.
253. concerned - 2/5/2002 5:54:02 PM
...successful....
254. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 6:01:07 PM
Pelle,
I think the only person who is equating the two is DanDillon.
255. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 6:29:59 PM
Cal- my point wrt the NRA was the RIFLE part of the name and the actual focus of the group. In recent past the focus has been on everything but rifles, save for the fights over "assault rifles."
Teflon bullets, handgun control (or the absence of it), concealed carry of pistols and revolvers, "shoot your neighbor" laws etc.
The organization has been overtaken by second amendment purists wanting to arm nearly everyone with concealed weapons, while the safety, hunting and sporting uses of long arms are shunted aside.
Similarly, the "Moral Majority." The majority was always questionable, and the morality portion all too frequently gave over to partisan political practicality.
Its not the truth of the matter asserted that caused me to choose items for my list, but rather the effect of the "party line" in shaping the debate and gaining acceptance or at least intellectual cover for the proffered view of reality. Thus, a die hard liberal like me takes shots at communist propaganda, Nixon, Clinton, and Reagan as leading Presidential fibs, as well as some familiar targets of the left.
256. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 6:47:49 PM
Oh, and honorable mention should go to the following in no particular order, "amateur athletes" in the Olympics until recent reforms, "race" as a scientific concept (save for the most basic and general matters of physiology,
genetics etc., as clusters of like characteristics over a broad continuum of population distribution.)
"the liability crisis," its bastard child "tort reform;" "judicial activism" when used as a synonymn with "liberal;" "original intent" as a school of juridical thought; and prosecutors that deny plea bargaining.
257. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 6:50:08 PM
Pelle- advertising is most certainly propaganda, but the propaganda message is not as much "Buy brand X" as much as "consuming is good and good for you."
258. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 7:00:43 PM
"Wholesome." What the hell does that mean?
259. CalGal - 2/5/2002 7:49:37 PM
I thought of a few other propaganda campaigns that were/are successful, if small--two were spurred by other conversations in the Mote:
1. JFK's "healthy athleticism", when in fact he had a bad back and Addison's disease.
2. The value of a mother's undivided attention on her child every hour of every day, and the notion that until recently this was the norm.
3. The idea that teens are at risk for smoking.
260. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 7:59:11 PM
So teens shouldn't be discouraged from smoking? The risk may be over stated, but the idea that they are at risk is bogus? That hardly amounts to a successful propaganda campaign.
It was never the norm for a mother to give a child "undivided attention." Stay at home moms rarely had one child, for one thing. For another, kids worked at home for their parents from a very early age. The fifties/sixties family construct was a transitional phase that was contributed to in part by increased incomes of fathers and more modern conveniences for women in the home.
261. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 8:00:25 PM
Put overstated together, if you prefer.
262. CalGal - 2/5/2002 8:44:09 PM
The risk may be over stated, but the idea that they are at risk is bogus?
Sure. It doesn't matter in the slightest if teens smoke. What matters is if they continue to smoke past their teens, and as we discussed, that is a function of income.
It was never the norm for a mother to give a child "undivided attention." ....
Um. Yes. I know. That was the point. I figured people could figure it out, but happily, in figuring it out all by yourself, you've stated it for all the others who might be a bit slow to grasp the obvious. I keep on forgetting about that crew.
263. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 8:51:07 PM
What was the worst (=least effective/biggest failure) propaganda campaign of the 20th century?
264. CalGal - 2/5/2002 9:07:23 PM
These aren't the worst, but they came to mind as failures:
--Wilson's sale of the LoN
--Nuclear energy, thus far
--The value of integration in public schools
--Fetus is a human being
265. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 10:06:19 PM
I may be splitting hairs here but I'm inclined to lump some of those under advocacy rather than propaganda. I suppose there's a continuum connecting the two.
266. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 10:15:50 PM
Yes, Cal, it matters if teens smoke.
I don't think you're splitting hairs, H. Advocacy groups may use propaganda, but they aren't necessarily in and of themselves propaganda campaigns. Several on that list, such as integration, are very desirable goals. If some people don't think so it still doesn't make them propaganda campaigns.
267. CalGal - 2/5/2002 10:27:56 PM
Yes, I'd say there is a continuum.
I'd say that Wilson and fetus as human being fall on the advocacy side, then. I think integration value and nuclear energy are still propaganda.
Value of integration is the inherent assumption behind busing, the elimination or de-emphasis of SAT scores for minorities, the redistricting, magnet schools, and a host of other government sponsored mandates. The continual efforts wouldn't be necessary had the value been accepted 30 years ago.
Nuclear energy: I remember all those Disney cartoons, is all.
268. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 10:28:15 PM
Advocacy groups may use propaganda, but they aren't necessarily in and of themselves propaganda campaigns.
Good point and I agree. In the discussion so far, I think we've identified several points along a continuum (or maybe around a circle): advocacy, advertising, news, and propaganda.
It's becoming more difficult to discuss them because everyone seems to have a different view of where the boundaries are. I certainly don't agree with the thought upthread that equated advertising and news to propaganda.
269. CalGal - 2/5/2002 10:32:42 PM
Several on that list, such as integration, are very desirable goals. If some people don't think so it still doesn't make them propaganda campaigns.
This doesn't follow. You might want to review the definition of "propaganda" one more time. The desirability of the goal is irrelevant. What defines propaganda is the effort to disseminate ideas, values, and information.
270. CalGal - 2/5/2002 10:35:10 PM
Yes, Cal, it matters if teens smoke.
Again. It doesn't matter whether you think it matters or not, or whether I do, for that matter. I defined it as a propaganda campaign.
You and Jones both seem to think that any effort that seeks to promote your own values is just truthtelling, not propaganda. Truthtelling can be propaganda, if it has a specific goal.
271. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 10:52:04 PM
I think intent has a great deal to do with how the distribution of a body of information is perceived. So, some working definitions:
News is distributed with the intent to inform objectively. To the extent news is deliberately not objective, it becomes advocacy or propaganda.
Advocacy has the intent to persuade honorably. The information is not necessarily objective but is factual and truthful. To the extent it's not, it becomes propaganda.
Advertising is a subset of advocacy for commercial purposes.
Propaganda has the intent to persuade against the best interests of the subject.
272. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 10:59:41 PM
I don't care how you defined it. I don't care what you concluded. You seem to be infused with this idea that your reality is the one and all others are ludicrous. And rather than suggest what other people reread, you might want to follow your own advice. Effective communication can be your friend.
In short, I agree with H's statement about the continuum, and my point was that I didn't believe promoting a goal was automatically propaganda, and I don't think the implementation of integration was a propaganda campaign. I never said truth can't still be propaganda.
273. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 11:01:02 PM
#271 is a good way of stating it.
274. RustlerPike - 2/5/2002 11:09:44 PM
This thread moves too fast.
275. CalGal - 2/5/2002 11:39:52 PM
Aytch,
I don't see anything in the definition of either propaganda or advocacy that supports your interpretation. Advocacy is when you take a side. The line between advocacy and propaganda is, I believe, to do with purpose. Advocacy is defense in the interests of someone or something else. Propaganda is offense in one's own self-interest.
The US is busy engaging in a propaganda campaign in Afghanistan. It cannot be described as advocacy. It's propaganda, and has regularly been described as such. Is it your position that this campaign is against the interests of the Afghans?
I don't want to distract the thread into a fuss about semantics, but I think the definition is interesting. Clearly there is a dispute about its meaning. But I can find nothing in the definition that suggests a negative intent.
276. CalGal - 2/5/2002 11:40:38 PM
Arky,
I didn't "define" it. I just used the dictionary.
277. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:00:39 AM
Hmm, Merriam-Webster:
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Obviously #1 doesn't apply, but I wanted to make sure no one thought I'd just taken what I wanted.
278. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:04:38 AM
cal--
I'm having trouble parsing your 275. I'm not always sure which definitions you mean. Anyway...
I am trying to refine the dictionary definitions a bit to establish a common ground for this thread. I think the posted definition is inadequate for our discussion and is causing trouble.
As for Afghanistan, our propaganda campaign was directed against supporters of the Taliban so, yes, I think it was against their interest.
I didn't say (and don't believe) that propaganda is inherently negative in intent (or evil, for that matter). Except in the sense that it's always directed against something.
279. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:05:18 AM
Abs--see Message # 194
280. judithathome - 2/6/2002 12:07:02 AM
Cal: see Message # 3
281. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:08:43 AM
abs--
I think that definition is insufficient for this thread. I can discern no useful distinction in (2) or (3) between advocacy and propaganda. Seems to me they're quite different. Do you guys think they're the same?
282. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/6/2002 12:13:29 AM
Try this:
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.
283. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:17:25 AM
our propaganda campaign was directed against supporters of the Taliban
It was directed towards Afghan citizens, and not against their interests. More than being anti-Taliban, I'd say that it's pro-US.
Or consider Christin's war propaganda posters, earlier. The audience was US citizens. Are you saying it was against their interests?
Except in the sense that it's always directed against something.
I'm really not trying to cause trouble, but this simply isn't true. Propaganda is quite often for something.
Dusty had a good catchphrase earlier--propaganda is information with a mission. The information can be accurate or not, it can be a good mission or a bad one. The common element is the sense of mission, or goal, always in the self-interest of the propagandist.
I have nothing against coming up with working definitions--in fact, I agreed with your distinction between advocacy and propaganda, and that they have a continuum. But the definitions have to be accurate, and I can't see any way to agreeing that propaganda is always against the target audience's interests, or that propaganda is always directed against something.
I think Wiz's definition is generally good, except I'd change "views and interests" to "views or interests".
284. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:17:26 AM
Aytch, I think they are different. One problem I've had in the last two days is that it doesn't seem the meaning of propaganda, for this threat, has been established and we are talking about all sorts of things. We may never been in total agreement on a definition but it would set some parametersand lessen confusion.
285. judithathome - 2/6/2002 12:17:46 AM
To tell you the truth, H, I'm beginning to wonder if it's even possible to know what we're talking about. When this thread started, I thought I knew.
286. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:19:08 AM
Cal...nice definition...sounds familiar, too!
287. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:20:52 AM
Judith, nice definition too....; ) Perhaps we need to think of a specific definition and use it as the intro to this thread.
288. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:21:59 AM
Aytch,
I can discern no useful distinction in (2) or (3) between advocacy and propaganda.
Oh, I think there is a clear difference between advocacy and propaganda. You yourself said that it was a continuum--but then later, you made a comment about the motives being different. I disagree that this is the key difference. One can advocate a cause out of entirely ignoble reasons.
Using the dictionary again,
one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
Again, the notion of advocacy is defense. Propaganda is offense. You "stand up" for an idea as an advocate. You "push" an idea as a propagandist.
Those are pretty clear differences.
Obviously, lots of people call themselves advocates when they are really pushing propaganda. (g)
But that's still a continuum. There is a point at which you cross from advocacy to propaganda, to promoting instead of protecting.
289. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:23:05 AM
I think the definition is always going to be blurry around the edges. That's understandable, and even inevitable.
290. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:26:19 AM
cal--
I could make a tortuous argument that our WW2 homeland propaganda was, indeed, against the perceived self-interest of our citizens but...
I'm willing to chuck my definition. What's better? The MW definition is not good enough. Should not a distinction be drawn between advocacy (which has a good to neutral connotation) and propaganda (which has a neutral to bad rep)?
291. judithathome - 2/6/2002 12:29:02 AM
Ask Mgleason to get the OED definition. ;-)
292. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:37:14 AM
Timeout.
All I'm trying to do is distinguish some things mentioned upthread -- news, advertising, advocacy, and propaganda.
They're all different, we all know they're all different. But we're also all using them all differently.
This is causing confusion because some are labelling, say, advertising as propaganda or whatever. One's reaction to 'advertising' is different than to 'propaganda'.
293. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:40:43 AM
If we simply use the MW definition, then Wilson's "advocacy" of the League of Nations is indeed propaganda and, to me, this seems unreasonable.
Even worse, news and advertising are also propaganda as pointed out upthread. Say it ain't so.
294. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:45:35 AM
I encourage someone else to take a shot but you must distinguish news, advertising, advocacy and propaganda from one other. Feel free to appropriate my crippled attempt.
I still believe intent is the key.
295. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:49:48 AM
Aytch,
Should not a distinction be drawn between advocacy (which has a good to neutral connotation) and propaganda (which has a neutral to bad rep)?
There is a distinction. I thought I made a pretty good pass at it. But the connotation is irrelevant. It's the desire to portray one as good and the other as bad that is, in fact, causing the problem, as people define anything they disagree with as propaganda, and anything they approve of as advocacy. These connotations are baggage that are brought to the table with no basis in the definition.
In fact, that's how the conversation gets interesting--to demonstrate propaganda can indeed be valuable and be used to good end. That many campaigns with positive results were, in fact, propaganda, and that advocacy can be ignoble.
I think that Wilson was an advocate; I accepted your correction of that. To my knowledge, there was no concentrated effort to push LoN. He just argued forcefully on its behalf. On the other hand, I think the government had a definite agenda in selling us on nuclear energy, and their efforts were propaganda--again, this doesn't define the goal as nefarious.
296. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:51:35 AM
I still believe intent is the key.
So Hitler and Goebbels, who had nothing but the good of Germany at the heart of their intent, were advocates?
No. Intent is irrelevant. Purpose--to protect or to promote--is a reasonable distinction, and one that the definitions clearly support.
297. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:05:28 AM
cal--
We're missing each other somewhere. I don't understand how you read me as suggesting that Hitler was an advocate. He propagandized.
I also can't see a great distinction between intent and purpose. Hitler's intent with his propaganda was to deceive and divide the Allies. The purpose of the propaganda? The same.
In fact, my dictionary uses purpose and intent to define each other. What do you see as the distinction?
Finally, could you point out your distinction between advocacy and propaganda?
298. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:09:39 AM
cal--
Rather than address my 297, please take a shot at the four definitions we need. Good definitions will end our axle-wrapping.
299. CalGal - 2/6/2002 1:20:18 AM
Aytch,
It was in #275, the post you didn't understand. (g)
Advocacy is when you take a side. The line between advocacy and propaganda is, I believe, to do with purpose. Advocacy is defense in the interests of someone or something else. Propaganda is offense in one's own self-interest.
I may be wrong in using the word "purpose".
The way I was using it, "purpose" is the aim, not the intent. What are you setting out to do? Not in subjective terms, but objective. Are you stepping forward to defend or protect something, an onslaught, an attack? Or are you seeking to promote an idea?
Or, now that I think of it, maybe "intent" is fine--provided that you also keep it objective. Not positive goals or negative goals, for audience interests or against audience interests. But promote or protect is intent, objectively described. (or more objectively, anyway!)
I don't understand how you read me as suggesting that Hitler was an advocate.
But if you use intent as the motive, you could easily argue that Hitler just wanted to do good things for Germany. This is nonsense, of course. But the minute you make it about motive, people start to argue about motive.
If you view it as he actively sought to promote a particular view or belief, then it's a lot more difficult to blur the lines. However, the lines inevitably blur in the middle--because, as you described first off, advocacy and propaganda are on a continuum.
300. CalGal - 2/6/2002 1:23:18 AM
Feel free to ignore 299, per your request. My pass at definitions coming up.
301. CalGal - 2/6/2002 1:39:30 AM
Four definitions:
1. News--to provide information without a specific goal or agenda. To describe what has happened, not what should happen.
2. Advertising--tough one, but I would say that product or business related advertising doesn't seek to disseminate information, but define itself in relation to its competition. In fact, I'd say that competition is a key factor in distinguishing advertising from propaganda--and why we capitalists take such a dim view of monopolies? But I'm open to debate on that one.
3. Advocacy--to protect or defend the interests of an idea, value, belief (or person). The goal isn't to convert, but to withstand.
4. Propaganda--to actively promote and disseminate an idea, value, or belief. The goal is specifically to change beliefs, values, ideas.
As a (possibly) separate matter, I noticed a difference in rewards to the provider that I thought would be worth mentioning to see if I have it right:
1. News--Information provider is neutral (in an ideal world, of course) and must not benefit from the choices made. (in a perfect world)
2. Advertising--Information provider is directly and openly rewarded if successful.
3. Advocacy--The interests of the advocate are irrelevant/orthogonal to the interests protected, can be paid or voluntary.
4. Propaganda--Organization providing information are not directly benefiting, but the purpose of propaganda is to benefit the interests of the disseminators, either directly or indirectly.
302. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:41:03 AM
On your definition from 275: I still can't resolve A and P into recognizably different things, even as cousins of the continuum. No offense.
Defense vs. offense hangs me up. I can easily envision advocating a change in some existing policy. Isn't that offense? I can also envision using propaganda to deter somebody from something. Isn't that defense? I am, perhaps, far stupider than originally planned.
303. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:47:12 AM
We've got a long night ahead of us, Missy.
304. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:09:29 AM
Which of the definitions don't you buy?
I can easily envision advocating a change in some existing policy.
I thought of that, and I think that depending on the situation, this can be where the line blurs. Or maybe we use "advocate" when it's actually propaganda, because of the negative/positive connotations you mentioned earlier?
Suppose the desired position is "prohibit employment of children under the age of 16".
1. News--I think we're straight on this one. News is not propaganda.
2. Advertising--an advertising agency is given the job of developing a campaign to spur donations to a fund devoted to ending child labor.
3. Advocacy--An advocate seeks to create a new law to protect children.
4. Propaganda: A government wants to be accepted in a trade organization, and they aren't eligible until they have a child labor law on the books. So they begin a propaganda campaign to change thinking on child labor, to reduce resistance to child labor laws so that they can gain acceptance to the trade organization.
Or: Government decides that child labor is causing all sorts of problems, and determine that even though the populace isn't ready, it's time to get things moving. They need an educated population, a healthy population, they need more jobs for adults. Whatever. They set out to change thought.
Now, what is the difference between 3 and 4? The advocate is seeking to protect children. The propagandist is seeking to promote a value and belief system. The advocate doesn't really care if people agree; the propagandist wants to change thought.
305. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 2:21:34 AM
Just saw your latest. This is to 301.
News is fine. The idea of objective or neutral shines through.
Advertising. It's more of a quibble but I would say advertising definitely seeks to disseminate information. Even your "defining relative to competition" requires putting out info.
Advocacy. I just can't get past that defense aspect. As I see it, the goal often is to convert. Consider your Wilson example. He needed to persuade Congress, not withstand them. If the status quo prevailed, there would be no League.
Propaganda. This might be fine pending resolution of Advocacy. As it is, to me, advocacy fits in here as well. We're missing whatever it is in the popular imagination that makes the idea of advocacy 'good' and propaganda 'bad'.
Note that I'm not saying one is good, the other bad. There is good propaganda and bad advocacy. But the popular reaction to one concept is positive; to the other, negative.
306. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:24:55 AM
This has been fun, but I don't want to get bogged down. I will say this: I see no support for the notion that advocacy is good/positive/noble, propaganda is bad/evil.
Go back to what kicked this off in a way: my four proposals for failed propaganda:
1. Wilson's sales job on LoN
2. Nuclear energy
3. Value of integration in public schools
4. Fetus is a human being.
1 is advocacy. Wilson was speaking out in defense of his own idea, the League of Nations. I don't think he actively sought to change values, rather to defend his baby against misconceptions. However, it could be that there was a propaganda campaign that I'm unaware of.
2 was propaganda back in the 50s and 60s, if my memory serves me correctly.
3. Propaganda. The government consistently tried to change thinking and values, primarily by putting blacks and whites together in the confidence that they would soon see the light and realize the value of this approach. This in no way cast aspersions on the goal itself.
4. Fetus is a human being--I originally agreed that this was advocacy, given that it is protection of life as the advocate saw it. But you know, I think that a lot of people are promoting this idea without really believing that the fetus is a life, and in that case it is an agenda to change thoughts and values--ie, propaganda. So I think the definition depends on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual. Not whether their aim is good or bad, but whether they in fact believe that the fetus is a human being in every way.
Finally, I don't think this will be resolved unless everyone agrees that the subjective notions of good and bad are left out of the distinction. If we can do that, then any debate about whether something is propaganda, advocacy, or even advertising will be meaningful. If we can't get away from the value-laden definition, then there's trouble.
Off to the gym.
307. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:39:27 AM
Okay, just saw 305 and will respond before I run off.
As I see it, the goal often is to convert.
Yes, but in defense, not in offense. But I totally agree that this is a tough nut. I mentioned that Wilson wanted to speak out for his baby. An advocate thinks the value of his or her ideas is self-evident, that all that needs to be done is explain and defend it and people will see the truth. The problem is misrepresentation and (maybe) bad people trying to harm the protected entity.
Propagandists want to change thought, values, etc. to benefit their own interests. The truth of their pov isn't as important as the results. This is not to say that propaganda is untrue.
Some people will see the first explanation as positive, the second as negative. And that's where the connotations come from, I think. Propaganda has the stink of the ends justifying the means.
But in fact, there is nothing necessarily negative about changing thought by any means necessary. Given the choice between fooling people into disliking child labor and convincing them that it's wrong, I'll take the method that gets kids off the job. And since it doesn't necessarily involve untruth, where's the automatic downside?
The advocate can be wrong, too. They might just think they know the truth, which can often be dangerous.
Finally--advocates often cross the line over to propaganda. My pet peeve: NOW. They began by seeking equal rights. But they are often actively seeking to change values and definitions--and it is for their own interests, if you know anything about their fundraising problems in the 80s. At a certain point, the advocate becomes powerful enough that they have status to maintain--where the victory becomes a worthwhile end.
and NOW I will get myself to the gym.
308. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 2:53:37 AM
This has been fun and we are quite bogged.
Final thoughts:
News -- We're agreed. Objective and neutral.
Advertising -- More or less agreed. Usually but not exclusively commercial.
Advocacy and Propaganda -- Closely related but we can't define the essential difference.
Help, Mote. Without a reasonable definition, my advocacy is your propaganda. OTOH, why should this thread be any different?
309. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 3:18:29 AM
Final, Final Thought:
Cal is suggesting that, in order for the discussion to proceed, we avoid any assignment of 'good' or 'bad' to the definition of Propaganda.
After lengthy consideration, I think she may be right. It just doesn't sit well to lump the massive Soviet disinformation campaign in the same category as NBC Nightly News. Indeed, if there is no 'good' or 'bad', they are exactly the same thing.
And, in fact, dan dillon is then correct: news, advertising and advocacy are all propaganda.
Alas.
310. Jonesatlaw - 2/6/2002 5:43:10 AM
As for one of the proposals concerning advertisment versus propaganda- one propaganda definition included persuasion against the best interests of the target of the persuasion. Clearly some advertisement falls into this category, (depending on your view, of course) for example the "other" political parties campaign ads; tobacco ads; various late night infomercials promoting dangerous or fraudulent diets or financial schemes; or finally to promote wasteful spending on trendy or fad products-i.e. the evils of materialism/consumerism; etc.
Is it really in anybody's interest to own a damn Chia Pet?
I am more comfortable with the distinction between advocacy and propaganda being the ways and means, rather than the motive behind the speech. Hitler was a propagandist because his persuasive speech was intentionally untrue and his goal evil, his means of persuasion were without moral limit. OTOH the latest get rich quick guys may be facially truthful and genuinely don't mind if I get rich, even though they don't necessarily feel the need to point out the actual odds of that happening if I buy their product. I see them as advertising, while Hitler was spreading propaganda. I also associate propaganda
with intent to harm, or exploit, and a willingness to abandon truth, logic and whatever other ethics one could bring to bear.
311. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 9:44:30 AM
Unless I'm very much mistaken so far in this thread no one has brought up Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes by Jacques Ellul (Knopf, 1965; Vintage, 1973)
It supplies all the necessary information for a real discussion of this topic.
Advertising,in and of itself, isn't propaganda.
Having strong opinions (especially if they're Left Wing, given the current climate) isn't propaganda.
Expressing the view that the poor aren't given a fair shake by this society isn't propaganda.
312. CalGal - 2/6/2002 10:25:18 AM
It just doesn't sit well to lump the massive Soviet disinformation campaign in the same category as NBC Nightly News. Indeed, if there is no 'good' or 'bad', they are exactly the same thing.
How do you get this? Soviet "news" was government sponsored, and an arm of the propaganda machine. Therefore it doesn't meet the definition of news, no matter how much it pretends.
I would say instead that it is true that Hitler's propaganda and the US WWII campaign to bolster support for the war are exactly the same thing.
313. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 10:28:38 AM
U.S. news is corporate-sponsored, and an arm of its propaganda machine. When Lisa Myers has Ken Lay's wife on the "Today" show, allowing her her sob like a deranged fishwife and never asking her a pertinent question what you've got is propaganda at its most implicitly effective.
314. CalGal - 2/6/2002 10:32:12 AM
Well, if you can't see the difference, you're an idiot. But in any event, you are certainly a sadly ineffective propagandist for the left.
315. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 11:04:41 AM
It's not a question of "seeing the difference," idiot.it has to do with comprehending the way "news" is manufactured and disseminated.
And how,praytell, am I a "propagandist for left"? By having an opinion?
(This should be rich, folks. To CalGal everything that doesn't proceed from the right is "propaganda" -- except for Hitler.)
316. CalGal - 2/6/2002 11:09:26 AM
And how,praytell, am I a "propagandist for left"? By having an opinion?
No. By skewing facts and reality to make the left appear more attractive. You're just very bad at it.
For example, your claim that the US news media is in no way indistinguishable from Soviet propaganda. That's not brave. It's moronic.
It was also a (mild) joke.
To CalGal everything that doesn't proceed from the right is "propaganda"
Well, if by "right" you mean "anything to the left of Stalin" you might be right. In any event, that's wrong, too. But whatever.
317. marjoribanks - 2/6/2002 11:19:19 AM
US mainstream media is an embarrasment, whether you want to call it outright propaganda or not. CNN is an American shill (the international version is better), Fox is a raucous jingoistic pep-rally, and the three networks are simply unwatchable and tedious.
I know of no other wealthy developed country where the media swims so unified, in such an opaque swill of half-truth and outright manipulation, or where the populace is kept, perforce, so much in the dark about the country's affairs.
318. CalGal - 2/6/2002 11:21:17 AM
I know of no other wealthy developed country where the media swims so unified, in such an opaque swill of half-truth and outright manipulation, or where the populace is kept, perforce, so much in the dark about the country's affairs.
Gosh, with this recommendation it's clear we're doing something right.
319. marjoribanks - 2/6/2002 11:23:34 AM
I'd compare the US mainstream media to what I know of China's. (I've spent some time working with the editors of a major Chinese newspaper - the Gongren Ribao.)
There is leeway to pursue scandal and corruption, but on certain matters the mainsteam will simply refuse to cover the story half-way honestly. And ridiculous weightage is given to the "official" line, reducing the papers and most of the television news to something very much like unreliable "house organs". So yes, something like the old USSR too.
320. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 11:39:11 AM
Love the "whatever."
There is no point in trying to have a serious discussion about propaganda with you CG. Your mind was made up - with Hospital corners -- years ago.
Anybody who's truly interested in talking about the subject please read Ellul and get back to me.
321. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/6/2002 12:32:32 PM
320. Cellar Door - 2/6/02 4:39:11 PM. . .a serious discussion. . .
Like an obsessively boring Sullivan vendetta fueled by envy and resentment?
322. Ms. No - 2/6/2002 1:28:08 PM
Chill out folks. If you can't make your argument without name-calling and insults then perhaps you should go work on strengthening your argument.
323. Ms. No - 2/6/2002 1:45:02 PM
Advocacy declares itself and actively lobbies for a particular outcome.
Okay that was easy enough. I'm going to blunder the next, though. Hope someone can figure out what I'm getting at and restate it more clearly:
Propaganda claims no self-interest and acknowleges no stated goal merely claiming to disseminate information. The fact that there almost always IS self-interest and that the information given is skewed in order to promote a particular kind of thought is what gives propaganda the negative connotation. On its face it's a lie because it's somebody telling you something for your own good who claims to have no personal stake in what you believe. This doesn't mean that the goal is wrong or that the facts stated are untrue only that it's a rather passive-agressive way of going about getting things accomplished.
324. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/6/2002 1:58:07 PM
Baloney!
The root of the word intimates that propaganda's intent is to spread "the faith," (whatever the true believer thinks).
So there is no argument and the hair-splitting and pontificating isn't necessary.
325. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 2:04:10 PM
Not "envy and resentment," Wiz. Genuine personal hatred.
Nobody treats me like a nigger and gets away with it.
326. mgleason - 2/6/2002 2:06:02 PM
Plato and the other Utopians have a lot for which to answer. Think about it; propaganda is an attempt to create human bonsai trees, making the unnatural seem doable and even desirable. The delusion of human perfectibility has caused more misery than anything else I can think of.
327. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:10:36 PM
Christin,
I don't think your war bonds campaign would pass your propaganda test. I also don't think that propaganda is a lie on its face. There is no active "claim".
I do agree that the negative connotation arises because propaganda is always done for the self-interest of the entity promoting the information. But that doesn't mean that the goal, the methods, or the information have to be devious, underhanded, or untrue.
328. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/6/2002 3:02:12 PM
Cellar- Response in Inferno . . .
329. Jonesatlaw - 2/6/2002 3:14:21 PM
Advocacy declares itself and actively lobbies for a particular outcome.
Very attractive argument. A neat distinction that fits my perception of the connotations of adovacy without too much overlapping of propaganda. Hand the lady a cigar, I think we have a winner!
330. Ms. No - 2/6/2002 3:36:49 PM
Cal,
There is no active "claim".
That's part of what's disengenuous. Propaganda often pretends to have no agenda but it clearly does have one.
Take the War Bonds poster with the children in the yard under the shadow of the Swastika. What makes that propaganda rather than just advocacy or advertising? The fact that rather than just saying "Support the war effort" it says "If you really love your children you'll buy bonds to support the war effort."
It isn't straightforward. It's passive-agressive.
Maybe we can define Propaganda as any argument that includes "Do it for the children" as one of it's motivators? (I'm only half joking about this.)
331. thoughtful - 2/6/2002 3:38:03 PM
MsNo, why not, propaganda obscures itself while actively lobbying a particular outcome which may or may not be in one's own best interest.
332. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 5:38:59 PM
What an intellectual mess this has become.
In spite of a couple of recent posts, I continue to believe there are some very bright people here.
Instead of arguing examples, argue the actual definition. That's the only way to resolve this. Propose a definition and then test them with examples.
For this thread to amount to anything, the definition of propaganda must separate it from news, advertising and advocacy. The Merriam-Webster definition does not.
.
333. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 5:40:50 PM
...and then test it with examples. doh.
334. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 5:46:42 PM
cal 312--
Under the current, reigning definition from MW --
"the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"
both Soviet disinformation and NBC News are covered. One injures, the other helps.
This, to me, is the problem here.
335. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 5:51:34 PM
cal--
It's just occurred to me that perhaps you're arguing for your definition, not MW. If so, cancel last.
336. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 5:55:05 PM
Just for the record, I will now assume that no one favors continuing to use the MW definition (from msg 3). Holler if you still like it.
337. arkymalarky - 2/6/2002 7:15:10 PM
How do you spell a holler? In any case, it seems pointless to go in twenty directions away from a dictionary definition as opposed to using it as an anchor from which to discuss what falls under it. It reminds me of the Monty Python race for people without any sense of direction.
338. arkymalarky - 2/6/2002 7:17:27 PM
Or we could play Humpty-Dumpty and decide which one is the master over the word instead of allowing the dictionary definition to dominate without a challenge.
339. mgleason - 2/6/2002 8:13:59 PM
I'm with you, Arky. One may agree or disagree with the object of propaganda, but the means are the same, regardless of intent. That's why the M-W definition is, of necessity, so broad. The National Socialists, the Catholic Church, the NRA, the GOP, the Democratic Party, The Federalist Papers, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion all use the same tools.
340. Absensia - 2/6/2002 8:23:41 PM
Good, I agree too. The method of delivering "information" may seem as advocacy to some and Propaganda to others. I don't think considering propaganda as "evil" and advocacy as "good" is a distinction without a difference.
341. CalGal - 2/6/2002 8:26:12 PM
Aytch,
I thought the M-W definition was fine.
both Soviet disinformation and NBC News are covered. One injures, the other helps.
But there you go back to values again. NBC News is not trying to "help". It's also not trying to "hurt". It's trying to report the facts. That is its goal. This means that NBC News does not meet the M-W definition.
Soviet "news" was a mouthpiece of a government, and its goal was always to promote the government's agenda. It was irrelevant whether it hurt or helped. Its goal was to forward the interests of the government. This does meet the M-W definition.
I was one of the people who posted the M-W definition; I have no problem with using it.
342. arkymalarky - 2/6/2002 8:27:26 PM
My statements earlier were meant to question what constitutes a "propaganda campaign." If it's agreed that propaganda is used to promote or oppose anything, at what point does it become a propaganda campaign?
343. CalGal - 2/6/2002 8:31:47 PM
I think propaganda is by definition a "campaign". That's more of an organizational issue. Interesting question, though. Can there be government propaganda without a defined campaign?
344. Absensia - 2/6/2002 8:34:42 PM
Hmmmm, thinking....all the 'USA, USA,', the flags, the are Americans, and not the evil ones.I don't think it's a specifically a defined campaign, it's too scattered, but the purpose is the same....ahhhh Patriotism!
345. CalGal - 2/6/2002 8:40:13 PM
What "purpose"?
346. Absensia - 2/6/2002 8:45:35 PM
To stop dissent, to make us feel "American" and to push forward some of Ascrofts programs, for not questioning the huge military budget, nor get caught up in the concept of continuing this "war on terrorism."
I don't know, Cal, but I see all this stuff on t.v. and people driving cars with flags on them,
the local burger joint now has a 9/11 burger.
Sometimes it just all seems so weird and I feel creepy. Sometimes I think it's mind meld....yes, I know, I need help! LOL
347. CalGal - 2/6/2002 8:49:03 PM
To stop dissent, to make us feel "American" and to push forward some of Ascrofts programs, for not questioning the huge military budget, nor get caught up in the concept of continuing this "war on terrorism."
You really believe that the media has adopted this goal?
348. Absensia - 2/6/2002 8:54:16 PM
Media? Hell no...I was talking about the government. Maybe the media does in a way...they want viewers, etc...Aaron Brown on CNN is always finding places to remind people of what has gone on...and the dudes from Fox are even worse. So they will replay speeches, and it's the speeches and deeds from the gov that get televised and go into papers....it's the latest into, so it is hot.
You know, I'm not sure the media has any propaganda issues. They just want to sell newspaers and airtime. So they televise the good and the bad.
349. CalGal - 2/6/2002 9:01:43 PM
Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about the media.
As for the government, I don't see any propaganda about patriotism. Americans are naturally patriotic, alas. It didn't take the government for the flags to spring up, and "USA! USA! was around back in 1980, long before 9/11.
I do think that any attempt to associate something they don't like with terrorism (a la the subject that started this thread) is certainly propaganda.
350. Absensia - 2/6/2002 9:10:05 PM
I agree. Americans as a group are patriotic but many cherish their right to speak out and often against what the government is doing. It seems it isn't happening much these days, and when people do speak out they are accused of being unpatriotic. I don't think it fits here was propaganda.
Do you think all the hype for the Olympics and the reporting of all the golds, etc., is propaganda? Sort of "We are the best, we are number 1." The government does sponsor the Olympics when they are in the USA and gives money to the Olymic althetes funds, and obviously wants a lot of bang for the buck.
351. CalGal - 2/6/2002 9:16:08 PM
I don't think it's propaganda--unless you view it as media propaganda (wanting to promote the notion that they are pro-America). I don't think the government does much in way of funding the Olympics (at least not the federal government) and even if so, they aren't the ones dictating the coverage.
I thought of another unsuccessful government propaganda effort: public transit. Although it was certainly started by advocates.
352. CalGal - 2/6/2002 9:18:38 PM
It seems it isn't happening much these days, and when people do speak out they are accused of being unpatriotic.
In the first place, I disagree. There is plenty of speaking out, and relatively little accusations of being unpatriotic.
In the second, even if people weren't speaking out, what government propaganda are you linking it to?
353. Snowowl - 2/6/2002 9:19:35 PM
"Naturally" patriotic? Are you saying that American's are born patriots?
Sure most people feel some sort of affinity with the group into which they're born, but the sort of super-nationalistic fervour that many people associate with Americans is a result of the sort of society America is.
I think it's to do with your founding national myth - that people endure great hardship to become Americans so being is an American is something of which to be proud.
354. arkymalarky - 2/6/2002 9:31:06 PM
Can there be government propaganda without a defined campaign?
I wasn't just thinking about government propaganda, but any promotion of any point of view by any group or individual. When does the individual become part of a "campaign" and when does a group cross a line to become engaged in a propaganda campaign? I don't think that simply promoting or opposing a position is enough, but there must be some point at which the organization or level of intent to alter or encourage perspectives.
355. CalGal - 2/6/2002 9:33:57 PM
"Naturally" patriotic? Are you saying that American's are born patriots?
White European Americans, yes. And yeah, I meant that super patriotic fervor stuff.
356. Absensia - 2/6/2002 9:45:31 PM
I've never had the super patriotic fervor stuff and no one I know well does either, except for my dad. He was a super patriot after returning from WWII and then Korea.
357. Absensia - 2/6/2002 9:52:29 PM
Omygod, I just saw this on another board. I looked at the site...it's a, er, ah, patriotic.
"Hello everyone!
Please come and visit my new forum about patriotism
http://worldcrossing.com/WebX?1@82.WNBFcEXgZSH^7628@.ef103a5
The poster calls herself Ms Liberty
358. arkymalarky - 2/6/2002 9:53:04 PM
I was raised in an academic enviornment, but no one I know from that circle could be called a patriot, and most are WASPS. I'm certainly not. I love my country, but that's far from the same thing.
359. CalGal - 2/6/2002 10:06:12 PM
Lord. If you all are trying to deny that white Americans as a group aren't far more fervent about their country than other countries and other non-white Americans, then I don't know what to tell you. Not for a moment did I think it necessary to say that not every single American was like this. I thought that was obvious.
360. arkymalarky - 2/6/2002 10:10:15 PM
No, we're trying to say that we don't see it as prevalent, and I specifically was trying to say I don't think it's as prevalent among more educated Americans. I was also focusing on the words "naturally" and "born patriotic." I disagree.
361. CalGal - 2/6/2002 10:24:20 PM
Actually, the only person who said "born patriotic" was you.
But then, you might just want to focus on context. Abs suggested that there was a government propaganda campaign to make Americans all fervently patriotic, that this was the cause of all the flagwaving. I said no, Americans are "naturally" patriotic--ie, as opposed to convinced by government propaganda.
I can't believe anyone could seriously assert otherwise, but if you wish to try, by all means demonstrate how the government propaganda has fooled all those Americans into thinking their country is the greatest.
362. Snowowl - 2/6/2002 10:59:04 PM
Well, they're not "naturally" any more patriotic than citizens of any other nation. But somewhere along the line it appears that a large number of them do become super-patriots.
Do kids still recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school every day or is that just something I've seen on TV? That hand on heart stuff is surely to engender feelings of intense loyalty to the country, which may translate into feelings that the country is the greatest.
363. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 12:14:18 AM
I surrender.
The MW definition is fine.
But then NBC News is propaganda. Because they certainly disseminate information and they certainly do it to help either an institution (themselves, making a profit) or people (by informing the public with objective reporting).
Advertising also fits.
Read that definition closely.
364. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 12:34:15 AM
Now that I think about it, under the MW definition, the Wilson example is also propaganda. He spread ideas and information to help his cause -- the League of Nations.
365. concerned - 2/7/2002 1:30:48 AM
Environmental Incompetence and Green Propaganda
366. concerned - 2/7/2002 1:35:50 AM
Re. 319 -
Of course, this comes from somebody who thinks Robert Fisk is a serious journalist, so take Marj's more febrile comments here with a few helpings of sodium chloride.
367. mgleason - 2/7/2002 8:06:50 AM
But then NBC News is propaganda. Because they certainly disseminate information and they certainly do it to help either an institution (themselves, making a profit) or people (by informing the public with objective reporting).
NBC news is in the business of turning a profit by means of the dissemination of information. Although that information may at times cross the line to propaganda (when they tout a specific government line, for example), they do not generally seek to influence behavior other than to create a preference for their brand of the news via self-promotion. The information stream is much too incoherent to be considered propaganda as a whole - there is no central unifying theme - and any 'help' received by the public is purely incidental. What suits are fond of referring to as 'synergy' - the cross-pollination that occurs when puff pieces on Disney are treated as news, for example - is more troubling because that's advertising disguised as news, and closer to real propaganda.
368. RustlerPike - 2/7/2002 8:29:18 AM
Feminist propaganda is the most insidious of later 20th century propaganda outputs. One of my favorite examples is Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman which totally rewrites history and turns the Wild West into PC heaven, where the main male character is this harmless long-haired hunk and a woman doctor runs the show. How many women doctors were there in the West?
Of course - there are literally thousands of TV movies in which the male is a murderer, rapist or child abuser/molester. For every thousand of those, there is about one where the woman does any of these things. I'm talking about realistic drama type movies. There seems to be absolutely zilch on common female crimes perpetrated through mental and emotional manipulation of children, husbands, etc., although these can be just as cruel as the more overt male-type crimes.
369. mgleason - 2/7/2002 8:33:27 AM
Watch more soap operas and you'll sing a different tune.
370. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 8:48:37 AM
Cal, you need to read more carefully and determine who's saying what, including you. I used the full context of your #355--your excerpt from Snow's post and your response. If that wasn't what you meant to say then you need to make a better effort to elaborate.
WRT to news, imo where it runs the risk of crossing over into propaganda is at the point its owners have an agenda. That's all too common with local newspapers these days, going way beyond their legitimate editorials into news headlines and what stories they emphasize or neglect.
371. judithathome - 2/7/2002 8:50:46 AM
There is plenty of speaking out, and relatively little accusations of being unpatriotic.
GWB: "You're either with us or against us." Are you saying he was only referring to foreigners with that remark?
And of course other nations are patriotic...ever heard of Germany?
372. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 9:01:52 AM
Not that that's anything new wrt newspapers, btw.
373. RustlerPike - 2/7/2002 10:21:14 AM
Watch more soap operas and you'll sing a different tune.
I know, but only wimmin watch those so it's OK to expose the secrets there.
374. judithathome - 2/7/2002 10:26:47 AM
but only wimmin watch those
You are so naive.
375. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 5:15:58 PM
Isn't he though? Bob and his best friend could not stop talking about General Hospital and Luke and Laura when I first got to know them.
376. Julius Caesar - 2/7/2002 5:19:14 PM
I think natural patriotism flourishes in any nation that provides so well for its citizens, and, on occasions, kicks hell out of Nazis and Commies to boot. It is really unnecessary to gin up patriotism, though ginned up patriotism is often good for sales.
It is akin to using sex to sell beer. Good idea, but the fact of the sex and beer advertising does not "create" desire for sex and beer. That desire, like American patriotism, is much more central and natural.
377. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 5:25:13 PM
Well, there's love and pride in one's country and the patriotic feeling that goes with it, and there's super-duper industrial-strength patriotism which we sometimes seem to be brimming with, especially now.
BTW, JC, how many American flags are you sporting on your car? (Really. I'm not trying to be funny.)
378. judithathome - 2/7/2002 5:27:57 PM
Julie baby, ALL nations have a certain amount of patriotism...go to Germany today and they sound just like Americans...nothing is better than German-made; no place is more beautiful than Germany; other places in Europe are inferior to Germany. Same with Greece; same with France; same with Ireland. Et cetera...
379. Julius Caesar - 2/7/2002 5:32:03 PM
Caesar has one on his car, which was bought from a Brit, so it has the Union Jack on there as well. Caesar also has a big American flag on his portico.
Super-duper industrial strength patriotism is good, healthy stuff. It is not the last refuge of a scoundrel. That's just something a smartie-pants self-hating fru-fru says when he's not working on crossword puzzle.
And patriotism has international collaborative virtues. That's why during the Super Bowl, we let an English man (at the beginning) a bunch of Irishman (in the middle) pour on our industrial strength patriotism.
380. Julius Caesar - 2/7/2002 5:37:52 PM
juditha
I'm happy for them. I think you should be patriotic about your country it is a good country.
Adios.
381. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 5:39:52 PM
mgleason--
Under the MW definition cited in msg 3 and accepted by Moties everywhere, NBC News is propaganda.
NBC disseminates information that helps either an institution (themselves) or a person (John Q Public). This seems inescapable to me.
How does NBC News not fall under definition 2 of msg 3:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
If they are not spreading information to help someone or something, why are they doing it?
382. judithathome - 2/7/2002 5:39:53 PM
I am patriotic about my country; I tear up on all the right occasions and even have a little flag above my mailbox.
383. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2002 5:42:57 PM
I recently had a guest from "up north," and she said that the evidence of patriotism is currently more in vogue up there (Mass. of all places) than "down south." Where I live it hasn't been that much more than the norm.
However, I don't watch a lot of TV and was taken aback at the Super Bowl because it was one of my first exposures to what has apparently become commonplace.
384. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 5:43:08 PM
"An" is singular. What particular "institution, cause or person" is NBC news trying to help or harm? John Q. Public seems a bit broad.
385. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 5:44:49 PM
Also "information that helps" indicates that the particular information disseminated is helpful to an institution or person.
386. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 5:47:22 PM
It's been much more here, Indy. To take flags as one indication, almost every car I meet on my commute had at least one flag for a while, and I still meet quite a few. There have been lots more flags around in yards, etc, than ever before. They're all over school now, too.
387. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 5:52:12 PM
A capitalist would say NBC is trying to help themselves. They wish to make a profit by delivering an objective stream of news.
A democrat would say NBC is trying to help The Public, an institution. Or even the cause of democracy.
I repeat my question: If they are not trying to help anyone or anything, what are they doing?
388. mgleason - 2/7/2002 5:56:48 PM
AytchMan,
You are being too literal. With the exception of self-promoting puffery, the information disseminated by NBC news is not about the institution, nor is the nature of the information itself designed to perpetuate the institution. A very diverse pool of information with no unifying thread is spread to make a buck; in that sense, yes, it is helping itself, but not in the way the Catholic League (an anti-defamation group), for example helps the Catholic Church.
In the same manner, the public may be helped by the information it obtains, but that is not the goal. Think of it as collateral aid (or damage, in some cases).
389. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 6:01:08 PM
Exactly.
390. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:05:52 PM
...being too literal...
Guilty as charged.
We all know objective news is not propaganda. But if you accept the MW definition and then don't take it literally, you're right back at the beginning of the thread where everyone defined, say, advocacy as what he supports and propaganda as what the other guy is doing.
It's a definition, ferGodsake; if you can't take it literally, what use is it?
391. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:08:18 PM
Look, no harm, no foul; it's been an interesting discussion.
But I have to pass on a subject that is defined differently by each participant. What's the point?
392. CalGal - 2/7/2002 6:14:31 PM
Aytch,
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Where does NBC spread a particular idea or fact to further or harm their cause?
393. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 6:15:41 PM
Hahaha. I was thinking that it would have been easier if the dictionary stated that propaganda was used to influence others in a way that...continue with rest of MW definition. You can't take any definition of a concept such as propaganda too far to a literal extreme or there's nothing to discuss. Everything seems to fit under it.
394. concerned - 2/7/2002 6:16:34 PM
I've got an American flag I bought about a decade ago in an unopened box somewhere in my basement:)
395. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 6:17:06 PM
Actually, my idea probably wouldn't work either for my understanding of propaganda without more qualification.
396. concerned - 2/7/2002 6:17:20 PM
Last week, I bought a book of stamps with the American flag on them. Does that count?
397. mgleason - 2/7/2002 6:17:38 PM
The problem is that the dissemination of news, objective or not, is central to propaganda. In that way, as we discussed upthread, while news and advertising may serve propagandistic interests, they are not necessarily synonymous with propaganda.
398. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 6:18:36 PM
My two posts were directed at H, btw.
399. judithathome - 2/7/2002 6:20:14 PM
Concerned:
Yes, both those count. You are a patriot!
400. mgleason - 2/7/2002 6:21:56 PM
But I have to pass on a subject that is defined differently by each participant. What's the point?
Just substitute fanatical or hot or beautiful or boring for propaganda, and you'll see that it's no different than any other topic. I dare you to come up with a definitive meaning for any of those words.
401. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:25:41 PM
cal--
They don't have a cause. They spread info to help an institution, either themselves or the public depending on one's view.
402. Jonesatlaw - 2/7/2002 6:30:19 PM
Americans are rather patriotic, but I think that it is a bit different than the neo-political nationalism or cultural identity that may be more prevalent elsewhere.
Americans tend to be patriotic about the American ideology (or mythos if you are more skeptical) than about our government, or a sense of shared cultural identity. We really tend to embrace being hyphenated Americans, whether its racial, religious or national ancestry that precedes the hyphen. We are all in love with the "land of the free, home of the brave" stuff; the opportunity for all stuff of Horatio Alger, or the frontier mythos.
An example that springs to mind is that in every pow-wow I've ever been to, the American Flag is presented at the begining, with all the warriors entering to great respect and solemnity. The respect is for the warriors too, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a group of people more skeptical of our government and aware of our national shortcommings, and yet simultaneously they're as patriotic as can be.
403. concerned - 2/7/2002 6:30:47 PM
One definition (with xtra definitive meanings thrown in gratis) coming right up:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
404. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:31:15 PM
Is this propaganda or just Norm being cranky?
"Norman Mailer says America too patriotic
LONDON (Reuters) - Influential American novelist and journalist Norman Mailer has criticised the "patriotic fever" gripping the United States following the September 11 attacks.
"What happened on September 11 was horrific, but this patriotic fever can go too far," Britain's Daily Telegraph quoted Mailer, 79, as saying on Wednesday.
"America has an almost obscene infatuation with itself. Has there ever been a big powerful country that is as patriotic as America?" Mailer asked in an interview.
"You'd really think we were some poor little republic, and that if one person lost his religion for one hour, the whole thing would crumble. America is the real religion in this country."
Mailer, renowned for his macho image and stabbing the second of his six wives 40 years ago, said America's right wing had benefited from the attacks on September 11.
"The right wing benefited so much from September 11 that, if I were still a conspiratorialist, I would believe they'd done it," he said.
Mailer is widely recognised as pioneering the genre known as New Journalism, where writers such as Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson and Joan Didion blurred the distinction between fact and fiction and peppered prose with their own opinions.
Mailer's best known works include "The Executioner's Song" and "The Armies of the Night". "
405. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 6:31:41 PM
Let's see if we can't figure this out. For the moment disregard all of the definitions offered in this thread and think about your state of mind before this conversation started up.
Before this thread was started how did you feel about the words Advocacy and Propaganda?
a) Advocacy and Propaganda were totally interchangeable in my mind.
b) Advocacy had a neutral or better connotation while Propaganda had a neutral or worse connotation.
c) Advocacy had a neutral or worse connotation while Propaganda had a neutral or better connotation.
d) Advocacy and Propaganda weren't interchangeable concepts, but it had nothing to do with desirability.
406. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:32:35 PM
Concerned, that definition has been posted by several people starting back at post # 3.
407. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:33:51 PM
mgleason 400--
You're half-right. I also doubt that I could define "hot" to everybody's eternal satisfaction.
However, I think that, for the purposes of a particular discussion of weather patterns or some such, we could all accept a definition of 95 degrees or above as "hot".
408. mgleason - 2/7/2002 6:34:17 PM
d).
409. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:35:00 PM
Look, I'm doing more harm than good here. Let's drop it and you all can move on.
410. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:35:09 PM
a).
411. concerned - 2/7/2002 6:35:30 PM
Advocacy is a modus operandus of some people of which propaganda is a part in an attempt to achieve certain goals.
412. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:37:07 PM
H, no. I know you are frustrated, but I do think it will come together.
413. Jonesatlaw - 2/7/2002 6:37:29 PM
Abs- since I'm professionally an "advocate" I'm firmly in the B camp. If the prosecutor referred to my "advocacy" I wouldn't give it a second thought, but if s/he labled my arguement "propaganda" there'd be suitcoats shed and sleeves rolled up in the hallways of the courthouse.
414. judithathome - 2/7/2002 6:37:49 PM
we could all accept a definition of 95 degrees or above as "hot".
Not in Texas...it isn't concidered hot til it's over 100°.
415. mgleason - 2/7/2002 6:38:10 PM
AytchMan,
However, I think that, for the purposes of a particular discussion of weather patterns or some such, we could all accept a definition of 95 degrees or above as "hot".
Then perhaps propaganda, as has been suggested, exists on a continuum as well, with a news outlet that purports to be objective on one end and a government organ on the other.
416. concerned - 2/7/2002 6:38:26 PM
411 defines more or less what I think of the relationship of the two words. Propaganda seems to clearly have the worse connotation to me.
417. judithathome - 2/7/2002 6:38:39 PM
Ooops..talk about not reading...I didn't even see "or above"!
418. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 6:39:51 PM
Stick with us Aytch, I've got a plan.
419. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:42:07 PM
I know, Jones. I am in your profession too, and would resent being accused of propagandizing in such contex where "propaganda" is considered a negative term.
I don't think representing a client falls into the definition of propanda. But looking at a broader context.....do you think someone who is a self professed advocate for the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms, is an advocate or propagandizer.
420. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:45:46 PM
mg415--
Excellent. But what differentiates the two? Is not propaganda sometimes objective as well as factual? Or not?
421. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 6:46:01 PM
Absentia,
I'm confused. If the words are interchangeable what's the difference between being called an advocate or a propagandist?
422. mgleason - 2/7/2002 6:46:41 PM
Going back to the question of NBC, you'd be considered a pitiful propagandist if it were impossible to discern what the heck you were trying to push, and 'Watch me! I'm the best!' doesn't count.
423. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 6:47:21 PM
Judith, Aytch, please weigh in on the question in Message # 405
I'm a b, btw.
424. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 6:48:08 PM
There's an enormous difference between being an advocate and being a propagandist. But it's one that the likes of CalGal would choose to ignore.
To her and her ilk a propgandist is anyone who advocates a Left position. Thos who convey"the Truth" are consequently on the right.
425. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:48:20 PM
msno--
B for your poll.
426. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 6:50:35 PM
Cellar,
Please vote for yourself. I'm sure Cal will let us know what she thinks.
427. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:51:59 PM
Ms. No, To me, in my mind, the two words are interchangeable. I think you asked what was in our minds. However, not everyone in the world feels that way and to some, propaganda is a negative term...like the communists, or nazis. So, if I was representing a client, and the the prosecuted sarcastically termed my closing argument as "propaganda" I believe the jury, in that contex, would see "propaganda" as a bad thing.
I don't think that is in conflict with how I answered, unless I missed how you formed the question.
I also thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss propaganda, what it is, what it isn't, etc. So I think the discussion is right on.
428. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 6:52:44 PM
cellar--
cal has differentiated between propaganda and advocacy several times upthread.
429. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 6:52:45 PM
Sarah Brady is a gun control advocate. She makes public appearances in his called on talk shows in order to explain her position on the subject. She would be a propagandist if she srewed rigged advertising and declined to answer pointed questions about her position. This is not the case.
Ann Coulter is an advocate for the Right. Currently she's pushing the Death penalty for all Liberals. She doesn't invite questions, but they can be asked --of you've got the guts. She is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife -- a TRUE Propagandistin that he supplies the wherewithall for Coulter and a host of others to sprew the party line.
430. judithathome - 2/7/2002 6:53:33 PM
I vote B..
431. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 6:53:50 PM
"cal has differentiated between propaganda and advocacy several times upthread."
Unconvincingly, IMHO.
432. Jonesatlaw - 2/7/2002 6:54:18 PM
I am convinced of the correctness of MsNo's definition of advocacy
Advocacy declares itself and actively lobbies for a particular outcome.
Propaganda is where the intent or interests of the speaker are either hidden or disavowed, and the speach attempts to persuade the audience in accord with those intents or interests, especially by exploiting any known weaknesses in the audience or by appealing its emotions.
Charleton Heston and Ralph Nader are
433. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 6:55:39 PM
b) of course.
But the fact such a question is being asked only serves to show the effect of Conservabot propaganda over the last 8-10 years.
434. mgleason - 2/7/2002 6:56:40 PM
Aytch,
My first inclination is that propaganda may be factual, but not objective. Bias is always present, of course, but one moves away from propaganda to the extent that one tries to mitigate it.
I'll think on it some more. (Don't stop discussing this, btw. It's always fun to try to zero in on something even (especially) if it is elusive by definition.)
435. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 6:57:10 PM
Abs,
Okay, I see, to you they're the same but you recognize that it's not uncommon for others to see a difference between the two. Is it fair to say that you would not refer to yourself as a propagandist but rather as an advocate because of this tendancy in others to connote the words differently?
436. Absensia - 2/7/2002 6:57:13 PM
I think it's a matter of terminology and to whom you are talking. You say, "I'm sending you some propaganda by mail about anti gun control" or,
"I am an advocate for anti gun control and will you mail some information to you."
You asked what's in our mind...not how we perceive how people relate to the two terms.
437. Absensia - 2/7/2002 7:00:39 PM
Ms. No, it depends on the situation, and where I am. In court I would certainly be an advocate, in other situations, especially with those well educated and intellectual I would have no problem saying I am a propagandist for x or y. I don't believe propaganda is necessarily wrong, a lie, or only used for bad things.
438. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:02:20 PM
Re. 433 -
Puhleeze, cllrdr. Must the Left blame the right for every perceived internal intellectual discrepancy among its own? After all, the concept of 'PC' is copyrighted by Leftism, Socialism & Anarchy, International.
439. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 7:03:26 PM
jones and msno 432--
That's a distinction that may serve us well: open versus hidden agenda.
Objective news is open and is readily distinguished from propaganda (by us for definitional purposes, not always in RL).
Advertising is semi-open. Thus, it tends to be associated with P quite readily.
Please allow P for propaganda. I'm always typing propagnada.
440. mgleason - 2/7/2002 7:04:08 PM
But you know, the line between advocacy and propaganda is not so clear-cut. Gun control advocates and Second-Amendment advocates may use the same statistics in the furtherance of their own goals. In this case, they're using objective facts (in so far as the statistics may be trusted), but what facts they choose to stress and the spin they put upon those facts may be considered propaganda for their respective causes.
441. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 7:06:08 PM
Yes, Absensia, I asked how you saw it, but your comments afterward lead me to seek clarification. I'm not asking you to define the words for anyone else. It wasn't meant to be a trick question or anything.
442. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:07:23 PM
I'll go d) & b). But there's more to it than that.
443. Snowowl - 2/7/2002 7:07:43 PM
But that rather begs the question of the objectivity of "news". It's obvious that what any news source chooses to broadcast is just that, a choice. The dissemination of news is a way of promoting a particular view of the world.
444. Snowowl - 2/7/2002 7:08:45 PM
Actually, my post ties in with Maria's 440.
445. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 7:09:44 PM
I say d), but advocates can use propaganda and in that case they could be b) or c), depending.
I can't find a way to put a) in there.
446. Absensia - 2/7/2002 7:10:29 PM
I'm with aytch...let's use P and A.
Maria, can anyone tell when the situation shifts from A to P.
Today I walked into my little corner store...there was a little sign on the door...no
indication who was promoting it...the sign was a bride and groom...and it said, "don't drink if you are pregnant."
No indication of who was an advocate....so is this "o drinking if you are pregnant" A or P?
447. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 7:11:21 PM
mg 440--
...but what facts they choose to stress and the spin they put upon those facts may be considered propaganda for their respective causes..
I disagree (why break a streak?).
To me, advocacy allows what may be called "honorable spin", that is, presenting selected information and ideas as long as they're factual (or identified as opinions).
Deliberate distortions qualify as P.
448. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:11:46 PM
Sounds like advocacy of common sense to me:)
449. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 7:12:02 PM
concerned,
For the purposes of the question that's all there is too it. It's a baby-step, I'm aware, but I think it's a necessary one.
Okay, I've got a 45 minute commute and then I'll check back in.
450. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:12:13 PM
448 was re 446 btw
451. Absensia - 2/7/2002 7:12:17 PM
Ms No...sorry if I sounded defensive, I'm not! But, I may be moving to b.
452. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 7:13:30 PM
mg 434--
You may be right about that objective part. I can't think of an example of objective P.
453. mgleason - 2/7/2002 7:13:42 PM
I'm inclined to think it crosses the line, Abs. While it is inadvisable to drink to excess when pregnant, I am not aware that an occasional drink will cause harm. P blurs or omits facts that don't further the cause, IMO.
454. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:14:25 PM
Re. 449 -
Ok. My comment was more of a CYA thing anyway in case someone takes tries to accuse me of being a b & d kinda guy.
455. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 7:14:45 PM
Arky,
Don't work at it so hard. The question is shallow. I don't need a definition or the way in which the words are related to one another, just whether you find them interchangeable or not and if not then if there is a better or worse connotation to either word.
456. Absensia - 2/7/2002 7:15:19 PM
Concerned...no...one sees signs and sayings like that, near stores that sell beer and wine and sometimes in bars. No one takes credit for this...seems then to fit the definition of propaganda, even though it's a good thing, IMO.
457. mgleason - 2/7/2002 7:15:25 PM
Aytch,
See, I don't believe in 'honorable spin.'
458. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:15:27 PM
subtract 'takes' from my last....
459. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 7:16:33 PM
concerned,
You spell your name in all lowercase. Of course you're not a D. ;->
really going now, promise!
460. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:18:07 PM
No one takes credit for this...
Of course they do. It's easy to find out who printed such a sign and why exactly they did it, if one cares to try.
461. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:18:39 PM
I'm talking about what are clearly common sense issues here.
462. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 7:18:56 PM
Ms No,
Sorry. I was being silly. I'll behave now.
463. Absensia - 2/7/2002 7:20:15 PM
Maria...I agree...there is no "fine" line, but rather some blurring at some point and some distortion. At the Red Robin, it's a franchise in many states...hamburgers, bar, two woment came in, one was pregnant and ordered a margarita...both the male in the bar, and the waitress for the main room began to loudly chastize her saying she didn't care for her baby, they wouldn't server her..etc...of course, after publicity...she got apologies.
464. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 7:21:17 PM
snow 443--
True enough but, for present purposes, I think we can assume an honorable intent to "get it right". I think even mistakes don't qualify as P as long as they're unintentional.
But save that thought. I'd like to get into Media Bias: The Unintentional, Unavoidable Evil that Ate Our Society later.
465. arkymalarky - 2/7/2002 7:23:41 PM
I guess I should have added that my choice is d).
466. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:23:54 PM
I think its much more difficult (I won't say 'impossible') to classify something which is advocated as propaganda if there is no dissenting opinion or faction.
468. Snowowl - 2/7/2002 7:25:18 PM
Sorry about the phantom post. I don't know what happened there.
469. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 7:26:11 PM
mg 457--
Interesting. Do you consider it dishonorable to present only your viewpoint (arguments and facts, etc.) when advocating something?
I'm not criticizing. I don't know that I've ever encountered the idea before.
470. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:26:30 PM
Of course, one could be flat out provably wrong about something, but I don't know if I would call such statements by themselves, not tied to other matters, propaganda.
471. AytchMan - 2/7/2002 7:28:48 PM
I am now being yanked bodily from the...
472. Snowowl - 2/7/2002 7:30:05 PM
I wonder whether advocacy is more commonly associated with individuals, while propaganda is something more systemic.
473. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:32:01 PM
Not really. After all, 'advocacy groups' are a well established fixture in most modern societies.
474. mgleason - 2/7/2002 7:32:42 PM
Aytch,
I try to present an overview of prevailing opinions and facts, then state my opinion and the reasons why. It's not so much that I consider it dishonorable to do otherwise, but I do hate to be caught flat-footed by an inconvenient fact. To me, spin is spin; I'd rather trust people to make up their own minds.
475. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:35:12 PM
I probably should have posted 'not necessarily', instead of 'not really' in my last. Wrong spin?
476. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 7:50:54 PM
"Puhleeze, cllrdr. Must the Left blame the right for every perceived internal intellectual discrepancy among its own? After all, the concept of 'PC' is copyrighted by Leftism, Socialism & Anarchy, International."
"Political Correctness" began its life as a jokeamong Leftists. It was then snatched up by the Right and transformed by one of the most successful PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS of recent memory into a tool by which the Right MAGINALIZES AND SILENCES the Left.
It's about as subtle as a pair of brass knuckles.
477. concerned - 2/7/2002 7:54:05 PM
cllrdr -
How interesting. Please continue to expatiate at length about how vicious propaganda from the evil right lowers the collective IQ's of Lefties.
Meanwhile I'm outta here for now.
478. CalGal - 2/7/2002 8:15:53 PM
I generally agree with mgleason's post, and my answer is d.
Please consider this next a separate issue:
I think that in the world today, many people who we call "advocates" are in fact spreading propaganda. Whether I agree with Cellar's examples or not, I think he is correct about the problem.
This could confuse the issue, and maybe that is where some of the debate does lie. But in fact, I think that the label "advocacy group" was created to take advantage of the positive association of the word advocacy. They used to be called "lobbies" and I don't think anyone disputes that lobbies can (but don't have to) spread propaganda.
479. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 8:18:39 PM
Cellar & concerned,
A little less rancor, please.
480. betty - 2/7/2002 8:25:29 PM
vicious propaganda from the evil right lowers the collective IQ's of Lefties
actually concerned, it has been my expereince that the right has a lot more "media control" than they would ever admit. Of course, where I'm sitting about 90% of the country is on the right...but that doesn't make them feel persecuted, so they talk about "liberal media"--an out right lie...
So anyway, how does the right make the left's IQ get lower...by not publishing the intelligent and critical work produced by the left. by creating the sound bite society. by twisting any and all dissent into a commerical product. this is not the work of the "classic liberal" or the anarchists, (although maybe the Marxists, but socialists are just capitalists who know how to share), this is the work of those who have something to loose.
this won't change your mind about anything, you will probably come back with some snappy pre-thought, and I'll ignore what you write because I've seen your slogan on the evening news already and I can't waste time trying to save every lost soul...but you had better hope that those hippies were wrong and Jesus ain't a liberal.
481. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 8:29:20 PM
Okay, we've got 10 answers so far.
A - 1 (maybe moving to B)
B -6
C - 0
D - 3
I'm off again, but want to point out something that I think is important: The method of promotion is separate from the issue promoted. IOW, you can Advocate a "bad" issue as well as spread Propaganda for a "good" issue.
The object of the promotion is immaterial in defining the actions of the words themselves.
482. betty - 2/7/2002 8:31:14 PM
my gut reaction is b, although i can see myself moving to a
483. betty - 2/7/2002 8:31:19 PM
my gut reaction is b, although i can see myself moving to a
484. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 8:32:54 PM
Betty,
When you get a chance will you weigh in on the question in Message # 405, please?
485. Ms. No - 2/7/2002 8:33:17 PM
doh!
thanks betty!
486. CalGal - 2/7/2002 8:44:13 PM
If b is the correct definition, this means there can be no agreement on what constitutes propaganda and what constitutes advocacy. It will all depend on whether or not you approve of the goal.
I wonder which came first? Did some clever lobbyist start the assocation? "I'm an advocate, you're a foul propagandists". or did lobbyists exploit the association?
Certainly it seems to me that the desire to load the words with value has been due to a successful propaganda campaign.
487. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 8:48:31 PM
And so we are back in Cloud Cukooland once again -- where words mean what CalGal wants them to mean. Nothing more. Nothing less.
488. CalGal - 2/7/2002 8:51:47 PM
Um, I'm the one using the dictionary. I still haven't figured out how those of you who are using the dictionary justify the positive and negative connotations.
489. betty - 2/7/2002 8:53:49 PM
CalGal,
there is such a thing as "living language"...it's the idea that a word means what the culture in general accepts it to mean...which may have NOTHING to do with the dictionary definition.
490. Cellar Door - 2/7/2002 8:59:30 PM
To simply advocate a position -- say opposing gun control -- is a world apart from propagandizing for it.
There is a world of difference from the average citizen who may feel that gun control laws are ineffective or too restrictive or any number of other things that can be reasonably argued in conversation or debate, and the propaganda efforts of the NRA -- in which gun controlis likened to an attack on the very foundations of American society and its constitution.
491. CalGal - 2/7/2002 9:06:54 PM
Betty,
I agree, actually. But if the meanings are shifting, then the only possible resolution is that advocacy and propaganda have the same meaning, but different connotations. Thus for purposes of this discussion, we can make them synonomous. Advocacy is, in fact, propaganda--it's just that some people like its goals.
To simply advocate a position -- say opposing gun control -- is a world apart from propagandizing for it.
Uh. Yeah.
492. Absensia - 2/7/2002 10:20:04 PM
Cal,
I agree with you. And, if we are making the terms synonomous, shouldn't more people vote for A on the quiz.
493. amax - 2/7/2002 10:35:58 PM
I'd say the distinction between and advocate and a propogandist is pretty simple: If you agree with me, you're an advocate. If you disagree with me, you're a propagandist.
494. amax - 2/7/2002 10:41:43 PM
I vote b)
495. RustlerPike - 2/7/2002 11:02:27 PM
Propaganda is like what Goebbels and the Soviets did.
Advocacy is what lobbies in Congress do.
Thank you.
496. joezan - 2/7/2002 11:18:40 PM
b
497. Jonesatlaw - 2/7/2002 11:31:27 PM
I propose a not-so-hypothetical that should be politically neutral enough for us to get at the core issue without distractions.
George Washington is reported to have gotted a new hatchet(axe) from his father as a gift. His father had planted some cherry trees (or a cherry tree, pick your favorite version) not long before. George, being a young boy, not yet father of our country and idol of millions, naturally employed his new hatchet(axe) upon one of the cherry trees. George's father confronts him after discovering the results of George's handiwork. George responds, "I cannot tell a lie, it was I who cut down your cherry tree."
George's father, moved by the child's honesty decides not to give George the whuppin' he had comming.
The story first appears in a book by Parson Weems. He wrote it long after Washington was dead, and as far as historians can tell, without any evidence from witnesses or any other contemporary historical source. For this reason, most believe that Weems knew the story was untrue, but fabricated it because he believed it illustrated Washington's sterling character. The story was presented as historical fact.
For the sake of the argument, let us assume the following also to be true:
498. Jonesatlaw - 2/7/2002 11:31:42 PM
I say that Parson Weem's fable is propaganda. This is despite the fact that I think the purpose was noble, the ultimate points to the communication are true (Washington's sterling character, the value of children being honest with their parents, even at times when the child has done wrong) and that a person persuaded by the propaganda is not persuaded into thinking or acting against their best interests.
I would place it in the category of propaganda because the communication itself is a knowing falsehood, and that the speaker hides his interests or intent, which was to promote conventional contemporary Christian morality.
What does the assembled wisdom think-
advocacy, propaganda or something else?
499. mgleason - 2/8/2002 7:09:29 AM
Hagiography.
500. RustlerPike - 2/8/2002 8:12:11 AM
Cherriography.
501. rubberducky - 2/8/2002 9:37:46 AM
Re: Message # 405, Ms. No:
context is everything, but i think (B) is my answer.
i see advocacy as a positive (i.e. the person in question's viewpoint) and propaganda as something not so positive (i.e. the other person's viewpoint).
(btw, not sure if this has been said as i haven't yet caught up)
502. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 10:31:36 AM
"I'd say the distinction between and advocate and a propogandist is pretty simple: If you agree with me, you're an advocate. If you disagree with me, you're a propagandist."
Bullshit!
Drug addiction is a horrendous societal problem, but Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" Propaganda campaign was not only ridiculous it has served as an active impediment to dealing with the addition problem.
If CalGal is to be believed, Nancy Reagan and I are on the same side in our positions of advocacy and every word we speak in this regard is propaganda.
As is patently obvious, nothing could be further from the truth
503. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 10:38:31 AM
Eric Alterman on Propaganda in action.
504. CalGal - 2/8/2002 10:47:48 AM
Cellar,
No, I think that advocacy and propaganda are different. But most people are convinced that they are the same thing, depending only on their approval of the goals.
505. judithathome - 2/8/2002 10:54:40 AM
Then why didn't more people vote for D in MsNo's question?
506. CalGal - 2/8/2002 11:54:39 AM
But most people are convinced that they are the same thing, depending only on their approval of the goals.
I'm not sure how you think that this statement leads to D, which says they are different, but value neutral.
507. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 12:00:37 PM
Approval of the goals is beside the point. Propaganda is a TECHNIQUE. It requires a CAMPAIGN.It is not a single statement, or even a simple set of statemnets. It MAKES ASSERTIONS AS FACT. It does no invite analysis of any kind.
Take for example the campaign that's been wagewd claiming the news media to be dominated by Liberals. This is demonstrably false, yet the propaganda campaign continues uabated.
508. mgleason - 2/8/2002 12:21:36 PM
The following is most interesting and gives a good overview of the development of propaganda in the age of mass media.
Of Fraud and Force Fast Woven: Domestic Propaganda During the First World War:
The absence of public unity was a primary concern when America entered the war on April 6, 1917. In Washington, unwavering public support was considered to be crucial to the entire wartime effort. On April 13, 1917, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Under the leadership of a muckraking journalist named George Creel, the CPI recruited heavily from business, media, academia, and the art world. The CPI blended advertising techniques with a sophisticated understanding of human psychology, and its efforts represent the first time that a modern government disseminated propaganda on such a large scale. It is fascinating that this phenomenon, often linked with totalitarian regimes, emerged in a democratic state.
. .. . . . .
Censorship was only one element of the CPI's efforts. With all the sophistication of a modern advertising agency, the CPI examined the different ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with pro-war material. The CPI's domestic division was composed of 19 sub-divisions, and each focused on a particular type of propaganda. A comprehensive survey is beyond the scope of this paper, but the use of newspapers, academics, artists, and filmmakers will be discussed.
(Emphasis added.)
509. mgleason - 2/8/2002 12:25:18 PM
For Aytch, from the linked article:
Defining Propaganda
The word "propaganda" has already been used several times, and the reader may wonder how this term is being used. The definition of propaganda has been widely debated, but there is little agreement about what it means. Some argue that all persuasive communication is propagandistic, while others suggest that only dishonest messages can be considered propaganda. Political activists of all stripes claim that they speak the truth while their opponents preach propaganda. In order to accommodate the breadth of the CPI's activities, this discussion relies on Harold Lasswell's broad interpretation of the term. "Not bombs nor bread," wrote Lasswell, "but words, pictures, songs, parades, and many similar devices are the typical means of making propaganda." According to Lasswell, "propaganda relies on symbols to attain its end: the manipulation of collective attitudes."
Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to "do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to overt, logical arguments. During the war, the CPI accomplished this by making calculated emotional appeals, by demonizing Germany, by linking the war to the goals of various social groups, and, when necessary, by lying outright.
510. mgleason - 2/8/2002 12:33:29 PM
After the article on the CPI, there are a number of passages from different groups seeking to disseminate their own message. Advocacy or propaganda? You be the judge.
511. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2002 12:44:31 PM
I would like to think of advocacy and propaganda as two points on a continuum representing the balance between facts and ideology. In advocacy, the facts are introduced in an honest manner but the interpretation of them is based on ideology (which is also visible). In propaganda the facts are subjugated to ideology. They can be reduced to a sub-set or get willfully distorted in order to fit the ideological agenda (which is not always visible).
512. concerned - 2/8/2002 12:44:47 PM
actually concerned, it has been my expereince that the right has a lot more "media control" than they would ever admit. Of course, where I'm sitting about 90% of the country is on the right...but that doesn't make them feel persecuted, so they talk about "liberal media"--an out right lie...
From where I sit, as a political centrist, I see the 'right' and 'left' camps of being of at least comparable size, but not necessarily equal influence in the various spheres of life.
So anyway, how does the right make the left's IQ get lower...by not publishing the intelligent and critical work produced by the left. by creating the sound bite society. by twisting any and all dissent into a commerical product. this is not the work of the "classic liberal" or the anarchists, (although maybe the Marxists, but socialists are just capitalists who know how to share), this is the work of those who have something to loose.
Sorry. CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are not, repeat, not, mouthpieces for the right wing. Their reportage definitely tends toward the Left. If you're left of 90% of the world, admittedly, you probably don't discern that, but that doesn't make it any less so.
A good example of what I'm talking about is an AP piece from this week about the failure of GWB's budget plan to pass in the Senate. Without even mentioning that it was a Daschole mugging of a bipartisan economic stimulus plan which had already passed the House of Representatives, the title of the article implied that what occurred was that Republicans voted down a Democrat plan. This is classic Lefty media bias, Siamese twin to the damned lie, and alive and well in the American media.
513. concerned - 2/8/2002 12:45:01 PM
this won't change your mind about anything, you will probably come back with some snappy pre-thought, and I'll ignore what you write because I've seen your slogan on the evening news already and I can't waste time trying to save every lost soul...but you had better hope that those hippies were wrong and Jesus ain't a liberal.
If you see 'my slogan' on the evening news, that'd probably be because they appropriated it from me.
514. mgleason - 2/8/2002 12:51:56 PM
From the Britannica:
Propaganda - dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.
Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people's beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. The propagandist has a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these he deliberately selects facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and presents them in ways he thinks will have the most effect. To maximize effect, he may omit pertinent facts or distort them, and he may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people whom he is trying to sway) from everything but his own propaganda.
The components of propaganda
(How the contemporary propagandist employing behavioral theory tends to analyze his problem.)
1. What are the goals of the propaganda? (What changes are to be brought about? In whom? And when?)
2. What are the present and expected conditions in the world social system?
3. What are the present and expected conditions in each of the subsystems of the world social system (such as international regions, nations, lesser territories, interest groups)?
4. Who should distribute the propaganda—the propagandist or his agents?
5. What symbols should be used?
6. What media should be used?
7. Which reactors should the propaganda be aimed at?
8. How can the effects of the propaganda be measured?
9. By what countermeasures can opponents neutralize orsuppress the propaganda?
10. How can such countermeasures be measured and dealt with?
515. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 1:54:14 PM
JonesAtLaw, Yes!!!!
Thank you for the stellar example of when something is propaganda even if you like its aim.
Maria,
Thanks for the CPI excerpt and the Britannica entry! Exactly what I'm trying to get at.
516. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 1:57:24 PM
As of right now there are 14 respondants to the question in Message # 405
A - 1
B - 10
C - 0
D - 3
Regardless of what MW says, it appears that the vast majority of people do not feel that Advocacy and Propaganda are equivalent, interchangeable words so it's hardly useful for us to rely on a definition that implies the words are the same. We need a definition that acknowledges the difference.
Moving on.
Now we're left with a lot of people who feel the words are distinct from one another, but don't agree on what distinquishes them. We need to see if we can reach a consensus on what the difference is.
I'd like for those who answered "D" to explain what they think the difference is between the two words.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the "B" folks agree with what I'm about to say. If you answered "B" and this is NOT why you did so, then please take a moment to explain why you find Advocacy a more desirable idea than Propaganda.
Why I answered B:
I prefer honesty to dishonesty. I see Advocacy as a transparent and therefore more honest means of promoting an agenda than Propaganda which is opaque and relies on misdirection or misinformation to promote its agenda.
517. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 1:58:30 PM
"From where I sit, as a political centrist"
ROTFALMAO!!!!!!!!
518. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 2:02:53 PM
More Intricacies About My Answer 'B'
I am aware that it is quite common to recognize the above noted difference between A and P in the abstract while not being at all able to discern which is which in day to day life because of personal bias. Hence the wackiness of partisan politics that insists that my side Advocates while your side Propagandizes. What this really means is that I think my side tells the truth and your side are a bunch of liars. The difference between the words is clear even if I'm incapable of seeing my own hypocrisy.
519. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 2:05:38 PM
"Sorry. CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are not, repeat, not, mouthpieces for the right wing."
So Allan Keyes's new show on CNBC is an optical illusion?
So George Will on ABC Sunday is an optical illusion?
So Walter Jacobson's relentless whoring for Republican news-speak is an optical (and aural) illusion?
Only in concernedville.
520. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 2:09:07 PM
Cellar & concerned,
Cut it out. Go bash one another's political affiliations somewhere else. If you have factual evidence to offer then do so, but this constant sniping is tedious and off topic.
521. mgleason - 2/8/2002 2:17:31 PM
For me, the difference between A and P is more a matter of intensity and saturation than anything else. They are both children of rhetoric, the ancient art of persuasion, and I don't see either one as inherently good or bad.
In my estimation, P has more force behind it, as well as more potency, because the opposition is either non-existent or much weaker, sometimes because its wielders control the media, or their resources are much greater, or both. Naturally, this means a greater risk for doing wrong.
I see A as having to compete in a market-place of ideas. Saturation is more difficult and troublesome facts more likely to crop up. Either one is capable of both honesty and dishonesty, sometimes at the same time!
522. CalGal - 2/8/2002 2:18:14 PM
Christin,
If you answered "B" and this is NOT why you did so, then please take a moment to explain why you find Advocacy a more desirable idea than Propaganda.
Prostitution is a more desirable idea than pedophilia. That doesn't mean that it's tough to tell the difference between the two.
"Kill" and "murder" are synonomous, even though one is more negative than the other.
If you can't define the difference in value-neutral terms, then the only difference is whether or not you approve of the goals and methods.
Thus far, I haven't seen you define them in any terms other than why you prefer one to the other.
523. CalGal - 2/8/2002 2:20:52 PM
I completely agree with mgleason's 521.
524. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 2:25:33 PM
And I don't. It muddies the waters of serious discourse. It brings to mind the constant whine of "Well that's just your opinion." Or even worse, "I like to hear all sides."
Anyone who says that is plainly interested in one side only.
Need I inform you as to which side that is?
525. betty - 2/8/2002 2:28:14 PM
I'm nominating "The Liberal Media" for one of the all time great propaganda campaigns.
526. CalGal - 2/8/2002 2:32:23 PM
It brings to mind the constant whine of "Well that's just your opinion."
Ha. That's exactly what I think about definition b.
527. mgleason - 2/8/2002 2:39:30 PM
Anyone who says that is plainly interested in one side only.
If it isn't your side, it's wrong, right? Right.
The point is that I'm not interested in 'sides,' and I see a potential for abuse in both types of persuasion. One has more potential for it, for the reasons I've outlined.
528. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 2:48:26 PM
You may not be interested in sides, dear, but sides are certainly interested in you.
Do you dare/i> utter a critical word about Our President who as we all know what put here by God himself?
529. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 2:48:52 PM
toys
530. concerned - 2/8/2002 3:12:36 PM
Cellar & concerned,
Cut it out. Go bash one another's political affiliations somewhere else. If you have factual evidence to offer then do so, but this constant sniping is tedious and off topic.
Can you explain the above post? I haven't posted to cllrdr all day.
531. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 3:26:29 PM
Prostitution is a more desirable idea than pedophilia. That doesn't mean that it's tough to tell the difference between the two.
I don't see how this applies to anything I've said.
"Kill" and "murder" are synonomous, even though one is more negative than the other.
It looks to me as if you think I'm saying the only difference between A and P is that people like A while they dislike P. That isn't what I've said since I haven't finished talking about it yet.
If you can't define the difference in value-neutral terms, then the only difference is whether or not you approve of the goals and methods.
You've been saying this since the first mention that A and P might be different. I understand that you believe all those who answered 'B' only understand the words through the filter of their own personal bias. What I'm attempting to show is that the bias is secondary to the understanding of the difference between the words.
Thus far, I haven't seen you define them in any terms other than why you prefer one to the other.
Perhaps you overlooked that I defined A as transparent and P as opaque, both of which are value-neutral words.
532. Cellar Door - 2/8/2002 3:28:56 PM
CalGal seems to think this thread is called "Words with Negative Connotations."
533. concerned - 2/8/2002 3:30:16 PM
I'll accept Ms. No' apology in advance for her wrongful warning.
534. concerned - 2/8/2002 3:30:58 PM
correction:
I'll accept Ms. No's apology in advance for her wrongful warning.
535. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 3:31:02 PM
Can we agree on the following:
1. A and P are cousins -- similar but definitely not identical -- along the same continuum of persuasion.
2. A has a somewhat positive rep while P's is somewhat negative.
3. A (real, honest-to-god A) involves only the use of factual material and/or open opinion. To the extent that the presenter uses lies and deceit, A slides into P.
Note that there is no assignment of good or bad. Both A and P can be put to good or evil purposes.
536. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 3:37:23 PM
Consider the following example:
Someone stands up in a town meeting and presents some factual statistics against the new WalMart and argues "in my opinion, it will be bad for the town". This is advocacy.
When the presenter adds a bogus "statistic" that WalMart executes 2.9 children in the making of each pair of tube socks, he slides well into P.
All of his actions are on the same side of the issue but he has used both A and P.
537. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 3:38:57 PM
concerned,
No, but you did yesterday and I had no reason to believe that you would not continue to do so today. If you had no intention of engaging with him on that matter further then I appreciate it and aplogize for having reprimanded you after the fact.
538. concerned - 2/8/2002 3:48:36 PM
Re. 537 -
I was a bit tongue in cheek about the apology, but I can see you really want to keep this an on topic thread. I'll be sure to watch the political commentary while posting here.
539. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 3:53:15 PM
Aytch,
#1 - I agree
#2 - I disagree that this is part of the definition of the word
Recognizing that many people have a bias is only a way to point out that there must be a difference somewhere. The bias is NOT the difference. What causes the bias might be, but in and of itself finding one word good and the other bad isn't a definitive difference.
#3 - The A part works okay, but P isn't defined by saying "It's advocacy with lies."
Note that there is no assignment of good or bad.
Perhaps you didn't mean to assign value, but as I read your post it seemed to me that you had.
Both A and P can be put to good or evil purposes.
This I agree with.
540. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 3:54:01 PM
Thank you, concerned. I appreciate it.
541. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 3:57:20 PM
msno--
I wasn't proposing 535 as a definition. Just trying to see where we stood.
(2) should have referred to itself as the popular perception, not that A or P are inherently good or bad.
542. CalGal - 2/8/2002 4:04:33 PM
It looks to me as if you think I'm saying the only difference between A and P is that people like A while they dislike P.
That was exactly what it looked like you were saying.
"Transparent" and "opaque" were, in context, used as synonyms for honesty and deviousness. That's not neutral.
543. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:07:34 PM
msno--
#3 - The A part works okay, but P isn't defined by saying "It's advocacy with lies."
Again, I wasn't proposing that as the definition but, if we add a couple of fellow-travelers like "omission" and "obfuscation" and "misdirection", I'm not so sure.
What other qualitative difference is there besides an intent to deceive?
544. mgleason - 2/8/2002 4:09:38 PM
What other qualitative difference is there besides an intent to deceive?
The capacity to stifle dissent, for one.
545. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:12:20 PM
cal--
I've been arguing all along, without much success, that intent is relevant, specifically an intent to deceive.
Refresh me on what you think the major difference is between A and P.
546. CalGal - 2/8/2002 4:18:49 PM
I'm not sure about #3, Aytch. Consider the ultimate advocate, a defense lawyer. He is under no obligation to be honest, or only use facts.
I do agree that advocacy can slide into propaganda, but I would define the cutover point differently--when the primary beneficiary changes.
547. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:19:11 PM
mg--
Interesting. But isn't that either a result of P or perhaps an accompaniment? Take the Soviets. Did the Ministry of Information (or whatever) actually engage in the stifling or was it the secret police?
Does most P include a component of stifling?
548. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:23:26 PM
cal--
Consider the ultimate advocate, a defense lawyer. He is under no obligation to be honest, or only use facts.
But that's my point. To the extent he diverges, he becomes a P'er (arf). And I think a lawyer is under a requirement to be honest and ethical. Adherence is another issue.
549. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:24:35 PM
cal--
...when the primary beneficiary changes.
How so?
550. CalGal - 2/8/2002 4:25:02 PM
Aytch--I think intent is different, I don't think the intent has to be to deceive. I also think an advocate can deceive.
551. mgleason - 2/8/2002 4:28:48 PM
Aytch,
Did you see the link to the background on Wilson's CPI? One component of successful propaganda is the ability to saturate, to overpower dissent by its omnipresence.
Another good example is the Catholic Church. The Church would say it has no intent to deceive, but to educate, to propagate the truth.
552. mgleason - 2/8/2002 4:31:06 PM
Yes, I think an advocate can deceive, as well. Aytch called it engaging in 'honorable spin' yesterday, but to me spin is spin is spin, whether by distortion, omission, or any other manipulation.
553. CalGal - 2/8/2002 4:32:17 PM
To the extent he diverges, he becomes a P'er (arf). And I think a lawyer is under a requirement to be honest and ethical. Adherence is another issue.
Defense lawyers aren't, and they are the only ones who are actual advocates. They are required to follow a particular code of ethics, but outside of that they can disseminate whatever information they like in defense of their client. There's a wide gap between "not saying anything untrue" and "being completely honest".
How so?
An advocate works on behalf of some other person, cause, or idea. The line is crossed when the advocate focuses on benefiting his own interests, rather than that of the idea. That is, after all, a primary component of propaganda--self-interest.
The advocate can be a person, organization, or government. Usually the line is crossed when the advocate begins to rationalize that whatever benefits the advocate will, ultimately, benefit the cause. So it's all okay.
554. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:33:28 PM
I also think an advocate can deceive.
I guess we have a fundamental difference there. I see pure A as without deceit. Don't misunderstand. Many people and groups we see as advocates use deceit. But, to the extent they do, I no longer see them as A'ers but P'ers. Or at least a blend.
555. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 4:34:50 PM
Cal,
That was exactly what it looked like you were saying.
When I'm finished I'll say so and then you can look at the whole argument and decide then.
"Transparent" and "opaque" were, in context, used as synonyms for honesty and deviousness. That's not neutral.
It's a process. So far I've gotten from A=righteousness P=evil most of the way to A=transparent P=opaque.
556. mgleason - 2/8/2002 4:35:44 PM
Here's yet another wrinkle from the Britannica:
To informed students of Communism, the term propaganda has yet another connotation, associated with the term agitation. The two terms were first used by the Marxist Georgy Plekhanov and later elaborated upon by Lenin in a pamphlet What Is to Be Done? (1902), in which he defined “propaganda” as the reasoned use of historical and scientific arguments to indoctrinate the educated and enlightened (the attentive and informed publics, in the language of today's social sciences); he defined “agitation” as the use of slogans, parables, and half-truths to exploit the grievances of the uneducated and the unreasonable. Since he regarded both strategies as absolutely essential to political victory, he twinned them in the term agitprop. Today every unit of a Communist party must have an agitprop section, and tothe Communist, the use of propaganda in Lenin's sense is commendable and honest. Thus, a standard Soviet manual for teachers of social sciences is entitled Propagandistu politekonomii (For the Propagandist of Political Economy), and a pocket-sized booklet issued weekly to suggest timely slogans and brief arguments to be used in speeches and conversations among the masses is called Bloknot agitatora (The Agitator's Notebook).
Perhaps we, too, can term 'agitation' the deceptive component of propaganda.
557. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:38:14 PM
An advocate works on behalf of some other person, cause, or idea
Wow. That's new to me. I don't have a dictionary handy. Is that part of the common definition? Can I never "advocate" something on behalf of myself? If I benefit, I cannot be an advocate?
558. CalGal - 2/8/2002 4:39:31 PM
Aytch,
Nothing requires the advocate to be honest. I realize we've moved away from dictionary definitions somewhat, but for illustration:
one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
Nothing about truthfulness, honesty, etc.
559. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 4:41:00 PM
Maria,
Another good example is the Catholic Church. The Church would say it has no intent to deceive, but to educate, to propagate the truth.
Bingo!
The word Propaganda is of direct Catholic decent. It's from Urban VIII's College of Propaganda in the 1600's.
(you probably already knew this)
560. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:45:55 PM
mg--
That's good stuff but there's always a danger in using theory from the early Soviet Communists because it so often diverged from either practical application or reality. In fact, that's what caused many of the rifts and purges. But this is a whole 'nother Quesadilla for a separate discussion.
Nevertheless, their P definition has a somewhat positive feel to it. Just as they intended, no doubt.
561. mgleason - 2/8/2002 4:48:00 PM
Oh, I know, Aytch. But I just wanted to show the other side of the P coin.
Ha, Ms No. You know me too well.
562. CalGal - 2/8/2002 4:50:57 PM
Can I never "advocate" something on behalf of myself? If I benefit, I cannot be an advocate?
If you get paid to be an advocate, that's not benefit. If you are interested primarily in changing people's thoughts in order to promote your own interests, then I would not call you an advocate.
The National Beef Council, or whatever it is called, is on the other side of the line from advocacy. The Children's Defense Fund is advocacy.
The "advocacy" groups like NOW, HRC, and NAACP are interesting cases, because the people who work for these organizations are usually in the same groups that would benefit from their goals.
Before today, I would have referred to them as advocacy. But I think it could be argued that these groups are actually propaganda groups. They just have noble goals. An example of "good" propaganda. I suspect that these were the groups that first thought of calling themselves "advocacy" groups.
563. Ms. No - 2/8/2002 4:53:21 PM
Going back to Maria's Message # 521
In my estimation, P has more force behind it, as well as more potency, because the opposition is either non-existent or much weaker, sometimes because its wielders control the media, or their resources are much greater, or both. Naturally, this means a greater risk for doing wrong.
I think this is a major component of Propaganda --that it is the action of a powerful group---a government, a Church, a political or social organization. It’s an institutional and systematic campaign.
You mentioned the stiffling of oppostion voices in another post and I think that's important too.
564. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 4:56:39 PM
Hunh. One can't be an advocate for oneself. I learned something. Only five more and I get tenure.
565. CalGal - 2/8/2002 5:04:29 PM
Aytch,
I don't think that not being an advocate is the same as being a propagandist.
For example, Michael J. Fox got very interested in Parkinson's disease funding after he got the disease himself. Is he an advocate? No. Is he a propagandist? I don't think so. He's a voluntary spokesman, donating his time and celebrity to a cause he believes in.
566. concerned - 2/8/2002 5:09:21 PM
Of course, one can be an advocate for one's self. Isn't that what resumes are for?
567. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:13:57 PM
cal--
I agree with everything in 565 except maybe: wouldn't most people consider Fox an advocate?
I can easily picture Peter Jennings referring to Fox as "an advocate for...". Spokesman doesn't quite work because Fox is more than that, he believes in what he's doing. A spokesman does not necessarily.
568. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:20:08 PM
Come to think of it, the second entry -- "one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal" -- would allow advocacy on behalf of oneself.
569. CalGal - 2/8/2002 5:22:41 PM
wouldn't most people consider Fox an advocate?
Yeah. That's because most people think Advocacy Good, Propaganda Bad. It's this sort of thing that has caused all the problems we're having here agreeing on a definition.
Here is the case for Michael J. Fox as advocate: Hey, he's mongo rich. He could just give tons of money to the Parkinson's organization for all the good it will do, and spend his remaining years with his kids and his wife, working when he can. Instead, he puts himself out there, meeting with politicians, "putting a face" on the disease, sitting in committees, going to conferences, travelling, letting his picture be taken visiting fellow sufferers, and so on.
Okay, I'll buy that. But in the end, it's just as easy to point out that he figured he'd be much more effective with face time, and the sooner they get working on the disease, the sooner the payoff of a cure.
Spokesman doesn't quite work because Fox is more than that, he believes in what he's doing. A spokesman does not necessarily.
Neither does an advocate, necessarily.
And how would you differentiate between Fox, who has the disease and directly benefits, and a celebrity who supports a cause and gives the same face time without any benefit?
570. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:30:04 PM
Back to the stifling of the opposition:
I'd say that this is a handmaiden of P but not an essential part. That is, one can engage in spreading P without actually silencing anyone.
Much of the Nazi and Soviet efforts against the West in the '30's were neither directed at nor accomplished the silencing of Western voices -- news organizations etc. They did, of course, silence all over whom they had direct control.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs again but I don't think it's an essential component.
571. mgleason - 2/8/2002 5:33:49 PM
They did, of course, silence all over whom they had direct control.
That's the kind of stifling I had in mind - the silencing of any potential internal opposition, and I do think it essential.
572. CalGal - 2/8/2002 5:37:05 PM
I disagree (for the first time) with mgleason; I think propaganda does not have to silence the opposition. The silencing is a different function. Often goes hand in hand with propaganda, but not of it.
573. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:38:30 PM
cal 569--
Valid points.
Perhaps the English language, rich as it is, won't support a rigorous definition of P. We all "know it when we see it" even though we all see slightly different things. Bummer.
574. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:41:48 PM
mg--
So then, if they didn't stifle the internal opposition, they wouldn't be spreading P? What were the Nazis spreading in 1924 before they had an army and control of the radio stations?
And they say there are no good straight men left.
575. mgleason - 2/8/2002 5:44:44 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I think that stifling (internal) dissent is a necessary adjunct to successful propaganda, but I don't think it is inherent. Rather, it is a mechanism for its dissemination.
576. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:47:28 PM
A-ok.
577. CalGal - 2/8/2002 5:54:42 PM
Oh, okay. I'm not convinced it's a necessary mechanism, but I agree that it's common in the most notable examples.
578. AytchMan - 2/8/2002 5:55:41 PM
I must away but I'd be interested in some VERY RESTRICTED thoughts on media bias, to wit:
1. Is it P?
2. Is it inevitable?
3. Does every media person, without exception, deliver a bias, either involuntary or not?
I'm NOT AT ALL interested (at this time) in whether the media is right- or left-biased. Not at all.
579. dusty - 2/8/2002 6:04:34 PM
I'm not quite sure why there is so much need to distinguish advocacy form propaganda, but I'll join in.
I've always thought of advocacy as an activity engaged in primarily on behalf of others. I would say that Fox is acting as an advocate for information on Parkinson's disease (and presumably funding). While his actions may have some benefit for himself, he is primarily spending the time and energy because he wants the benefits to accrue for others.
Just like Milken for prostate cancer. The fact that each have the condition means that they might accrue some benefit from public awareness or funding, but that is a minor side issue.
In contrast, I think people engage in propaganda to benefit themselves. The very nature of propaganda means that others will benefit, but I think the goal is a shared effort which will result in benefits for oneself.
580. dusty - 2/8/2002 6:09:29 PM
mgleason
I think that stifling (internal) dissent is a necessary adjunct to successful propaganda, but I don't think it is inherent.
Propaganda doesn't have to be the spreading of false ideas. It is the propagation of ideas. If those ideas are inherently flawed, then the mechanism for spreading those ideas will either contain untruths, or half-truths that can be easily combated with truth. In those instances, the people interested in propagating an idea would also have an incentive to stifle dissent. I agree with you that it isn't inherent in the term propaganda, but I would say it is a natural consequence when the idea being promoted (e.g. communism or religion) is so inherently wacko.
582. mgleason - 2/8/2002 6:19:17 PM
Take a look at the link upthread for Wilson's CPI, Dusty. I'm in complete agreement that P doesn't have to be the spread of false ideas. I also believe that the stifling of dissent is not always coupled with the intent to deceive.
Have a good weekend, all. I'll be thinking of you as I participate (weepily) in the Opening Ceremony propaganda.
583. dusty - 2/8/2002 6:26:38 PM
I commented on some aspects of the Olympic propaganda in Politics.
584. judithathome - 2/8/2002 6:55:15 PM
Dusty, so did I.
585. concerned - 2/8/2002 7:50:41 PM
Yeppers. Me too.
Uh huh ... uh huh....uh huh.
586. Al D - 2/8/2002 11:28:45 PM
What about some of the propaganda on the Mote. It's easy to find, just look over on Politics. When is propaganda most or least effective. I would think it is least effective when most obvious and when preaching to the choir.
587. PelleNilsson - 2/9/2002 6:00:23 AM
Following up my idea that advocacy and propaganda represent points on a continuum I designed this 
588. RickNelson - 2/9/2002 8:06:20 AM
Hmmm, I'm subtly aware that after reading 50+ posts following the question that I've got to consider being swayed. I perceived the hint you'ld prefer not to have a skewed answer.
My first gut choice was b)
589. arkymalarky - 2/9/2002 11:44:53 AM
Message # 586
Idiots take propaganda that they've swallowed hook, line, and sinker, and spout it back as established fact. They're the propagators of the information for the ones who created it.
That is addressed to no one Moter, btw, but it does apply to politics and the stories that surround it, and anyone who actually buys tabloids and/or sends email forwards that end up on the Urban Legends website.
590. Cellar Door - 2/9/2002 2:06:45 PM
The Anti-Clinton Jihaad was a propaganda campiagn bankrolled by Richard Mellon Scaife that continues to this very day. Reason and logic went out the window as paid hack after paid hack got on the tube and confected "books" accusing Clinton of murder, rape, treason, drug-running, fathering illegitimate African-American children -- you name it. Serious criticism of Clinton's deeds and misdeeds was rendered impossible in the hysterical onslaught that overtook the "news" for eight years of propaganda at its purest.
591. AytchMan - 2/9/2002 4:20:00 PM
dusty 579--
I started up the attempt to distinguish the two. If you look at the beginning of the thread, no one could agree on which posted examples of P were, in fact, P rather than news, advertising or advocacy. It seemed a necessary distinction. Otherwise, one man's A (advocacy) is another man's P.
Nevertheless, I'm not at all sure I made the right decision.
592. Cellar Door - 2/9/2002 4:25:28 PM
Propaganda is a manioulation of psychological symbols having goals of which the listener is not conscious: the intention to modify opinions, the dissemination of conclusions of doubtful validity, the notion of inculcating ideas rather than explaining the.
593. AytchMan - 2/9/2002 4:38:43 PM
cellar--
I'd add that sometimes the listener is conscious of the goals.
Are there good uses of P?
594. Cellar Door - 2/9/2002 5:25:17 PM
No.
595. Absensia - 2/9/2002 8:12:04 PM
State and government anti smoking for young adults? Lots of propaganda going on there and for some time. Check out the US Surgeon General's page, they have lots of projects and they really aren't advocating, they are using facts, etc., to sway people their way. They use not only pamphlets but school programs, literature and tv spots...I think it's propaganda.
596. CalGal - 2/9/2002 8:16:20 PM
I completely agree. Our anti-drug campaigns are just the same.
597. CalGal - 2/9/2002 8:18:06 PM
Aytch,
In answer to your questions:
1. I don't think media bias is propaganda. I think it can be, but existence of bias itself isn't propaganda.
2. I think some bias is inevitable, and also not necessarily bad.
3. Not always.
Pelle, I wasn't sure I understood your chart.
598. tonedef - 2/10/2002 1:37:03 AM
I would like to point out that "Propaganda" was also the title of the Gang of Four's first album. Left-wing punkers from Leeds. Lots of feedback over a great rhythm section. Classic album.
599. tonedef - 2/10/2002 1:42:13 AM
No, on second thought, it was called "Entertainment". But, it was full of propaganda. And danceable, too.
600. concerned - 2/11/2002 11:12:22 AM
1. I don't think media bias is propaganda. I think it can be, but existence of bias itself isn't propaganda.
Let's clean this up, shall we? When somebody says 'I don't think media bias is propaganda.', that's an absolute statement which is logically closest in meaning to: 'I don't think media bias is ever propaganda.'
Such inaccurate use of the language is likely to lead to misunderstanding, since we find out in
CalGal's very next sentence that, in her opinion 'Media bias can be (propaganda)...'
CalGal, next time you are trying to express yourself thusly, why not post something like "I don't think media bias is propaganda most of the time.", or something similar, so as to avoid apparent internal contradictions in your statements?
601. concerned - 2/11/2002 11:14:13 AM
Sorry to nitpick about something like this, but I could easily imagine somebody posting a first sentence such as this, without actually meaning it 'that way'. Instant misunderstanding.
602. concerned - 2/11/2002 11:16:18 AM
And, just to keep my posts topical although what CalGal posted there certainly isn't propaganda, someone who intends to disseminate propaganda could deliberately do what CalGal did to mislead.
603. concerned - 2/11/2002 11:30:05 AM
Speaking of media bias and propaganda, anybody here read the NYT best seller "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, former CBS news correspondent and six time Emmy winner?
In Bias, Goldberg takes on network television news reporting and commentary, describing its ongoing uncritical repetition of falsehoods and distortions from certain liberal advocacy groups.
He singles out AIDS, homeless, welfare and feminist activists, Lefties all, as having network news broadcasts as effective mouthpieces for their agendas. He also describes the lockstep liberal mentality demanded, at least publicly, in network newsrooms, and how not toeing its fascist line destroyed his career.
What I want to know is, is this thread robust enough to frankly discuss the content of Goldberg's book and its implications without unnecessary accusations of partisanship being thrown about? I can surely understand if it isn't, and that's ok with me. Hey, if Dan Rather has his head so far up his ass that he eviscerates CBS employees who go public with what is common knowledge in the newsrooms, why should I expect most Lefties to have a much easier time discussing such things openly?
604. concerned - 2/11/2002 11:51:03 AM
To me, this is one of the clearer manifestations of the old saw, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
When it is most usually the case that its employees make careers out of coupling sophomoric idealism with moral equivalence in an industry which has come to conflate news reportage with liberal advocacy, there is a problem.
605. judithathome - 2/11/2002 11:54:31 AM
He also describes the lockstep liberal mentality demanded, at least publicly, in network newsrooms, and how not toeing its fascist line destroyed his career.
I suppose Goldberg's excuse for staying at CBS for almost 30 years is that he was trying to change it from the inside.
606. concerned - 2/11/2002 11:58:25 AM
Re. 605 -
Actually, he was. In his book, he mentions several efforts he made internally before he wrote the op-ed piece in the WSJ which resulted in his downfall.
607. concerned - 2/11/2002 12:02:37 PM
Goldberg also describes a sea change in network news in the '80's, which appears to amount to a tilt to the left, from what I gather.
608. concerned - 2/11/2002 12:06:28 PM
Goldberg is at pains to mention that he has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, btw., so his Liberal credentials seem to be in order.
609. concerned - 2/11/2002 12:08:58 PM
Goldberg, however, also distances himself from what he describes as the out of touch elitest 'powers that be' which control the content of network news broadcasting; the people who he says would 'eat rat poison' before getting their hands dirty by seriously entertaining an idea from a conservative, regardless of its merit.
610. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 12:09:17 PM
Goldberg is so full of shit there's really no point in talking about it.
612. concerned - 2/11/2002 12:10:16 PM
Re. 610 -
You're not really 'The Dan', are you, cllrdr?
615. concerned - 2/11/2002 12:14:53 PM
Guess I better take a break from this thread. The Gestapo is arriving:)
616. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 12:36:02 PM
Gentlemen,
I will not tell you this again:
Keep your partisan bickering out of this thread.
617. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 12:41:37 PM
Concerned,
It would be difficult to discuss the Goldberg book as you appear to be the only one who's read it. Additionally, your posts lead me to believe that there is only one acceptable outcome of such a discussion in your opinion which is hardly conducive to a reasoned and fair-minded debate.
If there is interest in this book, however, it would be an excellent opportunity to host a Book-chat Thread on it.
618. dusty - 2/11/2002 1:18:29 PM
Celler
You dissing Goldberg?
You probably like the Rock, right?
619. CalGal - 2/11/2002 1:30:18 PM
Actually, while I thought Bernie Goldberg's book was opportunistic, his position wasn't as simple as "the media is 'liberal'". There was a really good discussion between him and Kalb on the Lehrer Newshour; I'll try to dig it up.
620. CalGal - 2/11/2002 1:45:06 PM
Skewing the News?
Excellent debate, btw; I highly recommend giving it a read.
621. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 1:51:05 PM
Thanks, Cal.
622. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 2:38:12 PM
I got a "File Unavailable."
623. CalGal - 2/11/2002 2:59:32 PM
Whooops--Try this
624. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:05:03 PM
Re. 616 -
Ms. No -
I was attacked repeatedly by cllrdr, and I left the thread to allow things to cool down. I am extremely disappointed that you don't seem to want to do your job as a thread moderator. Instead, I believe you are trying to 'build a case' against me.
Please desist in this behavior forthwith.
625. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:09:10 PM
Actually, while I thought Bernie Goldberg's book was opportunistic, his position wasn't as simple as "the media is 'liberal'".
Nobody should confuse the 'network television news' I referred to with 'the media', of course.
628. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:12:45 PM
On what authority does one state that I'm the only one in the Mote to have read 'Bias'?
629. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:20:58 PM
Maybe Ms. No is going to try to Dan Rather me out of the Mote for such sacrilege as bringing up 'Bias'?
IAC, I think I have my answer. Even giving a bare description of the contents of 'Bias' has created a great deal of hostility from the Left in the Mote, to the extent that the moderator is affecting that I've flagrantly violated the Mote RoR.
Please continue debating the differences between 'advocacy' and 'propaganda', all. I see we haven't generally progressed to the real world yet.
631. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 3:36:18 PM
Bernie Goldberg:"They got the AIDS story all wrong, the worst covered story of the past 50 years, by telling us that heterosexuals were going to be the next wave of people with AIDS."
Gee I guess all those straight people with AIDS are lying. Probably all want to get in good with David Geffen, right connie?
632. betty - 2/11/2002 3:39:23 PM
Cellar,
did Goldberg really say that?
633. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 3:45:11 PM
Concerned,
If you dislike the way this thread is run you are welcome not to post here. As the host of this thread I am free to set the tone as I see fit and neither Cellar's insults nor yours were appropriate. If you'd like to lodge a complaint about my hosting practices you may address that to Pelle or Wabbit by email at Moderator@themote.com or in the Suggestions thread.
634. CalGal - 2/11/2002 3:51:27 PM
Yes, but he was talking about in the U.S. He's right, too. Back in the 80s there was a huge attempt to make AIDS "relevant" by implying that it could crossover to the straight community in terms of risk in having unprotected sex.
635. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:53:25 PM
Ms. No -
All I'm asking for is the same treatment you would give say, JAH. If someone comes in here and started ripping on you in the most disparaging way possible, would you consider it fair if Pelle or Wabbit also came down on you like a ton of bricks, pretending that it was equally your fault?
Not that I didn't expect some of this, but I didn't from the moderator.
636. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:55:07 PM
Perhaps I should ignore cllrdr entirely in this thread, considering that anything I post to him will be microparsed for any connotative content whatsoever.
637. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 3:56:05 PM
So there are no straights in Africa, CG?
And don't come back at me with any "well that's a different strain of AIDS," crap. Been there, done that -- for OVER TWENTY FUCKING YEARS!
638. concerned - 2/11/2002 3:56:23 PM
Re. 632 -
Yes, he did, Betty. And he's a liberal, too.
639. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 4:00:22 PM
Concerned,
It is equally your fault because you engage with him. If you'd ignore him then his posts would be the only ones moved and he would be the only one reprimanded.
640. concerned - 2/11/2002 4:01:05 PM
Btw, when I mentioned the Gestapo, it did not cross my mind that the next person to post would be, well, you know... That person was not who I was thinking of; actually that was just a general comment.
641. concerned - 2/11/2002 4:03:12 PM
Re. 639 -
Others are engaging with him also. How much latitude am I allowed to respond at all, particularly when he throws in what most Motiers would regard as deadly personal insults (but I know cllrdr better, the scamp)?
643. concerned - 2/11/2002 4:06:04 PM
Re. 642 -
cllrdr -
Hey, you know me better than that. I can handle what you post.
644. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 4:06:42 PM
Concerned,
Just chalk it up to fitting coincidence as I disbelieve in prescience.
645. betty - 2/11/2002 4:07:26 PM
concerned,
not voting republican hardly makes one liberal.
646. concerned - 2/11/2002 4:08:46 PM
Re. 645 -
How about working hand in hand with Dan Rather, news liberal par excellence, for 20 years?
647. Ms. No - 2/11/2002 4:09:34 PM
Cellar,
Cut it out. If you can't comport yourself appropriately you'll be taking a time out.
648. betty - 2/11/2002 4:11:51 PM
concerned,
Dan Rather isn't any more of a liberal than you.
that said, there is Bias in the media but to paint it in partisan strokes is silly. the news is government propaganda and government is always conservative. It only changes when the penalty for not changing is death and dismemberment.
649. concerned - 2/11/2002 4:17:01 PM
Re. 648 -
Ok. But Bernard Goldberg describes himself as an 'old fashioned' liberal, which I take to mean as being more or less of a pre-McGovernite.
It's interesting to have somebody say that Dan Rather is no more a liberal than I am, btw.
650. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 6:03:16 PM
Define Liberal.
651. CalGal - 2/11/2002 6:06:06 PM
So there are no straights in Africa, CG?
Well, since I said, "he was talking about in the U.S.", it would seem I was leaving Africa out, wouldn't it?
652. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 6:39:13 PM
He was talking about AIDS. Leaving half the world out, especially those regions where it was first sighted would be unutterably stupid.
653. CalGal - 2/11/2002 6:47:43 PM
No, he was talking about AIDS being presented as a significant heterosexual threat in this country, back in the 80s. He was using it solely as an instance of a case when the media's bias--which was to help people with AIDS, hardly a terrible thing--might have caused it to overstate a situation, in order to ensure that the problem got attention.
654. Jonesatlaw - 2/11/2002 6:50:36 PM
Of course there is bias in the media- and most of it is in favor of higher readership/viewership etc. The most consistent bias is towards sensationalism, it matters not a whit what the target of the sensationalism is, so long as it fits the attention grabbing role of scandal. Boring technical and systematic problems are given short shrift in favor of easily understood personalized problems. Thousands of folks dying of AIDS in Africa without good video? Won't get much coverage. Little white kid from the midwest with famous friends with AIDS and lots of tear jerking personal interest video- have mercy, he'll be on every outlet.
Same for enviromental issues, financial and business, good government etc. Too complicated and not good video? Doesn't exist for the evening news.
More than the tilt of one media voice than another, this is the major propaganda effect of US news. Keep it simple, keep it personalized, keep it visual and you'll get air time. The less any one issue meets those criteria, the less chance of it being covered.
655. concerned - 2/11/2002 7:00:10 PM
Re. 653 -
What Goldberg described here is a situation where the media was complicit in buffaloing policymakers into ineffectiveness in controlling the AIDS epidemic.
There was not the first reason to believe that a cure for AIDS could have been found in a reasonable length of time, for the simple fact that, even today no cure (except for the body's own defenses)exists for any viral infection. Even a vaccine for a viral infection seems improbable when there is no record of spontaneous recovery from that infection, or at least an alternate species which produces suitable antibodies. But the AIDS lobby chose to ignore all common sense in the '80's and instead decided that if medical science were 'scared' into trying hard enough, they could perform fucking magic. That wasn't a joke; it was medical disaster orchestrated by the AIDS lobby.
656. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 7:11:49 PM
You mena we broguht AIDS on ourselves by trying to save our own lives? Brilliant HERR KOMMANDANT!!!
657. concerned - 2/11/2002 7:18:43 PM
The AIDS activists should have realized that the best way to control AIDS, lacking the imminent real prospect of a cure or vaccine was the same as that which had been proven effective by medicine for other fatal, incurable communicable diseases. What was wrong with that? Nothing. But the mass media took their marching orders from the AIDS lobby and told medical science to go fuck itself.
659. concerned - 2/11/2002 7:27:52 PM
Instead, the media was directed to 'scare the hell' out of everybody by claiming that AIDS was just about to break out bigtime in society as a whole, which they dutifully did. As Goldberg claimed, such a message made a certain amount of sense for the first few years. Unfortunately, that and 'safe sex' was about all that society was allowed to do to control the disease.
But the worst of that misguided and overly limited response was, even if 30% of Americans were HIV positive today, there's no particular reason to believe that all that fear and misery would have been effective in producing a vaccine or cure by now.
660. concerned - 2/11/2002 7:31:55 PM
Hey, cllrdr - just my opinion. So, what do you think the majik bullet for AIDS should have been?
663. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:09:20 PM
Re. 662 -
How is wanting to see hundreds of millions of people not die miserable deaths from AIDS ignorance or prejudice? I think instituting policies which have allowed this to happen is the worse course.
664. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:11:56 PM
Well, cllrdr and WoW. Perhaps you just didn't get the media to scare 'us' enough. Perhaps if we were scared to death, that would have cured AIDS.
665. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 8:13:08 PM
There's really no point in continuing.
666. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:16:33 PM
True. I'm afraid I'm the only one who has suggested anything material which would have drastically reduced the extent of the AIDS problem.
667. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 8:18:56 PM
You have suggested NOTHING!!!
668. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:24:39 PM
Well, there was a time they used to test and quarantine people with uniformly deadly, incurable communicable diseases. 'What about civil rights?' you say? 'What about peoples' lives?', I say. It was abysmally crude, but it worked when all else failed. It could have worked in the early days of AIDS if it had been instituted along with the public education effort.
669. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 8:27:58 PM
What about the Haitians, connie?
Remember them? Remember when it was considered "perfectly reasonable" to demand that all haitians be quarantened because of AIDS?
Didn't happpen, did it?
Now why do you suppose that was?
670. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:32:01 PM
To my knowledge, quarantining anybody at all was never seriously considered for AIDS. No, the media was going to squeeze a medical miracle out of the medical community by scaring us all to death. Nowadays, talking about testing everybody for diseases like anthrax is no problem. But AIDS was 'different'. It was the first serious disease where the medical community simply stood back and let someone else call the shots.
672. Cellar Door - 2/11/2002 8:38:30 PM
WHO "CALLEDTHE SHOTS" WHEN NO ONE IN REAGAN ADMINISTRATION COULD BRING THEMSELVES TO MENTION THE WORD AIDS FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS?
673. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:39:44 PM
cllrdr -
I truly wish we had done a better job of controlling this disease. That is why I bucked the 'common knowledge' that a little education and a lot of labwork was sufficient guarantee ever since the early '80's.
674. concerned - 2/11/2002 8:43:48 PM
Reagan Surgeon General Koop was the best AIDS public education advocate any administration has had to date. I predicted in '84 that there wouldn't be a cure found for AIDS for at least twenty years. I really wish I was wrong about that one. But I think this is unnecessarily painful to go on about. What's done is done. We should have done better.
675. mgleason - 2/11/2002 8:51:55 PM
Syphilis from 1880 to 1920: A Public Health Nightmare and the First Challenge to Medical Ethics:
Because of the lengthy period of contagiousness involved in syphilis, quarantining patients was simply not an option, as it would have been for scarlet fever or measles.
We cannot deprive a patient of his power to earn a living, to say nothing of his liberty, without providing for his support and for that of those who are dependent on him. To do this in so common a disease as syphilis would involve an expenditure of money and an amount of machinery that is unthinkable. Accordingly, as a practical scheme for preventing its spread, the quarantine of syphilis throughout the infectious period is out of the question.
Furthermore, since infections occurred by sexual contact, syphilis was very different from other disorders, and "a direct medical attack on the source of the infection [was] out of the question.
676. mgleason - 2/11/2002 8:56:30 PM
Around the turn of the twentieth century, syphilis was a public health disaster in the United States of America. Because of the lack of official reporting of cases to public authorities, estimates of its incidence are difficult to obtain; however, the figure has been estimated conservatively at ten percent to fifteen percent of the general population from about 1900 to 1920, although its occurrence was presumed to be higher among men than women. Furthermore, since it is transmitted primarily through sexual contact, syphilis was a huge stigma that all individuals wanted to avoid. When people did contract the disease, they were therefore inclined to hide it from the public so as to avoid being permanently branded by their communities. Because of the disgrace associated with syphilis, the topic was generally avoided by the public and the media, such that a veil of secrecy came to conceal it. As one author wrote in 1920,
The third great plague is syphilis, a disease which, in these times of public enlightenment, is still shrouded in obscurity, entrenched behind a barrier of silence, and armed, by our own ignorance and false shame, with a thousand times its actual power to destroy. . . . It is one of the ironies, the paradoxes, of fate that the disease against which the most tremendous advances have been made, the most brilliant victories won, is the third great plague, syphilis the disease that still destroys us through our ignorance or our refusal to know the truth.
677. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/11/2002 8:57:57 PM
Let's bomb the problem! 
678. Ms. No - 2/12/2002 1:16:29 PM
Wiz,
I'm trying to keep a civil tone in here. You're welcome to disagree with concerned, but please do so without the insults and name-calling.
679. Ms. No - 2/12/2002 1:21:03 PM
Cellar,
I'm well aware of the emotionality of this issue, but if you cannot maintain a semblance of control then you may not participate in this discussion. If I see anymore insults from you in this thread I'll suspend you.
680. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/12/2002 1:26:57 PM
Ms No,
If you concluded that my last post was an insult to concerned, then you aren't fit to host a bowel movement.
That image directly relates to propaganda and the topic of this thread.
Are you retarded?
. . . and what name-calling?
681. Ms. No - 2/12/2002 1:41:58 PM
Wiz,
I haven't done anything to your post #677 and don't intend to. I moved your earlier post about concerned as it served no purpose but to insult him.
682. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/12/2002 1:48:45 PM
Ms. No-
Oh, I remember now--"the flasher" post.
Sorry--and never mind--I understand your reasoning.
[It may very well have been insulting, but it was also accurate, imo.]
683. Ms. No - 2/12/2002 2:04:22 PM
Concerned,
The part of your argument which is on topic, I'll address. You might consider taking the rest of it to the Health thread where I'm sure a discussion of how AIDS might be successfully treated or contained would be welcome.
In Message # 655 you state:
What Goldberg described here is a situation where the media was complicit in buffaloing policymakers into ineffectiveness in controlling the AIDS epidemic.
My first problem with this is in line with what Jones has said already: The Media's only agenda is to make money. If whipping people into a frenzy makes money then that's what they will do regardless of the issue at hand. It could be AIDS or blue bunnies from outer space, but if it sells papers then you're going to hear about it a lot.
Secondly, your argument assumes The Media to be a unified entity with a singular policy making brain capable of carrying out a targeted agenda. This would require The Media to be the biggest, most successful conspiracy in the history of the world. I agree that The Media can be used to spread propaganda, but not that it is the instigator of such. One of the reasons being because there is no central media head that controls all of the various branches and institutions.
684. PelleNilsson - 2/12/2002 4:05:48 PM
Good examples of government propaganda: Radio Free Europe and, to a lesser extent, The Voice of America.
685. Cellar Door - 2/12/2002 4:38:36 PM
New York Press
February 12, 2002
The Gist
Michelangelo Signorile
Money Is the Real Bias
Is there a liberal media bias on television? That’s what former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg claims in his current bestseller, Bias. It’s an assortment of personal stories, statistics and strained analysis, all of which doesn’t add up, particularly when you put the book down and turn on the television. Goldberg’s claims evaporate the moment you flip over to MSNBC, to Alan Keyes’ new talk show, unconvincingly titled Alan Keyes Is Making Sense. Any news producer worth his or her salt carrying out a liberal political agenda would have locked this guy in an NBC broom closet before allowing him anywhere near a camera.
Keyes, who has twice run in Republican presidential primaries, each night unfurls a smorgasbord of ideological, far-right ideas. He’s a lot smarter than Pat Robertson, and a lot more articulate than Jerry Falwell. But it’s the same old rant.
Among other things, Keyes seems to want to establish a conservative theocracy in America. He invokes Christ’s name in discussing public policy. Why shouldn’t children be taught in schools to respect gays and lesbians? Because, according to Keyes, that would amount to approval of homosexuality, which is not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ (who, by the way, said nary a word about homosexuals). It would infringe upon his religious freedom, not to mention–drum roll please–contributing to the decline of American culture.
686. Cellar Door - 2/12/2002 4:39:20 PM
Ho-hum. Unless he jazzes it up, Keyes’ show will fall flat on its face, not because the supposed great liberal media conspiracy squashed it–they in fact gave him this platform–but because we’ve heard all of this before. It’s Pat Buchanan’s Crossfire redux. And if you’re a diehard fan of this sort of hysteria there is always The 700 Club on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which can’t be beat for sheer drama. (Lately, they’ve been burning things in a flaming pit.)
That gets at what is the real bias in television media: money. At this point, producers slap on anything if they think it’ll bring in viewers. And if it doesn’t work out, it hits the trash bin. The networks and cable channels seem desperate, as more channels are in development and competition becomes fierce. As on radio, conservative tv talk shows bring a loyal following. On any given night it’s Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews drawing in the viewers. Now that Greta Van Susteren has joined Fox News, CNN is trying out conservative Laura Ingraham at Van Susteren’s old post. Friends who work in news at the big three networks complain all the time about how difficult it is to get anything remotely challenging on, describing an entrenched pandering to the status quo. The biggest concern producers have, they tell me, is trying to figure out what the vast number of Americans in the mundane middle want to see and how they want it packaged.
So where are all the armies of leftist talk show hosts? The feminists? The gays? The blacks who, unlike Alan Keyes, are not right-wing extremists (and no, Oprah doesn’t count as a political show)? Where are all the people that Bernard Goldberg appears to be talking about in Bias?
687. Cellar Door - 2/12/2002 4:39:57 PM
Actually, sometimes it’s hard to know what Goldberg is saying in the book because, while he claims there is a liberal bias in the media, some of the things he points to are far from evidence of that. Neatly slotted between bitter attacks on his former boss Dan Rather, Goldberg seems to have consciously included a little something for everyone, perhaps so we all could read his book and say, Well, he makes some good points. What better way to cook up a bestseller? He charges that tv news programs don’t focus on blacks because they’re worried about ratings. He claims that Tom Brokaw and NBC news producers are ever mindful of their parent company, GE, and often censor themselves. I couldn’t agree more, but that certainly doesn’t sound like liberal bias to me.
For a certain conspiratorial fringe of the far-right crowd, Goldberg spends an entire chapter claiming a dark conspiracy in which gay activists and the media have been in collusion since the 80s to hype the AIDS epidemic. (Never mind that AIDS activists were at odds with much of the media from the beginning of the epidemic, protesting coverage again and again.) Curiously, Goldberg says he had conversations with And the Band Played On author Randy Shilts, and claims that the late Shilts agreed with him. He then hails Shilts as brilliant.
688. Cellar Door - 2/12/2002 4:40:16 PM
Bias is peppered with anecdotes about producers’, editors’ and reporters’ personal beliefs, which Goldberg contends are politically liberal. That’s probably true. But so what? Different fields attract different types of people. Most stock brokers are probably politically conservative. Most interior decorators are probably liberal. But most good stock brokers offer their services to a broad spectrum of investors, and most good interior decorators have a palette of choices for clients, including for those boring and stodgy conservative clients. (Or have Pat and Bill Buckley never had a gay, Upper East Side, Hillary-voting decorator?) Goldberg seems to be saying that because everyone who works in a flagmaking factory might be left-leaning, the flags don’t in the end turn out patriotic. But a flag is a flag. And a sensational, ratings-driven media is a sensational, ratings-driven media.
In one particular anecdote that has received a lot of attention, Goldberg quotes an unnamed CBS staffer on a conference call labeling former Family Research Council head Gary Bauer "the little nut from the Christian group." Well, I don’t doubt that there are nasty Barney Frank jokes at The Washington Times, too, or vicious nicknames for Hillary Clinton over at the New York Post–or even at CBS, for that matter. What counts is this: Has Gary Bauer gotten his mug on tv and put forth his agenda? You better believe it–nauseatingly so, and a lot more often than those of us left of center have. I can’t recall the networks giving a talk-show tryout to a radical leftist in the past couple of years. And as long as they’re trying out the radical rightists like Alan Keyes–even if they’re calling him a nut behind his back–television media is not being dictated by some vast liberal conspiracy.
689. judithathome - 2/12/2002 4:47:26 PM
Good examples of government propaganda: Radio Free Europe and, to a lesser extent, The Voice of America.
How about TV Marti? The one they tried to beam toward Cuba?
690. concerned - 2/12/2002 11:08:40 PM
Cllrdr -
Glad to see you calmed down. You had me a little worried there.
691. concerned - 2/12/2002 11:14:13 PM
I can’t recall the networks giving a talk-show tryout to a radical leftist in the past couple of years.
I tend to doubt this. But, if it were true, the reason for it could be summed up as "No Commercial Potential".
692. RustlerPike - 2/12/2002 11:14:18 PM
I think it's like Bruno Tortelli once said: there's propaganda - and there impropaganda.
693. concerned - 2/12/2002 11:42:29 PM
I posted 691 before reading Ms. No's most recent post to me, incidentally.
694. judithathome - 2/13/2002 9:18:54 AM
There may not have been any radical leftists but the rabid rightist ruling the airwaves is Bill O'Reilly and he has developed a God complex to match his bloated ratings. Of course, everyone assumes the hordes of watchers reflect how strong the right is; no one stops to think some of those numbers are people who disagree and are looking on in horror or those who think it's wise to see what the other side is thinking.
695. RustlerPike - 2/13/2002 12:01:08 PM
696. dusty - 2/14/2002 8:41:59 AM
concerned
I received the Goldberg book as a Valentine's Day gift.
I'll go back and read the discussion with more interest.
697. dusty - 2/14/2002 8:52:30 AM
CalGal Message # 520
That was a good piece. Thanks for linking it.
698. dusty - 2/14/2002 8:54:03 AM
Sorry, meant Message # 620
699. AytchMan - 2/14/2050 5:52:04 PM
Someone a ways upthread (cellar?) said that there is no good propaganda.
Does this mean that US P against the Nazis in WW2 was a bad idea and/or morally indefensible?
700. concerned - 2/14/2050 6:23:27 PM
This doesn't exactly fit in this thread, but it certainly has to do with advocacy, if not outright propaganda.
The latest Scientific American has an excerpt from a book (forget by whom & I don't have the issue at hand at the moment) which decries the situation with world population growth, where the author makes a number of points regarding land use sustainability, standard of living, water resource utilization, etc. etc..
All in all, I thought it an informative read (if anybody here knows me at all however, that does not mean that I accept the author's interpretations at face value). The author then makes a point of stating that the number of people which the world can 'sustain' is about 10 billion (sounds a hair low to me). The author goes on at some length about the situation in China with its 1.2 billion people which he says is projected to increase to 1.6 billion by 2050 (sounds a bit high to me). He mentions that China is largely self sufficient agriculturally, but is expected to have to import the equivalent of the world's current surplus in grain by mid century.
Something started to smell a little fishy to me at this point about the article. So I hied myself over to the CIA World Factbook to compare figures for available arable land worldwide and for China and the US, in particular. Now, China and the US are roughly comparable in size at about 3 million square miles, give or take. The total land surface area of the world is 50 million square miles, give or take. The world factbook includes the following figures in percentages of total area for arable land, permanent pasture and forests/woodland:
................. World...... US....... China
arable land.......10........19.........10
perm. pasture....26........25.........43
forest/woodland..32......30.........14
701. concerned - 2/14/2050 6:23:36 PM
This implies that the sustainable world
population would be closer to 20 billion than 10 billion people, based on the arable land figures alone. The discrepancy with the author's figures widens considerably more if the forested/woodland figures are included in these figures. My point? The author leaves unstated some premises which clearly affect his figures, or else he is drawing faulty conclusions. Either alone should cause one to bring a somewhat skeptical attitude to the rest of what he says, although I believe that the excerpt is fairly truthful, by and large. It does support an agenda.
702. concerned - 2/14/2050 6:25:47 PM
erratum:
...although I believe that the article is fairly truthful, by and large.
703. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 6:29:17 PM
Well I'm doing all I can to keep the population from growing.
704. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 6:31:14 PM
WHEN CHARACTER WAS REALLY KING
A Handy MWO Pocket Guide
Republicans, Media Whores, Idiots, and those who listen to them like to say that the Clinton Administration was the most corrupt in American History.
In fact, it was one of the least corrupt – especially compared to the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II Administrations. And here is irrefutable evidence.
Be sure to download and print this handy guide, then carry it around with you. Whenever a Republican or anyone else hands you their usual garbage on Clinton, reach for the guide – and let ‘em have it!
When Character Wore Pinstripes: The Reagan and Bush I Administrations
Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal:
14 (two overturned on appeal)*
Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying:
2 (Lyn Nofziger, White House political director, convicted to 30 days and $30,000 fine, overturned on appeal; Michael Deaver, White House deputy chief of staff, convicted and $100,000, given probation.)
705. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 6:31:56 PM
Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development department scandal:
16*
Total Reagan era convictions: 32*
*NOTE: Does not include non-Administration officials and private citizens indicted and convicted
Bush I pardons of those indicted and/or convicted of Iran-contra crimes:
7 (5 had been convicted, one was about to receive his sentence, and one, Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger was about to stand trial)
Number of charges in untried indictment (pardoned) of Weinberger:
5
The Vindication of the Clinton Administration
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Whitewater:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Travel Office allegations:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with alleged abuse of FBI files:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/of convicted in connection with Lewinsky matter:
0
706. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 6:32:30 PM
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Labor Secretary Alexis Herman:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Americorps director Eli Siegal:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the
Independent Counsel investigation of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown:
0 (Investigation abandoned upon Brown’s death in nation’s service)
Clinton Administration officials convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Agriculture Secretary Michael Espy:
0 (Espy acquitted of all charges. Judge sharply rebukes Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz for bringing case in the first place.)
Other:
HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misstating to the F.B.I. the amount of money he gave his girlfriend;
Assistant Attorney-General Webster Hubbell convicted of embezzling funds from Rose Law Firm before his federal appointment; that is, stealing from his law partners, including Hillary Rodham Clinton;
707. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 6:32:43 PM
Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, a political rival of Bill Clinton’s, convicted on charges involving local television licensing, and nothing at all to do with Clinton;
Jim and Susan McDougal, convicted of crimes in Whitewater matter. In summation to the court, Independent Counsel declares that President Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing.
The First Criminal Appointments of Bush II
Bush II officials appointed to National Security Council who were also indicted of Iran-contra crime, who plead guilty, and who were pardoned by Bush I:
1 Elliott Abrams
Bush II officials appointed to Department of Defense who were also indicted and convicted of Iran-contra crime but who had convictions set aside on a technicality:
1 John Poindexter
708. concerned - 2/14/2050 6:34:18 PM
Re. 702 -
Doh! It is an excerpt from his book, as well as being an article.
Re. 703 -
Ted 'quotable' Turner would approve.
709. AytchMan - 2/14/2050 6:36:01 PM
Whatever "overpopulation" means exactly, it's inevitable at some point. But the problem faced by most experts is that it's nearly impossible to project gains in technology. To me, it seems likely that these gains will substantially raise the ceiling.
Unfortunately, the response of many observers is to extrapolate current trends except for technology. Where this is done willfully, I think it becomes irresponsible or, worse, actual propaganda.
710. concerned - 2/14/2050 7:03:23 PM
I agree with cllrdr, with one teensy change. The x42 adminstration may be the most ethical impeached administration in US history. Andrew Johnson, step aside!
711. concerned - 2/14/2050 7:15:03 PM
Re. 709 -
Good point. Reading that excerpt, btw, something I felt that was worth mentioning that wasn't really discussed there is that the worst despoliation of the environment usually occurs in the least developed countries, which also tend to have the most rapidly increasing populations. Being that this sort of thing is not usually clearly addressed by population control advocates, I think it tends to increase both skepticism of the veracity of such advocacy and a generalized 'so what' attitude toward overpopulation issues among non-converts. Perhaps he author of the SA piece realizes this to some extent, hence his China 'case study'.
712. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 8:39:37 PM
What was it that Abe Lincoln said about fooling some of the people some of the time?
713. betty - 2/14/2050 8:44:27 PM
I thought that was Calvin Coolidge?
714. Cellar Door - 2/14/2050 9:08:32 PM
715. concerned - 2/14/2050 9:11:51 PM
Re. 714 -
To the contrary. The more hate speech you Lefties spew, the more I like it.
Please, go nuts.
716. ronski - 2/14/2050 9:16:17 PM
betty,
No, Calvin Coolidge (my hero, and Reagan's), said, "You lose."
717. concerned - 2/14/2050 9:17:14 PM
Didn't the lady kick him in the ankle afterwards?
Jes' funnin'.
718. concerned - 2/14/2050 9:28:13 PM
Cool Cal was.
719. ronski - 2/14/2050 9:50:45 PM
Though one must give Dorothy Parker her due: Scroll down.
720. concerned - 2/15/2050 1:17:08 AM
From the National Review:
The story line proved irresistible: Justice Department's Top Prude Drapes Naked Statue. Two large semi-nude statues adorn the department's Great Hall, where the attorney general holds big press conferences. In the past, a large blue curtain was rented to provide a TV-pleasing backdrop. An aide responsible for staging such events, on her own initiative, hoped to economize by requesting the purchase of a curtain. She may have been admirably conscious of costs, but she was definitely oblivious to the ways of Washington. A phony story then ran on the website of ABC News attributing the decision to the straitlaced attorney general, who supposedly couldn't bear the bare breast of Ms. Spirit of Justice. Other reporters happily echoed the fabrication, many no doubt lamenting that a permanent curtain would end their fun in going for the "gotcha" shots that framed the breast and the beast.
ABC Slurs really had all the Lefties drooling with that juicy little hoax. Liberal saliva is still oozing out of the American Politics thread.
721. RustlerPike - 2/15/2050 6:27:30 AM
Coolidge was a riot!
722. judithathome - 2/15/2050 9:52:03 AM
ABC Slurs really had all the Lefties drooling with that juicy little hoax. Liberal saliva is still oozing out of the American Politics thread.
Link to the posts that show you saying this was nothing but a hoax...I'll bet you thought it was true and kept quiet. ;-)
723. Cellar Door - 2/15/2050 11:00:44 AM
Colin Powell discovers condoms
724. Wombat - 2/15/2050 11:03:06 AM
"Cool Cal:" apres moi, la deluge, in re the Wall Street crash, at least according to Mrs. Cal.
725. stostosto - 2/15/2050 11:14:06 AM
Here is what is known about Coolidge (by me at least):
President Coolidge came down in a railroad train
With a little fat man with a note-pad in his hand
The President say, "Little fat man isn't it a shame what the river has done
To this poor crackers land."
--Randy Newman: Louisiana 1927
726. Wombat - 2/15/2050 11:16:03 AM
After Harding, the US needed a do-nothing president who was not profligate and corrupt, and Coolidge fit the bill perfectly.
727. Cellar Door - 2/15/2050 11:31:38 AM
728. Ms. No - 2/15/2050 3:26:15 PM
Folks, let's either stick with the topic or we can R.I.P. this thread and move to Politics.
I've been remiss the last few days in pinning down a solid definition for Propaganda, although I thought we had made some progress. However, I see that there are still those who think that Propaganda is equivalent to lying-- Any lie, told by any person about anything of more than personal significance.
Sorry, but that's even more incorrect than claiming that Advocacy and Propaganda are equivalent.
729. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 4:31:16 PM
On A versus P:
Let's try a different tack. What were the qualitative similarities and differences between US and Nazi "information efforts" in the Thirties and WW2? Were both P?
730. PelleNilsson - 2/15/2050 4:36:13 PM
Do you mean the P directed towards the home front or towards the enemy and non-belligerents?
731. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 4:41:48 PM
Either case, actually, as long as it's home vs. home or foreign vs. foreign.
What makes them all P? If that's what they are.
732. Ms. No - 2/15/2050 4:45:40 PM
After re-reading the posts here and the many excellent linked articles these are what have emerged for me as the defining elements of Propaganda:
733. Ms. No - 2/15/2050 4:50:14 PM
Aytch,
Both were Propaganda no matter which audience they were addressing. In fact, I'd venture to say that anytime big "G" Government promotes an idea it's Propaganda.
734. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 4:57:00 PM
msno--
...so why is Propaganda such a loaded word?
I think it goes to what you and I have proposed in different ways: an intent to deceive or a hidden agenda. I actually like yours (hidden agenda) better.
Thus, the almost universal tendency for adversaries to spin the other guy's A into P to gain a perceptual advantage.
735. Cellar Door - 2/15/2050 5:08:16 PM
Again the DELIBERATE confusion between Propaganda and Advocacy.
Advocacy invites discussion.
Propaganda forecloses it.
To indicate that somewthing is propaganda is not to call advocacy by a "bad name." It's to mistake Advocacy what it is not.
Propaganda is NOT AN ADJECTIVE!!!!
736. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 5:18:41 PM
cellar--
Is that comment directed at me? If so, it's rather insulting. The point of this is to differentiate the two.
While P does attempt to foreclose discussion, I don't agree that A encourages it.
Please propose the formal definition of the two terms that you favor.
737. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 5:34:26 PM
cellar--
Please identify the statement that deliberately confuses the two terms.
738. Ms. No - 2/15/2050 5:44:29 PM
Aytch,
I was pretty stuck on the hidden agenda myself, but in an attempt to be more fair, I wonder if maybe hidden agenda isn't just a pitfall of oversimplifying one's message to reach as broad an audience as possible. Hence the reliance on symbols and slogans.
Take the picture of the children under the shadow of the Swastika for example. What's the hidden agenda? It clearly states that it wants you to buy War Bonds, but it's still propaganda.
Look at those sweet, innocent children. They're in a spotlight of almost holy sunlight. The older boy looks up sensing danger. In one hand the fighter jet pointed away and nearly forgotten the other arm crossing protectively in front of the younger boy who looks up trustingly from under the brim of his paper hat, American Flag waving valiantly on the end of a mended stick. The young girl seeming caught by surprise, has also turned her head away from the game of the fighter jet. The doll she holds by one arm is half in shadow, lying on its face, body limp, a little corpse.
It's a highly emotional picture and it conveys immediate threat to horrors! our children! our very way of life! Of COURSE we're going to run right out and buy some war bonds today!
I don't know how likely a German invasion on American soil was, but it's certainly not a lie to say that even Americans living at home were endangered by the war. So, they haven't hidden their agenda, and they haven't lied, but all the same the message doesn't feel quite "right" because it relies so heavily on the emotional appeal.
739. Ms. No - 2/15/2050 5:48:06 PM
Also because it makes the jump from buying war bonds straight to protecting our children which is a far more powerful argument than talking about the military budget.
740. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 5:53:13 PM
msno--
Yeah, I also struggle with the US homefront effort during the war. It's clearly P (to me) but I can't put an obvious hidden agenda on it. One could argue that buying war bonds wasn't actually in the interest of the individual (low interest rate, little real danger) but it's a stretch.
741. mgleason - 2/15/2050 6:00:02 PM
That's because, as Ms No indicates, propaganda is chiefly distinguished by a lack of nuance. It may also be used in service of a hidden agenda or worse, intend to deceive, but that is not a necessary component.
742. CalGal - 2/15/2050 6:08:03 PM
729--both are propaganda. I don't think that the agenda has to be hidden. It just has to exist, and the information disseminated is done to promote it.
743. Snowowl - 2/15/2050 6:21:02 PM
Here's an interesting little snippet from the Guardian newspaper. I think it's hard to determine here which is the most propagandistic - USA Today, or The Guardian.
Inspired by competing at home, the American team is set to sow its biggest harvest of medals ever in the Winter games. But even that is not enough for USA Today, the country's biggest-selling newspaper, which is printing a table based on the total number of medals won rather than golds. Using that format, the US, with 10 medals won, are second behind Germany. But in the official list distributed by the IOC, Norway are top having won five gold medals compared with the Americans' three.
744. Ms. No - 2/15/2050 6:46:18 PM
I'm just heartily disappointed that The Guardian has fallen so low that it doesn't realize that you sow seeds and reap the harvest.
745. concerned - 2/15/2050 7:10:31 PM
Perhaps the Guardian, being the Guardian, thought that was a sly way of implying that the Americans
'fixed' the Olympics.
746. Cellar Door - 2/15/2050 7:14:23 PM
My remarks were directed at CalGal who has done her best to ofuscate the situation. The difference between Advocacy and Propaganda is painfully obvious.
How many times do I have to re-state the reason?
747. judithathome - 2/15/2050 7:17:18 PM
Norway are top
Can this be correct? Shouldn't it be Norwegians?
748. mgleason - 2/15/2050 7:24:26 PM
That's the correct convention; the US are lazy in this regard. ;-)
749. concerned - 2/15/2050 7:28:32 PM
Re. 747 -
Except perhaps there was a presumption that it would have an embarrassing number of readers asking about Norwegia.
750. judithathome - 2/15/2050 7:44:55 PM
You have a point, concerned. ;-)
751. ronski - 2/15/2050 8:59:43 PM
I go with the old-fashioned way of reckoning. Norway are indeed top.
And let's hear it for brave little Estonia, who are doing pretty well.
And the Guardian should be ashamed of itself for confusing sow and reap, in a nation that has even more gardeners than shopkeepers, methinks.
752. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 11:13:34 PM
snow 743--
I'm not sure either position is P. To me, one is perhaps nationalistic (USA Today), the other just snarky.
Either way USA Today reports it, the US is second. Plus, I think US papers in general have reported total medal counts for quite a few years. Nationalistic perhaps to focus on the US total but not P.
Do you see some other P value in play?
753. AytchMan - 2/15/2050 11:40:15 PM
cellar 746--
Take pity on my slow Texas brain. Please point me to your post that defines A and P.
In your view, is it the key difference that A invites discussion, P forecloses it? If so, it's not obvious to me. It doesn't seem like most advocates are particularly interested in a discussion. Thye usually want to present their views and get what they want. Yes/no?
Do you believe that most trial lawyers (the classic example of an advocate) are more than remotely interested in an actual discussion of the merits of the case? Don't they just want to present their side and win?
754. arkymalarky - 2/16/2050 12:41:52 AM
You're a Texan? I had you pegged for a Yankee.
I think advocates want to convince you to adopt their viewpoint, and propagandists want to trick you into it.
755. CalGal - 2/16/2050 1:06:27 AM
Advocates would be perfectly happy to convince you by trickery, and propaganda can be quite effective at tricking you into their viewpoint using accurate information.
756. arkymalarky - 2/16/2050 1:12:53 AM
That was a purposeful oversimplification.
757. Snowowl - 2/16/2050 1:16:02 AM
If advocates are using trickery what distinguishes them from propagandists? Surely there is something in the nature of the way that the message is being broadcast that must distinguish the two.
758. Snowowl - 2/16/2050 1:25:52 AM
Aytch,
My post was a bit lighthearted, but I do think there is some propaganda value in the way the medal tables are presented. The convention, in every medal table I've seen, is to present the countries in order of gold medal totals first. Maybe it's just nationalism, maybe it's an effort to stir up even greater nationalistic fervour (e.g. the US are the biggest and the best at everything). I don't know and I don't particularly care. I just thought it was rather funny in context.
759. CalGal - 2/16/2050 3:22:10 AM
If advocates are using trickery what distinguishes them from propagandists?
Your question again assumes that propaganda is bad, and advocacy is good. Propaganda does not require trickery. Advocacy is not necessarily straightforward.
The difference between advocacy and propaganda is the beneficiary. The advocate works on behalf of someone else. The propagandist works for his own interests. Each has the same broad scope of methods to achieve his aims.
760. Snowowl - 2/16/2050 4:55:04 AM
The difference between advocacy and propaganda is the beneficiary. The advocate works on behalf of someone else. The propagandist works for his own interests. Each has the same broad scope of methods to achieve his aims.
I don't see this as the distinguishing difference between advocacy and propaganda at all. An advocate is simply someone who is advancing a cause. He or she might be the beneficiary of that cause.
761. Snowowl - 2/16/2050 4:55:34 AM
toys?
762. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2050 7:02:32 AM
In my opinion CalGal does not think very clearly about this. There are two words because there are two phenomena. Real propaganda is when lies become truths, war becomes peace, defeat becomes victory (I think I owe one to Orwell). Real propaganda is when Saddam Hussein succeeds to convince his people (and many others) that his defeat was a victory for Arab steadfastness and valour, and that hundreds of thousand of children have died due to the sanctions although Iraq can buy as much food and medicine as it wants. Real propaganda is when Mugabe's minister of information turns the regime's terror against its citizens into a fight for democracy and freedom. It is breathtaking to listen to him.
Advocacy, on the other hand, is a reasoned defense of a certain position. Of course, there is a grey area where the one merges into the other, but if we look for definitions we should not look at the point of confluence but at the extreme points of the spectrum.
763. CalGal - 2/16/2050 10:15:19 AM
Snow,
I can only refer you again to the definitions, which make the difference in beneficiary fairly explicit.
Propaganda:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Advocacy:
1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
There is a clear difference in intended beneficiary. I agree that it is possible for an advocate to plead a cause that also benefits himself.
Pelle--again, the definitions do not bear you out. "Real" propaganda is only propaganda that offends you. But propaganda does not require lies. Nor does advocacy require reasoning.
I do agree that offense vs defense is another difference, and I made that point earlier. But the grey areas occur as defense turns to offense, and the advocate starts working for his or her own ends, while ostensibly working for the cause. The grey areas have nothing to do with truth or lies told.
I wholeheartedly agree that there are two different words for a purpose--and in fact, I've been the one arguing that all along. It is those who focus on "good" and "bad" methods who are blurring the meanings based on their approval, moving the two words into one.
The words have separate meanings. But each can use the same methods to accomplish their goals.
764. arkymalarky - 2/16/2050 11:28:12 AM
The advocate works on behalf of someone else. The propagandist works for his own interests.
If there were a good and bad association to be made between advocacy and propaganda that would be it. From there we would be getting into the subjectivity of what are good and bad goals, and a discussion of the concept of the road to hell. However, you concede that the advocate can plead a cause that benefits himself as well as others. An advocate is a person, advocacy is a behavior, and propaganda is a tool.
Attributing methods as good or bad is not the same as approval of advocacy over propaganda. Advocates of prayer in schools are still advocates as opposed to propagandists, though I personally disagree with them. They may get some of their ideas about the benefits of prayer in schools from propagandists, but that does not mean they are automatically propagandists as opposed to advocates.
765. Cellar Door - 2/16/2050 11:32:14 AM
"Propaganda does not require trickery."
Propaganda is ENTIRELY about trickery!!!!
766. Cellar Door - 2/16/2050 11:33:51 AM
"Advocates would be perfectly happy to convince you by trickery, and propaganda can be quite effective at tricking you into their viewpoint using accurate information."
BULLSHIT!
Advocacy is ALL about reasoning. Propaganda is trickery and nothing more.
767. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2050 12:42:47 PM
CalGal
There is a clear difference in intended beneficiary.
Look at the second definition of advocacy. I fear you have maneuvered yourself into an untenable position on this one.
768. CalGal - 2/16/2050 12:48:04 PM
Pelle,
Given that I posted the definition, that's unlikely. My statement to you was "nor does advocacy require reasoning".
I fear you are too busy trying to sell your ideas to actually think. It's a common problem with propagandists.
769. CalGal - 2/16/2050 12:58:16 PM
If there were a good and bad association to be made between advocacy and propaganda that would be it.
Yes, I agree. That's why a lot of propaganda (ie, lobbyists) began calling themselves "advocacy groups".
However, you concede that the advocate can plead a cause that benefits himself as well as others.
Yes, but I think you should look through the conversation that Aytch and I had about it. It wasn't a light concession. The example was Michael J. Fox. Is he a propagandist? No. Is he an advocate? Eh, maybe. Given that he doesn't have to put himself out there, he gets the benefit of the doubt. But I would say he is more of a volunteer spokesman. Otherwise, how would you distinguish between Michael J. Fox and the celebrity who works tirelessly on behalf of abused children, or heart disease, or breast cancer without having been abused, a bad heart, or a lump in the nodes?
Advocates of prayer in schools are still advocates as opposed to propagandists, though I personally disagree with them.
An "advocate" of school prayer is, in fact, a propagandist. That's what I mean about lobbyists redefining themselves. I think NOW and NAACP are a propagandist organizations, given that they are trying to sell a particular political view in order to achieve the aims that they define as beneficial to women/minorities. NARAL is advocacy--at least their stated goal is. HRC is advocacy, but skirts near the line. Pretty much any organization aimed at protecting children is advocacy. Gun rights, for or against, is a tricky one. I'd say propaganda to both, but it's arguable.
770. Cellar Door - 2/16/2050 3:00:01 PM
An "advocate" of school prayer is, in fact, a propagandist.
You mean to tell me that one cannot make an argument in favor of school prayer without resorting to obfuscation, trickery and outright lies?
Michael J. Fox. Is he a propagandist? No. Is he an advocate? Eh, maybe.
In other words you can't advocate a position or idea that directly benefits you?
What kind of a world do you live in?
771. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2050 3:09:59 PM
CalGal
I fear you are too busy trying to sell your ideas to actually think. It's a common problem with propagandists.
If I'm a propagandist, then what are you?
772. arkymalarky - 2/16/2050 8:38:33 PM
Cal,
In #668, you draw a line by placing groups in one category or another, but you fail to define it. You'd need to clearly delineate the differences you perceive which place each group in the given category. What makes the NAACP propagandists but NARAL advocates? How does HRC "skirt near the line" yet remain an advocacy group? Why is an advocate of school prayer actually a propagandist, yet a supporter or an opponent of gun rights isn't clearly one or the other?
Given that he doesn't have to put himself out there, he gets the benefit of the doubt. But I would say he is more of a volunteer spokesman. Otherwise, how would you distinguish between Michael J. Fox and the celebrity who works tirelessly on behalf of abused children, or heart disease, or breast cancer without having been abused, a bad heart, or a lump in the nodes?
I read the exchange between you and H. I don't understand the relevance of the first sentence in the above excerpt from you. Why would volunteering have any more to do with it than it would wrt the volunteers in the above groups which you place under the category of propagandists?
WRT the rest of the excerpt, I don't see how he's any different from the latter at all in terms of whether to drop him in the propagandist or advocate category.
In fact, the whole construct you've created is consistent yet arbitrary. Consistency in how you divide propagandists and advocates isn't relevant if it doesn't reflect the full definitions of both categories.
773. Ms. No - 2/18/2050 11:55:54 AM
CG,
The first definition for propaganda does not specify personal benefit and the second deinition for advocacy does not specify other than personal benefit. This severely undermines your claim that beneficiary is the sole or even main point of difference between the two words. I'm also confused since the definition for advocacy appears to define "advocate" (n.) rather than advocacy.
I mentioned early in this thread and I still maintain that the dictionary definition does not encompass how these words are presently used and understood. I offered some points in Message # 732 that I think would be useful for drawing a more precise definition.
774. CalGal - 2/18/2050 12:02:56 PM
If I'm a propagandist, then what are you?
Well, I was largely goofing. But until you can make a post that doesn't involve me but rather the ideas, I'll pass on your posts.
775. CalGal - 2/18/2050 12:10:10 PM
The first definition for propaganda does not specify personal benefit and the second deinition for advocacy does not specify other than personal benefit.
The first says it is done for the purpose of hurting some other cause, institution, or person. I don't recall saying "personal" benefit, but you are correct that I use the second definition when I referred to the benefit of the person or institution spreading the propaganda. Nonetheless, I believe the distinction to be valid in identifying the difference between the two. I think I referred to it earlier as "intent", which is equally useful.
Your definition in 732 is accurate only in the first bullet. I believe I said earlier that propaganda could be considered information with an agenda. Advocacy can be done by an organization, it can be done with symbols, and can rely on symbols and slogans. Likewise propaganda does not need these.
776. Cellar Door - 2/19/2050 10:16:35 AM
777. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2050 12:38:08 PM
I don't get why several of you think that propaganda and advocacy are two completely different/mutually exclusive things. It seems to me that advocacy is a tool that can be used for various purposes, including propaganda.
In other words advocacy is simply argument used to persuade someone of something.
Propaganda is a large campaign used to persuade someone of something using advocacy, all sorts of emotional, patriotic pulls, imagery, etc. Basically, whatever it takes to get the overall job done.
I don't think that it's necessarily appropriate to attach negative or positive connotations to either word.
Con't.
778. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2050 12:38:25 PM
Con't.
Some propaganda campaigns are for the good, some are for the bad.
Same thing with advocacy.
I think we can use bin Laden as an example. Can we agree that the US has embarked on a propaganda campaign to convince the world that he is one whacked out bastard who needs to die?
How is the US doing that?
1. Flyers dropped from planes showing bin Laden with a Western haircut an Western attire claiming that he's abandoned them.
2. Advocacy by all sorts of people trying to convince the world that the US is opposed to terrorists, not muslims. powell is out there. Bushis out there. Various muslim clerics are out there.
3. Todd Beamer's widow at speeches made by the President of the US - to make us want to cry and to kill the bastards who could hurt someone who looks like the very cute all-American girl by killing her hero husband who may have saved the White House.
4. Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, at the State of the Union address to show us that we are not against muslims or Afghans. We just want to help, and rid the word of terrorist scum like bin Laden.
5. Etc., so on and so forth.
I think propaganda is usually given negative connotations by people because it uses every tool available to convince someone. In other words we think it just tastes bad to be using Mrs. Beamer in that way. I think there was even an article in Slate a while back considering whether it was wrong of the US to drop the flyers with the doctored bin Laden pics.
779. Cellar Door - 2/19/2050 12:55:07 PM
When will you and CalGal be posting the bans?
780. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2050 12:57:17 PM
Who is "you"?
781. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 1:49:32 PM
Zojack,
I don't think that anyone has argued that P & A are mutually exclusive with the possible exception of Cellar. The general consensus seems to be that Advocacy and Propaganda exist on a spectrum with a gray area between which is neither all one nor the other.
That one can say all propagandists advocate but not all advocates propagandize implies a significant difference between the words. We've been trying to nail down just what that difference is.
782. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 2:14:07 PM
The difference is screamingly obvious, as the story I linked upthread illustrstes.
The fact that people in here persist in seeing propaganda as "calling advocacy by a bad name" is indicative of the sub-intellectual level we've sunk to in this heaving cesspool of a culture.
783. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2002 2:45:05 PM
That one can say all propagandists advocate but not all advocates propagandize implies a significant difference between the words. We've been trying to nail down just what that difference is.
In my view, as explained above, the difference is that advocacy is a tool that propagandists can use. It's a subset.
I see that Cellar adopts a much, much narrower definition of both terms.
Advocacy is ALL about reasoning. Propaganda is trickery and nothing more.
Sorry cellar, I've seen bad lawyers in court "advocating" positions that have nothing to do with reason. I don't think that makes them propagandists.
On the other hand, not all propaganda is "trickery." I think that definition is way too narrow as well.
I agree that the example of Saddam convincing his people that he won the war is an example of successful propaganda. I also agree that it is trickery. I simply don'tthink it is only only example of "propaganda." cellar is the example of the US trying to marginalize bin Laden propaganda? If so, it it mere trickery? Is there no truth to what is being said?
784. concerned - 2/19/2002 2:55:55 PM
I agree that the example of Saddam convincing his people that he won the war is an example of successful propaganda.
Is the reasoning here that it's a victory because he's still in power? I always sort of wondered...
785. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 3:09:38 PM
"Sorry cellar, I've seen bad lawyers in court "advocating" positions that have nothing to do with reason. I don't think that makes them propagandists. "
Then they were lying.
If it has "nothing to do with reason" then it's propaganda.
I don't see HOW it could be stated any simpler.
786. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 3:09:41 PM
Zojak,
In my view, as explained above, the difference is that advocacy is a tool that propagandists can use. It's a subset.
I still think you've got it backwards. It is not possible to propagandize without advocating which means that advocacy cannot be a subset of propaganda. It is possible to advocate without propagandizing which allows that propaganda can be a subset of advocacy.
787. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 3:15:49 PM
Cellar,
Illogic and untruthfullness are not synonymous. One can make an unreasonable argument without being a liar and vice versa.
Did you see my list in Message # 732? Do you disagree with any of those points? I know that you might feel they stop short or don't include everything, but do you agree or disagree that they're useful for defining Propaganda?
788. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 3:19:40 PM
ALL far too general.
promotes a particular idea or agenda
So did my kidergarden teacher. Did that make her a kommisar?
is a tool of unified/centralized groups or organizations (as opposed to individuals)
Driving instructors for example.
relies on symbols and slogans
So all advertising is propaganda?
simplifies its message for mass consumption
see above
You've got to do better than that.
789. concerned - 2/19/2002 3:20:11 PM
Don't see why propaganda dissemination should be limited to advancing the common agendas of multiple individuals.
790. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2002 3:22:17 PM
Ms. No -
No, I don't think I have it backwards. Subset is the wrong word. I go back to "tool" and retract "It's a subset."
But aren't we getting bogged down in definitional minutae we don't need to resolve to discuss the question in the tag-line?
For example, does anyone disagree that Hitler's campaign in the 30's regarding the superiority of the Aryan race, his abilty to lead the Germans out of a serious depression, and back to greatness was a propaganda campaign? If we can agree that that it was propaganda, we can argue about whether it was successful, why and whether there were any 20th Century campaigns that were more successful.
I don't think that what we're discussing now will make one bit of difference to that discussion. If we get to the point of comparing it to another campaig that someone believes is not propaganda, we can discuss it then. In context.
791. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 3:36:56 PM
Cellar,
I'm aware that they are general. I mentioned that in my request for you to look at them. You didn't answer my question, though. It's kind of like if I was trying to define an apple and you said I couldn't use "red" and "fruit" because fire engines are red and bananas are also fruit.
792. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2002 3:38:57 PM
Cellar -
If it has "nothing to do with reason" then it's propaganda.
I don't see HOW it could be stated any simpler.
I agree that your position is simple. I never said I didn't understand it. I just disagree.
793. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 3:45:06 PM
Zojak,
No, I don't think I have it backwards. Subset is the wrong word. I go back to "tool" and retract "It's a subset."
You've still got the same problem. All Propaganda advocates but not all Advocacy propagandizes. Propaganda is a tool of Advocacy.
But aren't we getting bogged down in definitional minutae we don't need to resolve to discuss the question in the tag-line?
Well, yes and no. That's not the original tag line for the thread so this discussion is a holdover from the original which read something like "What is it? Do people always know it when they see it?"
The answers to those questions seem to be "Depends who you ask" and "No."
794. concerned - 2/19/2002 3:45:52 PM
I'd have to give the nod to Hitler's propaganda over Saddam's, although the I'm sure the latter takes the ring regarding the sheer brazenness of its bullshit.
795. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 3:46:55 PM
Ms.No, that's like saying that because words are used it's propaganda.
796. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 3:48:51 PM
Popaganda is not a "position" or an "argument," it is a weapon
797. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 3:52:17 PM
No, Cellar, it isn't. As I said to CalGal earlier it's a winnowing/narrowing process. I'm not done, but I'd rather check along the way then head off down a path and find that no one has any clue where I've gone or why I've gone there.
Let me ask it another way.
Do you disagree that Propaganda simplifies its message for mass consumption?
Do you disagree that Propaganda uses symbols to promote it's message?
Do you disagree that Propaganda is a tool of groups rather than individuals?
Do you disagree that Propaganda has an agenda?
798. zojak quafeth - 2/19/2002 4:49:40 PM
Ms. No -
At the risk of using your own words against you....
It's kind of like if I was trying to define an apple and you said I couldn't use "red" and "fruit" because fire engines are red and bananas are also fruit.
So under your analogy is Red a subset of fruit?
No. It is a term used to describe a fruit -- in part. They same is true when you look at advocacy and propaganda. Advocacy is simply one thing a propagandist can use.
Concerned -
I'm not sure Hitler's was any less brazen than Saddam's.
799. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 6:23:00 PM
Do you disagree that Propaganda simplifies its message for mass consumption?
Of course
Do you disagree that Propaganda uses symbols to promote it's message?
Sometimes
Do you disagree that Propaganda is a tool of groups rather than individuals?
Again, sometimes. What does this distinction mean to you?
Do you disagree that Propaganda has an agenda?
But are you then going to tell me that all statements made by groups or individual, keyed for mass consumption that utlize symbols and have an agenda are Propaganda?
If that's what you're saying you're dead wrong.
You have yet to adequately characterize propaganda.
I am a patient man.
800. arkymalarky - 2/19/2002 7:50:47 PM
It's beginning to seem to me that the whole thread is getting bogged down in pinning down a definition until everyone agrees to it rather than discussing uses of propaganda and specific issues, etc. I don't at all think it's necessary to pin down one agreed-upon definition to have a discussion.
Bob was watching a movie about marijuana in 1958 this afternoon. It was a riot, and obviously propaganda, besides containing some wonderfully cheesy acting and dialog. It wasn't Reefer Madness, but I can't remember the name of it. It made me think about ineffective propaganda campaigns. What is in the heads of people who think they're really going to scare young people or convince them of things they've seen with their own eyes aren't true. OTOH, I remember Go Ask Alice getting a lot of interest when I was a teen, though I don't recall it changing anyone's behavior. Was it propaganda or just a legitimate story of the power of drugs?
801. arkymalarky - 2/19/2002 7:51:53 PM
The movie was made in 1958.
802. Cellar Door - 2/19/2002 8:12:40 PM
Mary Jane?
"Exploitation" movies are all propaganda-based in that they wildly misrepresent the effect of that which they're supposedly taking objection to.
803. arkymalarky - 2/19/2002 8:18:16 PM
No, it was something with several words. It may have had "crime" in it. It was one of those where the students in class looked older than the teacher. It was outrageous. Guys stealing and killing over "smoke." You'da thought it was about heroin or tobacco or something.
804. arkymalarky - 2/19/2002 8:18:53 PM
"Crime" in the title, that is.
805. Al D - 2/19/2002 10:33:27 PM
What didn't work in '68-'98 may have worked in '58. Back in the '50's we were convinced that pot was a dangerous drug. Now we know it is absolutely harmless, in fact mostly beneficial.
806. ee - 2/20/2002 1:14:58 AM
Al Davis after golf
807. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2002 1:55:27 AM
Sometimes propaganda is a cash cow . . . 
808. judithathome - 2/20/2002 9:19:15 AM
Very nice, Wiz!
809. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 9:58:45 AM
I think that propaganda is defined more by methodology than message or the interests of the speaker, and so find most agreement with Cellar.
We produced tons of propaganda in WWII, aimed at prodcuing desired attitudes and behaviors in our citizenry. The essential message was true [though many factoids in the messages were not, and much of the truth was misleading], the intentions were noble and in the interests of the persons to be pursuaded. Under Cal's proposal, our propaganda which used similar techniques to propaganda used elsewhere, and often nefariously, is advocacy because it truely in the American public's interests to defend itself and defeat the Axis. The distinction between on one's on behalf and on the behalf of others also does not work in this example.
810. Cellar Door - 2/20/2002 10:02:24 AM
811. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 10:03:53 AM
An example: 
812. arkymalarky - 2/20/2002 1:15:19 PM
Hahaha! EE, I figured that picture would be before golf. Or would it be after golf and before Moting?
Bob said the movie was "The Cool and the Crazy" or something like that.
813. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2002 3:10:58 PM
814. concerned - 2/20/2002 4:28:10 PM
And this flapdoodle is by none other than ...*giggle*... Joe Conason, who wouldn't recognize sound science if it bit him in the arse.
Guess Conason's 'solution' is just to stockpile nuclear waste in rusting containers across the country where terrorists can easily get at it.
815. concerned - 2/20/2002 4:30:18 PM
It's clear that Conason's idea of journalistic responsibility as applied to himself extends no further than to be a partisan hack.
816. concerned - 2/20/2002 4:43:11 PM
Does Conason think people are stoopid, dammit?!
817. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2002 4:56:22 PM
This must be concerned's idea of propaganda--Viceroy Cheesey lies to the locals for votes and Conason is the evil propagandist!
818. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 5:42:03 PM
Concerned
Chenney says to Nevada voters- no nuclear dump in Yucca Flats, Nevada prior to the election.
Bush decides to approve the site and ennact the plan after the election [muuuch after the election, i'll grant]
Tough to believe them both, isn't it? As for Conason thinking "people are stoopid", I must disagree. He assumes that they understand simple logic, for example- two mutually contradictory premises cannot both be true. This truth is independent of the knowledge of the speaker.
Before you retreat to the next excuse- yes, democratic candidates have not done as they have promised on the campaign trail as well. And for the standard excuse after that, show some objective proof (other than rabid assertions of political partisans) that democrats do it more or republicans less.
819. concerned - 2/20/2002 5:51:33 PM
Funny. I seem to remember 'precipitous' used as a qualifier in Cheney's statement.
820. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 6:21:14 PM
Concerned- suddenly Bush/Chenney discovered "two decades of sound science?" after the election? Classic propaganda by you, Chenney didn't mean at all that the issue was open to debate and decisions would await the determinations of scientists rather than rash action, he meant that it would definitely happen in accord with already established scientific study.
821. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2002 6:30:56 PM
Another case of concern's hypocrititis convenience!
822. concerned - 2/20/2002 6:45:37 PM
I don't see, from Conason's slanted little diatribe that Cheney ever came close to promising, either before or after the election, that the Bush administration would not advocate storing nuclear waste in Nevada, nor that he assigned a specific 'tense' to the scientific study(ies) he referred to.
Sorry.
823. Cellar Door - 2/20/2002 9:36:00 PM
Your blindness has been noted frequently in the past.
824. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 11:43:01 PM
concerned- don't like Conason? Try this With polls showing Texas Gov. George Bush neck-and-neck with Vice President Al Gore, Cheney's visit on the last full day of the campaign underscored how important Nevada's four electoral votes have become in this presidential contest.
"Let them know it's not true," said Cheney of Democrat charges that a Bush administration would sign a bill to bring high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "We won't support it on either a temporary or permanent basis" unless it's deemed safe by government scientists. "So there is, in fact, no difference."
But the two presidential contenders do differ on the nuclear waste issue. Although both candidates have said they would sign off on permanent storage if it is deemed scientifically safe, only Gore has said he would veto any bill that provides for temporary storage. Bush has indicated he would sign such a bill if the Environmental Protection Agency says it's safe. Las Vegas journal
825. OhioSTOPAS - 2/21/2002 5:10:50 AM
It's "Animal House" all over again, with Bush and Cheney as Otter and Nevada as Flounder:
"You fucked up. You trusted us!"
826. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 8:15:38 AM
The federal government spent $7-plus billion (most of it going to Nevada workers) building the Yucca Mountain tunnels to store nuclear waste.
After they're completed, Nevada doesn't want to use them?
827. OhioSTOPAS - 2/21/2002 9:13:58 AM
False. The billions spent so far have gone only for study of the potential project. Nothing has been built, much less completed. (And, given the nature of the expenditures, I doubt much if any of the billions spent so far were "going to Nevada workers.")
How many inaccuracies can two sentences contain?
828. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 9:36:38 AM
Are you sure? I've seen video of the Nevada tunnels build, equipped and ready to be used, Ohio.
829. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 9:39:48 AM
The dust up over Yucca is a good example of how it is not only the statements made and facts presented, but often the facts ommitted or obscured, that evidence propaganda.
830. judithathome - 2/21/2002 9:41:12 AM
Well, I've seen video of peasants harvesting spaghetti from Pasta Mines in Italy, too, but I didn't believe it was actually fact.
831. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 9:57:10 AM
Hmmm. Seems to me that what we have here is Jones propagandizing against Cheney by using their own propaganda against them.....
832. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 9:58:18 AM
.... Bush/Cheney ....
833. OhioSTOPAS - 2/21/2002 10:02:01 AM
Here is one article about the Yucca controvery, specifically a report regarding the GAO report a few months ago questioning the Yucca storage plan. Excerpts:
"The GAO report said it would be January 2006 before the department could send a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a Yucca repository."
"So much scientific information is missing that the department probably could not submit a license request, the GAO report said."
834. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 10:14:28 AM
But seriously here. Is this going to degenerate into partisan bickering over Bush/Clinton and silly propaganda no one can SERIOUSLY say are among the best propaganda campaigns that ever existed?
If so, then this is just another American politics thread. Same ole shit. Different thread.
If you really wantto examine the issue of "propaganda, why not start with one of the monst extensive propaganda campaigns that ever existed. Plenty of material there to discuss:
1. how slivers of truth are distorted, shaped, etc. to present a picture the propagandist wants you to see;
2. what was effective and why;
3. Whether there were any more effective propaganda campaigns.
Basically, we can talk about what the real nazis did or we can sit here and let the liberal nazis bitch and moan about Bush, with equally silly counterstrokes from the conservative nazis against Clinton and the anti-christ formerly known as Gore.
835. judithathome - 2/21/2002 10:30:29 AM
Zojak:
Have you read back over this thread? We've been discussing many different propaganda campaigns. I agree we shouldn't get bogged down in politics but before you assume the entire thread has been political, you ought to read more of the discussion than just a couple of days worth.
836. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 10:40:16 AM
zojak-
No. I am not taking a postition regarding the correctness of the decision by the administration to go ahead.
The Conanson article is advocacy. It marshalls evidence in support of its premises and emphasizes facts and assumptions favorable to its premises. It encourages us to infer that the administration policy is not merely the product of a considered disagreement with opponents of the plans, but is inspired by the political connections and donations of persons and corporations with a personal interest in the decisions.
However, Conansen's factual statements are true, and the conclusions he wants us to draw from the big picture can logically follow from the facts presented.
Concerned responds with an ad hominem attack on the writers competence:
And this flapdoodle is by none other than ...*giggle*... Joe Conason, who wouldn't recognize sound science if it bit him in the arse.
puts a outrageous strawman argument in his mouth:
Guess Conason's 'solution' is just to stockpile nuclear waste in rusting containers across the country where terrorists can easily get at it.
and finally his ethics in raising the issue:
It's clear that Conason's idea of journalistic responsibility as applied to himself extends no further than to be a partisan hack.
837. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 10:45:28 AM
When this is unsuccessful in diverting attention away from the central issue, the propagandist retreats to "reframing" the issue or altering the truth:
Funny. I seem to remember 'precipitous' used as a qualifier in Cheney's statement.
Actually 'precipitious' comes from Conanson's language, not Cheney's. The nut of Cheney's presentation was two points: 1. that a Bush/Cheney administration would not go forward on the Yucca Mountain project without scientific study showing the project was safe, and without regulations in place based on sound science.
838. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 10:49:29 AM
and 2. That there was really no difference between Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney on this issue.
839. concerned - 2/21/2002 10:53:00 AM
Then why doesn't Conason mention the obvious 'homeland defense' or terrorist aspects of this situation, or provide any context whatever regarding the longstanding US government plans re Yucca Mountain? Why then does he work so hard to suggest that the Bush administration is guilty of some lack of honesty when such is clearly not the case? All of the above distortions or omissions show that he is either mentally defective or a partisan hack.
840. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 10:56:08 AM
Judith -
No. I haven't read over the entire thread. I looked at the first few pages of posts on the Truth/Drugs ad campaign and have looked through (and participated a bit in) a definitional debate about propaganda vs. advocacy over the last few days and now see we're talking politics. I didn't assume that the entire thread, however, had ignored the issues in the tag line, which is why I used the word "degenerated."
I'm glad you agree that the thread is NOW a bit off-topic and that we shouldn't get "bogged down" on politics, assumptions, or assumptions about assumptions.
841. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 11:00:44 AM
concerned- Thank you for providing illustrations for the distinction between advocacy and propaganda.
842. concerned - 2/21/2002 11:00:50 AM
Sounds like what the Lefties are really pissed about wrt all this regarding Yucca Mountain amounts to the possibility that they think that Bush and Cheney might have successfully used this issue to help leverage Nevada's electoral votes in 2000, although the 49-46 popular vote in that state argues otherwise.
843. concerned - 2/21/2002 11:02:53 AM
Re. 841 -
That's why I brought up relevant points to the issue that Conason didn't.
Re. 842 -
49-46 percent, of course.
844. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 11:04:58 AM
One man's art is another's clumsiness; one's treasure, another's garbage and as the cliche states: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
The true believer's doctrines become agitprop to doubters and non-believers.
I still don't see any reason for the conflicting views regarding its function . .. but, all of it must be reduced to "bickering" over what is (or isn't) propaganda from the relative viewpoints of each beholder.
845. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 11:08:09 AM
(with C-SPAN broadcasting joint press conference in the background) Why are the Red Chinese sucking up to President Bush?
I smell a rat.
846. CalGal - 2/21/2002 11:11:11 AM
Catching up...
Under Cal's proposal, our propaganda which used similar techniques to propaganda used elsewhere, and often nefariously, is advocacy because it truely in the American public's interests to defend itself and defeat the Axis.
No. It's not advocacy. It's propaganda. It was in the government's interests.
847. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 11:15:30 AM
Evasive as every, concerned!
Conason's point had to do with Cheney's dishonesty and the manipulation of the Nevada voter by shrewdly propagandizing his comments about Yucca and leading people to believe that he was for their cause (rather than the people who were backing his election and profit by dumping waste in Nevada).
848. Property of Jesus - 2/21/2002 11:24:40 AM
Hilarious listening to American reporters asking the Chinese "president" questions about religious freedom in his country and the 50 Catholic bishops in their prisons, and he ignoring them completely.
Two U.S. reporters asked the same question. Both times he said nothing, motioning to Chinese "reporters" to ask their questions.
849. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 11:24:49 AM
Ah. So Cal, are they mutually exclusive? What's in the government's interest cannot be in the public interest? Hogwash.
850. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 11:26:10 AM
...that was re:846
851. concerned - 2/21/2002 11:29:04 AM
WoW -
I don't disagree that during the campaign, Cheney, by emphasizing to Nevada voters those factors which may have mitigated against the storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain could have benefitted, or at least not hurt the Bush campaign.
852. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 11:35:13 AM
Good concerned--now the question becomes was it propaganda that manipulated people into voting against their own self-interests?
853. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 11:38:50 AM
Cal- Well, as to the circumstance in question, ther's hardly a divergence of interests between the American public and the government in this instance.
If we assume that intentional falsehoods were used, appeals to irrational prejudice, concealment of the interests of the speaker or a blurring of the interests of the audience and the speaker are used, I would conclude that it is propaganda. This is independent of the actual merits of the proposition, whether the proposition is truly favorable to the audience etc.
Your milegage may vary, but this is the heart of the distinction to me.
854. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 11:40:17 AM
WoW-
wait. It's not a group. It's not in the interests of the government, because at the time, Cheney wasn't in the government. Maybe it was advoganda. Or is that a nation somewhere in Africa?
855. Julius Caesar - 2/21/2002 11:42:42 AM
The Cheney bit seems divorced from propaganda. Bush said "read my lips". Clinton promised a different policy with regard to Haiti and China.
These seem like simple lies (if the speaker knew that his statement was not to be) or pledges that were withdrawn after a change of heart.
If such, every public falsehood is propaganda.
Anne Heche as Goebbels.
856. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 11:43:52 AM
Re Message # 806 I usually get to see photos like these in drug conspiracy cases where my client has attempted the "I don't know nuthin 'bout sellin no drugs" defense in their initial contact with law enforcement. Throw in a few weapons, some cash and a gang hand sign for good measure.
857. Julius Caesar - 2/21/2002 11:45:06 AM
Paul Wellstone ran on a pledge that he would only serve two-terms. It was an important part of his campaign. He probably believed it when he said it. He is now running for a third term.
Propaganda?
858. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 11:45:53 AM
Ceasar- I agree.
859. Cellar Door - 2/21/2002 11:46:45 AM
If Anne Heche is Goebbels then who plays Leni Riefenstahl?
Ann Coulter?
Nah. She'd be better as (to quote Mel Brooks) Adolph Elizabeth Hitler.
860. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 11:47:03 AM
858 was to 855.
861. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2002 12:05:27 PM
Pentagon is arming with words
Office would plant news, true or false, in foreign media
WASHINGTON The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policymakers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said.
862. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 12:15:59 PM
854. zojak- Propaganda is a tool used to propagate the faith. In that light, Cheney was trying to get the Nevada voter to have faith in him -- in hindsight, time proved that their faith wasn't warranted.
Julius- I suppose you can say the same thing about Wellstone, but I would be more suspicious of Cheney because of his ties to the energy industry.
863. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 12:46:46 PM
WoW- I was using Calgal's definitions - which limit the definition of theterm "propaganda" significantly. (I don't ascribe to her definition myself). I guess my sarcasm got lost somewhere. Next time I'll try pictures.
On another note, you're more suspicious of Cheney's Nevada pledge because of his ties to energy that you are of Wellstone's pledge on re-elction because of course Wellstone has no ties to --- politics?
Let's hope you were joking with that one.
864. Julius Caesar - 2/21/2002 12:50:49 PM
Or Wellstone' ties to -- his own success. That works too.
It's akin to saying that OJ's pronouncements of innocence are not propaganda because they only benefit OJ - not the NFL.
In fact, none of this rigamarole is propaganda. This is much like calling a spanking "child abuse." After awhile, the definition becomes so broad it means nothing.
865. CalGal - 2/21/2002 12:59:18 PM
Jones--tell me where propaganda requires lies.
What's in the government's interest cannot be in the public interest?
It is irrelevant whether it is in the public interest or not, when discussing this aspect of it. What matters is why the government does it.
I agree with JC that a lie is not propaganda in and of itself.
866. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 1:13:51 PM
From Pelle's link. Now that's propaganda:
Officials at the Rendon Group say terms of their contract forbid them to talk about their Pentagon work.
.
But the firm is well known for running propaganda campaigns in Arab countries, including one denouncing atrocities by Iraq during its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
.
The firm has been hired as the Bush administration appears to have united around the goal of removing Saddam. "Saddam Hussein has a charm offensive going on, and we haven't done anything to counteract it," a senior military official said.
.
Proponents say the new Pentagon office will bring much-needed coordination to the military's efforts to influence views of the United States overseas, particularly as Washington broadens the war on terrorism.
.
But the new office has also stirred a sharp debate in the Pentagon, where several senior officials have questioned whether its mission is too broad and possibly even illegal. Those critics say they are disturbed that a single office might be authorized to use not only covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities and deception, but also the instruments and staff of the military's globe-spanning public affairs apparatus.
.
Mingling the more surreptitious activities with the work of traditional public affairs would undermine the Pentagon's credibility with the media, the public and governments around the world, critics argue.
867. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 1:54:14 PM
Cal- Propaganda does not require lies. However, attempting to persuade someone of that a lie is true is engaging in propaganda.
868. CalGal - 2/21/2002 2:00:06 PM
However, attempting to persuade someone of that a lie is true is engaging in propaganda.
No. Attempting to persuade someone that a lie is true is nothing more than further lies. It may or may not be propaganda.
Another element of propaganda is, I think, that the benefit be more than the immediate gain from the lie.
869. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:02:58 PM
In 1937, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis was created to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. Composed of social scientists and journalists, the IPA published a series of books, including:
Cal-
The Fine Art of Propaganda
Propaganda Analysis
Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis
Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It
The IPA is best-known for identifying the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, "these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects." (Combs and Nimmo, 1993)
I think that propaganda is marked more by methodology than the veracity of the actual statements.
870. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:05:49 PM
Sorry for botching the cut and paste job in 869. The focus should be on the techniques: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon.
871. CalGal - 2/21/2002 2:07:33 PM
I think that propaganda is marked more by methodology than the veracity of the actual statements.
It has nothing to do with veracity, I've been saying all along. But I don't think it has anything to do with methodology, either. Certainly not as defined in your cite. Your truth-tellin is someone else's namecalling, his rock solid value is your glittering generality, and so on.
In fact, that book could be considered propaganda. I wonder if the writers belong to or support "advocacy groups".
872. CalGal - 2/21/2002 2:12:34 PM
In case my last comment is misconstrued--I am pointing out that a book written to convince people that propaganda always uses illicit methods is certainly a book with an agenda, which is part of the requirement for propaganda. If it is to their purpose to convince people of propaganda's nefarious methods, then their book on propaganda would be...propaganda!
873. Cellar Door - 2/21/2002 2:16:16 PM
No it wouldn't. It would be rational argument
874. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2002 2:30:32 PM
CalGal strikes new ground in taking up a quasi-meta-post-modernist position. A text that aims to demonstrate that another text is propaganda is itself propaganda.
875. judithathome - 2/21/2002 2:33:45 PM
How Gertrude Steinish...
876. CalGal - 2/21/2002 2:35:29 PM
A text that aims to demonstrate that another text is propaganda is itself propaganda.
Incorrect. A text that aims to define propaganda might be propaganda.
877. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:36:00 PM
Technique descriptions:?
Name Calling
The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who
uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the
negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
The Glittering Generality
is, in short, Name Calling in reverse. While Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to
reject and condemn without examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to
make us approve and accept without examining the evidence. In acquainting ourselves with the
Glittering Generality Device, therefore, all that has been said regarding Name Calling must be
kept in mind..." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)
Euphemism
When propagandists use glittering generalities and name-calling symbols, they are attempting to
arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive words. In certain situations, however,
the propagandist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more
palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic.
Transfer
"Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige
of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of
us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church
or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority,
sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something which otherwise we
might reject
.
878. CalGal - 2/21/2002 2:36:01 PM
I mean, Pelle, you might want to start by restating accurately, don't you think?
879. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:37:03 PM
from 877 cont'd:
Testimonial
An attempt to rely on the authority of a popular or respected person or organization when their
authority does not extend to the topic discussed.
With our next breath, we begin a sentence, 'The Times said,' 'John L. Lewis said...,' 'Herbert
Hoover said...', 'The President said...', 'My doctor said...,' 'Our minister said...' Some of these
Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of
the device; others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood, a
misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion
880. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:38:35 PM
877 cont'd cont'd:
?Plain Folks
By using the plain-folks technique, speakers attempt to convince their audience that they, and
their ideas, are "of the people." The device is used by advertisers and politicans alike.
America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, but they have gone to great lengths to
present themselves as ordinary citizens. Bill Clinton eats at McDonald's and reads trashy spy
novels. George Bush hated broccoli, and he loved to fish. Ronald Reagan was often
photographed chopping wood, and Jimmy Carter presented himself as a humble peanut farmer
from Georgia.
Bandwagon
The basic theme of the Band Wagon appeal is that "everyone else is doing it, and so should you."
Since few of us want to be left behind, this technique can be quite successful. However, as the
IPA points out, "there is never quite as much of a rush to climb onto the Band Wagon as the
propagandist tries to make us think there is." When confronted with this technique, it may be
helpful to ask ourselves the following questions:
Fear
When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will ensue if they do not
follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's
deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits
of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.
Defective logic
It should be noted that a message can be illogical without being propagandistic -- we all make
logical mistakes. The difference is that propagandists deliberately manipulate logic in order to
promote their cause.
881. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:39:21 PM
more propaganda [techniques]:
Unwarranted extrapolation
Drawing conclusions far beyond the reach of the evidence:
if we pass NAFTA there will be a giant sucking sound...
If medical malpractice verdicts are not capped no doctor will practice obstetrics..
if campaign finance reform is not passed only money will be represented in Congress..
882. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:42:30 PM
All of the above is either directly swiped from the following site, is a condensation or is in a slightly massaged form.
Propaganda at Wash U.
883. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:43:19 PM
Cleanup aisle three....
884. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:46:45 PM
A text arguing that propaganda exists and can be recognized by certain techniques can itself be propaganda? Gang, I think we're through the looking glass here.
885. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:47:35 PM
toys dadgummit!
886. CalGal - 2/21/2002 2:54:09 PM
A text arguing that propaganda exists and can be recognized by certain techniques can itself be propaganda?
The text is not arguing that propaganda exists--or if it is, it is arguing something not in dispute.
I already pointed out the substantive problems with their position in Message # 871; I was just pointing out the obvious possibility that the authors also had an agenda. I don't think it's a given that they do; certainly there are plenty of people here mistaken about propaganda without having an agenda.
But you all act as if there is no benefit to defining propaganda in ways advantageous to your position, or that the very notion of doing so is absurd. This is odd, since the advantages are obvious.
887. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 3:05:58 PM
Cal- you are seriously in danger of disappearing into your own navel.
All coherent speech has an agenda. Even some incoherent speech has an agenda- babies learning to make sounds, whining toddlers etc. Only certain forms interest us- specifically persuasive speech. You think it odd that other posters are acting as if there is no benefit to defining propaganda in ways "advantageous to your position" again focusing on "agenda" IOW your perception of their interests.
888. CalGal - 2/21/2002 3:11:21 PM
Jones, that post is incoherent. You also seem unaware of earlier conversations.
I'll try again:
1. You offered a cite to support your position.
2. I pointed out the problems with that definition. That was, in fact, my rebuttal.
3. I remarked that in fact the book, too, could be considered propaganda. I made this last comment because I thought it was an interesting notion, not as a rebuttal.
889. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 3:11:58 PM
863. zojak quafeth - 2/21/02 5:46:46 PM
864. Julius Caesar - 2/21/02 5:50:49 PM
Your sophistry is as woeful as your sarcasm.
I'm more suspicious of Cheney's feigned sincerity with regard to Nevada votes than of Wellstone's change of mind or heart regarding running again--though I don't expect either of you would see it that way.
In Cheney's case, he was trying to persuade, while Wellstone was affirming his belief regarding term limits.
890. Julius Caesar - 2/21/2002 3:25:08 PM
Ha ha ha ha. Man, oh man.
891. CalGal - 2/21/2002 3:27:12 PM
What is that called, again? I'm an epicurean, you're a picky eater?
892. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 3:30:58 PM
889. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/02 8:11:58 PM
My sincerest apologies to the great wizard. I had not realized oh great one, that thou hast the ability to divine the intent of speakers so as to determine that deep witin his shriviled evil core, the despicable Cheney "feigned" sincerity, while the righteous Mr. Wellstone, after finding the holy grail of course, had a change of heart and determined to make the sacrifice of staying to serve his countrymen for 6 more years.
I promise to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
And you have the nerve to use the word sophistry.... Indeed.
893. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 4:49:53 PM
In case my last comment is misconstrued--I am pointing out that a book written to convince people that propaganda always uses illicit methods is certainly a book with an agenda, which is part of the requirement for propaganda. If it is to their purpose to convince people of propaganda's nefarious methods, then their book on propaganda would be...propaganda!
This would be true if the techniques in question were used in order to promote the acceptance of the proposition, as they have posited the meaning of the word.
I for the life of me cannot understand why some Moties are convinced that all persuasive speech can be considered propaganda, depending upon one's preferrences or prejudices. If this is the case, is the word mere surplusage in the language, or just another possible choice where one could use "argument" "advocacy" "advertising" "persuasion" or the like? Is it that no methodology or technique is morally perferable to another? Or that no distinction can be made without first determining who the "bad guys" are, or who's ox is being gored?
It seems to me that the word serves a useful purpose in distinguishing between attempting to honestly persuade an audience through reason on one hand, and appeals which are designed to exploit weaknesses in human nature which interfere with reasoned response on the other.
894. CalGal - 2/21/2002 4:57:40 PM
This would be true if the techniques in question were used in order to promote the acceptance of the proposition, as they have posited the meaning of the word.
No. There is no basis for accepting their techniques. You haven't made that case.
I for the life of me cannot understand why some Moties are convinced that all persuasive speech can be considered propaganda, depending upon one's preferrences or prejudices.
You surely can't be talking to me? If so, this restatement is in fact diametrically opposite to my position.
Is it that no methodology or technique is morally perferable to another?
No, of course methodologies and techniques are preferable to each other. But propaganda is morally neutral, so what does the moral ranking of technique have to do with anything?
It seems to me that the word serves a useful purpose in distinguishing between attempting to honestly persuade an audience through reason on one hand, and appeals which are designed to exploit weaknesses in human nature which interfere with reasoned response on the other.
But this is always subjective. The word does serve a useful purpose; it just doesn't make the distinction you want it to.
Again, I suggest you read back, since many of these issues were covered.
895. concerned - 2/21/2002 5:02:43 PM
Perhaps WoW knows that Wellstone scored about a 850 SAT aggregate, therefore is too mentally deficient to tell untruths which aren't obvious howlers.
896. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 5:07:37 PM
zojak- Well I obviously struck a "nerve!"
I was just giving an opinion and saying that I was more suspicious of Cheney--especially in light of the fack that he's stonewalling with regard to giving out information on his clandestine meetings with the energy industry.
If you want to be indignant and offensive, it only confirms that you swallow your side's propaganda more than I swallow mine.
There are lots of Republicans I respect and admire, but Cheney isn't one of them.
897. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 5:10:20 PM
Fack=fact
898. OhioSTOPAS - 2/21/2002 5:18:02 PM
Of course, most term-limit-pledge-breakers are Republicans, who made their pledges when running for election in or before 1994, back when Republicans thought term limits essential to consitutional government. (Now that they have majorities, it's "Term Whats?") In picking Wellstone as his example, Julius SOMEHOW picked about the only Democrat to make and break a term limits pledge.
Anyway, Cheney's broken promise to Nevada is distinguishable from that of a candidate who breaks a promise to serve only a limited number of terms. The latter:
1. May have honestly intended to keep his promise;
2. May have broken his promise in response to a change in circumstances;
3. May honestly believe that the people to whom he made his promise would have their interests better served if he broke it.
All, naturally, lame and self-serving rationales. But Cheney's promise to Nevadans that Yucca Mountain would be the site only if "sound science" indicated it - when he knew damn well (does anyone honestly think otherwise?) that Yucca was a lock - can't even draw on any of these excuses to justify its breaking.
899. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 5:20:13 PM
896. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/02 10:07:37 PM
Interesting revisionist post, WoW.
Perhaps you've forgotten that you were the one ascribing positive motives to what you view as your your "side" and negative motives to what you view as my "side" with no evidence whatsoever of actual intent. All I did was point out the absolute silliness of what you did. Interesting that because I point out the obvious lack of any factual basis in your position you conclude that I have swallowed my "side's" propaganda.
Indignant, I don't think so. I was more amused by the hypocrisy of your viewpoint than anything else.
As to the fact that you can respect Republicans, I applaud you. Wow. That's really neat. Is that kinda like saying you're not prejudiced because after all you have a black friend.
900. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 5:20:21 PM
I think your last post was a bull's eye, Jones!
From J@L's link:
This is the list of negative words and phrases that GOP candidates were told to use when speaking about their opponents.
* "Compassion" is not enough.
* Anti-(issue) flag, family, child, jobs
* Betray
* Coercion
* Collapse
* Consequences
* Corruption
* Crisis
* Decay
* Deeper
* Destroy
* Destructive
* Devour
* Endanger
* Failure
* Greed
* Hypocrisy
* Ideological
* Impose
* Incompetent
* Insecure
* Liberal
* Lie
* Limit(s)
* Pathetic
* Permissive attitude
* Radical
* Self-serving
* Sensationalists
* Shallow
* Sick
* They/them
* Threaten
* Traitors
* Unionized bureaucracy
* Urgent
* Waste
901. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 5:21:11 PM
This is the list of "positive, governing words" that GOP candidates were told to use when speaking about themselves or their policies.
* Active(ly)
* Activist
* Building
* Candid(ly)
* Care(ing)
* Challenge
* Change
* Children
* Choice/choose
* Citizen
* Commitment
* Common sense
* Compete
* Confident
* Conflict
* Control
* Courage
* Crusade
* Debate
* Dream
* Duty
* Eliminate good-time in prison
* Empower(ment)
* Fair
* Family
* Freedom
* Hard work
* Help
* Humane
* Incentive
* Initiative
* Lead
* Learn
* Legacy
* Liberty
* Light
* Listen
* Mobilize
* Moral
* Movement
* Opportunity
* Passionate
* Peace
* Pioneer
* Precious
* Premise
* Preserve
* Principle(d)
* Pristine
* Pro-(issue) flag, children, environment
* Prosperity
* Protect
* Proud/pride
* Provide
* Reform
* Rights
* Share
* Strength
* Success
* Tough
* Truth
* Unique
* Vision
* We/us/our
* Workfare
This, I think, is empirical evidence that many GOP zealots don't see people--they only see "opponents" who must be dehumanized with propaganda.
902. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 5:27:21 PM
CalNo. There is no basis for accepting their techniques. You haven't made that case
Not to your satisfaction perhaps, but it dominates the academic discussion to this day. It is more than just 'a book,' btw.
Also, no I was not specifically referring to your position with regard to the other comments.
Would you be so kind as to point me out to the definition and distinctions that you draw?
Finally, on the objective vs. subjective distinction you draw: logic is inherently objective. To the extent the techniques address logical validity of the argument, and that they rely on readily observable and discrete criteria, the test is objective as well.
903. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 5:28:08 PM
zojack: " . . . As to the fact that you can respect Republicans, I applaud you. Wow. That's really neat. Is that kinda like saying you're not prejudiced because after all you have a black friend."
No, it's a benchmark for myself that tells me that I still try to see people before their ideologies.
You, on the other hand, jump to some conclusions that are very revealing about yourself!
904. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:33:35 PM
Not to your satisfaction perhaps, but it dominates the academic discussion to this day.
"Academic" ain't what it used to be. It depends on what, who, and the range of experts involved in the discussion. For example, few would accept a professor in Middle East studies as an unbiased expert these days, as their blatant Islamist support has become known.
Maria Gleason cited many other sources that sounded considerably less biased, and didn't focus on methodology, but purpose.
To the extent the techniques address logical validity of the argument
Sorry, but "exploiting human nature" is hardly an unbiased and objective means of assessing validity.
905. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 5:35:15 PM
re "techniques' in previous post: I mean the IPA identified techniques which are a hallmark of propaganda are an objective measure of whether speech is propaganda or not.
906. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 5:35:31 PM
Wow Wiz. You can read my mind too. That is so cool. Have you thought of going to work for the Psychic Hotline?
Your post nos.900 and 901 coupled with your own dare I say ... negative ... word "zealot" shows that you're basically full of the stuff you're trying to shove down our throats. Are you seriously naive enough to think that dems don't have the same types of instructions from all sorts of different handlers? Please if you really believe that, please click your heels together three times and repeat after me... "There's no place like home. There's no place like home."
907. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 5:42:18 PM
Zoj- That anger needs to be addressed . . .or medicated.
"The only index by which to judge a government or a way of life is by the quality of the people it acts upon. No matter how noble the objectives of a government, if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion--it is an evil government." [Eric Hoffer]
908. Cellar Door - 2/21/2002 5:43:39 PM
"propaganda is morally neutral"
Dishonesty is morally neutral in CalGalWorld.
909. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 5:43:57 PM
Cal-
This analysis predates PC culture, so your critique on academica isn't what it used to be is misplaced. [Unless you hold the Woodrow Wilson era to have been when things fell apart]
"exploiting human nature" is entirely my language and not at all part of the criteria applied.
No sarcasm or hidden agenda here, but have you read anything from the link provided?
910. concerned - 2/21/2002 5:47:00 PM
...Cheney's broken promise to Nevada...
Can't break a promise you didn't make, Ohio. Interesting, coming from somebody who was 110% behind x42's Through the Looking Glass mutiliation of the English Language.
911. CalGal - 2/21/2002 5:51:53 PM
Jones--I scanned it briefly when you first linked it in, I just read it again more carefully, as well as some links on its history, when you asked, to make sure I hadn't missed anything. I hadn't.
The group seems to confuse debating techniques with propaganda.
"exploiting human nature" is entirely my language and not at all part of the criteria applied.
Yes, I know. I was responding to your comment, saying that you wanted a way to distinguish what you felt was "good" ("honestly persuade through reason") and what was "bad" ("exploit human nature"). I responded by saying that this was an entirely subjective distinction.
912. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 5:56:53 PM
My dear, sweet, misguided wizard -
Why must you insist on telling me how I feel?
Anger? No. Amusement. Absolutely. I guess though, that I can see how someone who aparently takes themselves as seriously as it appears that you do, would assume (wrongly) that I was angry. Play some happy music while you read, maybe then your prognostication skills will be closer to the mark. If, however, you really NEED to think that I am angry in order to justify your jaded view of the world, then please do so. I'd hate to be the one to tear down the walls you've built in your whimsical little world.
And on that note... buh-bye!
913. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 5:57:35 PM
Time to go kick the dog Wiz!
914. zojak quafeth - 2/21/2002 5:57:59 PM
Arrrrghhh!
915. concerned - 2/21/2002 6:08:35 PM
...mutilation.... above
916. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 6:13:55 PM
Cal-
Have you settled on this distinction between A and P?:
The difference between advocacy and propaganda is the beneficiary. The advocate works on behalf of someone else. The propagandist works for his own interests. Each has the same broad scope of methods to achieve his aims.
This presents a problem where there are coinciding interests. For example, I am an advocate for my injured client, yet since I get a percentage of the verdict as a fee, I am working in my own interests. I am simultaneously an advocate and propogandist? If I attempt to persuade someone soley through the force of morality to act in a manner inconsistent with their personal interests and mine as well, for the purpose of upholding a moral absolute [as I see it]- I engage in neither advocacy nor propaganda? [I realize you will be tempted to deny the possibility of the last example, that an appeal to morality will have an implicit benefit to either the speaker or the audience, but think about it anyway for the intellectual exercise]
Are marriage proposals propaganda, or does it depend on who's marrying up/down?
917. alistairConnor - 2/21/2002 6:33:01 PM
Propaganda is morally neutral
Ummmm yeah. So is Fascism I guess.
918. dusty - 2/21/2002 7:36:39 PM
919. CalGal - 2/21/2002 7:58:28 PM Jones, 920. Al D - 2/21/2002 10:22:54 PM zojak- Well I obviously struck a "nerve!" 921. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/22/2002 12:16:30 AM zoj-I don't want to make a fool out of you and besides, I can't take any credit for the one thing you've done here so very well by yourself. 922. Jonesatlaw - 2/22/2002 11:07:01 AM Cal- Thank you, I think I understand your view much better now, though I can't say as I agree with it. It is certainly consistent, and seems to follow the dictionary definitions. However, I think it fails to address the negative connotation associated with propaganda as opposed to the neutral or favorable one associated with advocacy. In your eyes there is no such distinction in connotation, I realize, but I think that general usage [in the US at least] is against you. 923. CalGal - 2/22/2002 11:29:54 AM I think that general usage [in the US at least] is against you. 924. Jonesatlaw - 2/22/2002 11:36:37 AM Cal- No, I don't focus on goals for my understanding of propaganda. I believe that analysis of techniques used to persuade is the key. It is possible to construct persuasive speeches seeking the same outcome and use the same speaker for each, and have one be propaganda and one advocacy or merely persuasive speech on the speaker's behalf. 925. CalGal - 2/22/2002 11:39:15 AM Jones, 926. Jonesatlaw - 2/22/2002 4:07:17 PM CalGal- A specious overgeneralization that ignores the distinctions drawn by objective criteria set out in the IPA model, again prefering to focus on my language, a convient shorthand suited for a post in an exchange like this, not the analysis of the model itself. 927. LohrM - 2/23/2002 3:51:07 PM Propaganda is a method of using information and ideas to win converts, to change beliefs. And that's just morally neutral. 928. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 7:14:10 PM The key word is "method." It's a tool. The question isn't who are propagandists and who are advocates, but what methods qualify as propaganda. 929. CalGal - 2/23/2002 7:57:55 PM A speaker is a propagandist, if s/he uses glittering generalities, name calling, transfer, improper testimonials, intentionally defective logic, unwarranted extrapolations, and/or induces unwarranted fear in order to persuade without regard to reasoning, regardless of whom benefits. 930. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/23/2002 10:09:53 PM "I'm not sure that a government can advocate, since it must always act in its own self-interest." 931. judithathome - 2/24/2002 4:53:35 PM Here's a opinion piece about A bad idea and some better ones by Molly Ivins. A sample: 932. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 12:01:27 PM Once you distinguish propaganda/advocacy by attaching positive/negative connotations to them, you essesntailly make the words themselves a tool of propaganda and render them meaningless for other purposes - thereby really creating a distinction without a difference. The abortion debate being a prime example. 933. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 1:04:11 PM Cal - 934. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 1:22:03 PM 935. CalGal - 2/25/2002 1:24:00 PM An individual, however, if arguing for a position that benefits himself or any entity other than the government is an advocate and can never be a propagandist. 936. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 1:33:41 PM Really? 937. CalGal - 2/25/2002 1:41:22 PM So under your view, the government's suit and ensuing public relations campaign would be propaganda. The Mill's defense of it's position and ensuing public relations campaign would be advocacy? 938. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 1:51:56 PM Cal- thanks so much for your thoughtful response. 939. CalGal - 2/25/2002 1:57:13 PM Wiz, I hadn't seen your post. Now that I have, I suggest you read my remarks again and remember that I don't think propaganda is inherently negative. This pretty much undercuts the entire premise of your post. 940. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 2:06:17 PM Your unwillingness to see propaganda as inherently negative suggests there's a job for you in the George W. Bush administration. Say in that new propaganda office churing out information for world consumption that may or may not be accurate or correct -- you'll just haveto "trust us." 941. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 2:07:01 PM Cal- How? I was addressing what seemed to be a harded assumption that you seem to hold--that "the government" was solely a cabal to preserve itself and the power it wields. 942. CalGal - 2/25/2002 2:07:33 PM It's not "my" unwillingness, Cellar. As zojak points out, the moment you attach a value to it then propaganda and advocacy become synonomous. 943. Cellar Door - 2/25/2002 2:08:22 PM That's so ridiculous as to be unworthy of comment. 944. concerned - 2/25/2002 2:09:30 PM But it sorta sounded kewl, hey? 945. CalGal - 2/25/2002 2:10:10 PM I was addressing what seemed to be a harded assumption that you seem to hold--that "the government" was solely a cabal to preserve itself and the power it wields. 946. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 2:13:52 PM . . .rather than for the people who elected these governement representatives or the career employees who serve in the military etc.? 947. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 2:15:13 PM in govern 948. CalGal - 2/25/2002 2:17:00 PM rather than for the people who elected these governement representatives or the career employees who serve in the military etc.? 949. concerned - 2/25/2002 2:17:08 PM How would CalGal interpret the collapse of the USSR in light of her assertion that a government can only act in its own self-interest? 950. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 2:22:33 PM . . .an entity separate from the individuals" 951. CalGal - 2/25/2002 2:25:36 PM Wiz, do you support the right of an individual to sue the government? 952. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 2:33:59 PM Courtney Love? I don't find her attractive at all. I think that it's because my first impression of her was that she was a disgusting slovenly pig. Even hough with the right make-up and surgery, she is at least arguably pretty now. 953. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 2:35:15 PM oops. Wrong thread. Sorry. Carry on. 954. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 2:40:13 PM Don't twist the issue into a trap. The government is made up of individuals who make good and bad decisions. The world is made up of people who create and destroy. To reduce the world or the government to an either/or is also a trap--it reduces one's thinking into a binary ping pong that only simulates life. . .but it can never allow one to appreciate, fully, the immensity or wonder of life. 955. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 2:43:50 PM [wonderin' if someone's just been murdered?] 956. CalGal - 2/25/2002 2:45:27 PM The government is made up of individuals who make good and bad decisions. 957. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 3:02:41 PM Right, but the government is a separate entity from those individuals. 958. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 5:46:55 PM 940. Cellar Door - 2/25/02 7:06:17 PM 959. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2002 6:38:26 PM The original meaning of the word "silly" was actually closer in meaning to innocent and and sacred. {Heard this recently--can't recall where.] 960. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 8:09:24 PM Here's a definition of propaganda that IMHO more accurately describes the term. It notes that propaganda can be used both for the good and bad, yet recognizes that it's methods are not necessarily based on truth or logic. 961. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 8:12:25 PM Propaganda? I think so... Was it a lie or worthy bashing because it was propaganda? I don't think so. 962. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 8:15:47 PM I think the following quote accurately summarizes some of the discussion here in attempting to define the term propaganda: 964. judithathome - 2/26/2002 3:16:19 PM Pentagon Getting Out Of The Propaganda Business 965. ycmeehan - 2/26/2002 7:18:53 PM zojak quafeth 966. concerned - 2/26/2002 7:35:51 PM Re. 964 - 967. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 7:39:10 PM connie either you're stupid or you're lying. Which is it dear? 968. judithathome - 2/26/2002 7:42:01 PM Is that possible, since the Pentagon was never in it? 969. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 7:45:33 PM The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that was used as an excuse to officially kick-start the Vietnam war never happened 970. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 7:45:55 PM toys 971. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 7:46:35 PM toys 972. Cellar Door - 2/26/2002 7:47:01 PM toys 973. concerned - 2/27/2002 12:54:23 AM 967. Cellar Door - 2/27/02 12:39:10 AM 974. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:02:07 AM 969. Cellar Door - 2/27/02 12:45:33 AM 975. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 1:07:06 AM connie- The pentagon has been in the misinformation business for years, and its no secret. They have admitted as much for WWII, and with pride. There the misinformation was clearly meant for the enemies' consumption during wartime. Public lies from the military view are a matter of strategy, not morality. 976. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:07:59 AM I half expect cllrdr to next claim that LBJ and JFK were actually Republicans. Talk about propaganda! 977. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 1:14:20 AM Connie- If you are unfamiliar with the history of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and recent historical views on it, you are hardly in a position to criticize Cellar. Be a good lad, do your homework and come back to the conversation at the adult table when you're up to speed. 978. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:14:40 AM Re. 975 - 979. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:18:08 AM Re. 977 - 980. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:20:56 AM I didn't contradict cllrdr wrt the GOTI. So Jonesey's little interruption is doubly uncalled for. 981. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:26:07 AM 982. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:34:37 AM So, is it not true that the first GOT attack resulted in one bullet hitting the Maddox and the second attack, if not also consisting entirely of ghost images on radar, resulted in neither the Maddox nor the Turner Joy being hit by enemy fire whatsoever? 983. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:44:21 AM Some retaliatory airstrikes, and voila, Congress hands LBJ the Tonkin Gulf Resolution his trigger finger was itching for, and the US was off and running to its biggest military debacle in history. 984. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:47:59 AM Said airstrikes courtesy US, of course. 985. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:58:28 AM So, where, if anywhere, is cllrdr with his post 969 now? 986. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 3:19:10 AM Connie dearest: 987. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 8:57:26 AM I'm not sure he was "pulling a fast one." Look strictly at the facts as we know them. 988. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 9:04:36 AM Later, Navy personnel and Johnson himself stated that they didn't know whether the second attack had really occurred. Johnson said something to the effect that for all he knew, the Navy was shooting at whales that night. 989. Wombat - 2/27/2002 9:06:10 AM The contention was that the Maddox and the Turner Joy were in international waters when the North Vietnamese fired on them without provocation. 990. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 9:09:12 AM That leaves question 2. From what I have seen, Johnson's order to retaliate and speech came soon after the second report of an attack. 991. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 9:19:06 AM The real disputes I have seen are about whether the "second attack" actually occurred. If you have links on the dispute re: whether the ships were operating in international waters I'd love to see them. (I'm not disputing that they exist. I'm just interested in reading them). 992. Wombat - 2/27/2002 10:01:35 AM From reading the account of the incidents in Proceedings of the USNI, the second "attack," if it took place at all, was well out to sea in international waters. 993. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 10:15:46 AM OK. Thanks. That's what I had remembered. There was a History Channel presentation on the issue a while back where they interviewed all sorts of people, including Stockdale. I had remembered the dispute of whether the second attack had occuurred. I didn't remember a dispute re: whether the ships were in int'l waters. (Although it seemed clear to me that the US was pushing as hard as it could to either get the North Vietnamese to back down, or provoke an incident that could "rally the troops"). 994. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 10:19:50 AM It was confected to provoke an "incident" to justify the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. 995. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 10:31:08 AM Here's a summary I found: 996. Wombat - 2/27/2002 10:37:25 AM I wonder what "not far" means in this context. 997. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 10:41:43 AM Cellar, 998. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 10:43:16 AM "If what you mean is that you think the US's aggressive recon and patrolling was an attempt to provoke a response, then I agree." 999. CalGal - 2/27/2002 10:55:08 AM Isn't there a difference between the response to the actual event and any campaign constructed later? 1000. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 10:55:42 AM Well, I guess because you brought it up (#969). I presume you raised it as an example of propaganda based on your assertion that "it never happened." 1001. CalGal - 2/27/2002 10:55:54 AM snag. 1002. CalGal - 2/27/2002 10:56:42 AM Hey! Rat bastard, steal my millennial. 1003. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 10:59:16 AM Cal - everything happened pretty quickly. 1004. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 10:59:51 AM lol. Sorry about the theft. 1005. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 11:01:20 AM Johnson saw an opportunity and took it. When the questions about the event arose later, he certainly ad no incentive to go back and correct it. 1006. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:17:59 PM Jonesy - 1007. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:21:00 PM If this isn't direct contradiction, it is most certainly a rejection of the assertion on the weight of Cellar's sayso. 1008. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:26:24 PM 994. Cellar Door - 2/27/02 3:19:50 PM 1009. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:42:22 PM Congress hands LBJ the Tonkin Gulf Resolution his trigger finger was itching for, and the US was off and running to its biggest military debacle in history. 1010. concerned - 2/27/2002 1:57:34 PM Of course, part of the Lefty ruse, er, propaganda wrt Republicans is to attempt to label them as either isolationists or warmongers, depending on the extent of US involvement in foreign affairs at the moment. 1011. Wombat - 2/27/2002 2:00:08 PM I would be interested in you describing how Democratic war-mongering got us into WWs I and II. 1012. concerned - 2/27/2002 2:06:01 PM Re. 1011 - 1013. Wombat - 2/27/2002 2:06:33 PM Or for that matter, the high tech weaponry that the Lincoln and McKinley administrations used in the Civil and Spanish-American wars. 1014. concerned - 2/27/2002 2:06:49 PM Excepting the Spanish American War, that is. 1015. concerned - 2/27/2002 2:07:33 PM 1014 was re. 1012. 1016. Wombat - 2/27/2002 2:11:30 PM It is hardly propaganda to say that the Republican party was pushing for war before the US entered WWI; or to say that the Republican party was isolationist before the US entered WWII. 1017. concerned - 2/27/2002 2:18:36 PM Re. 1016 - 1018. Cellar Door - 2/27/2002 2:20:10 PM I suddenly got this vision of connie charging up San Juan Hill. 1019. Wombat - 2/27/2002 2:33:58 PM Republican criticism in both Korea and Vietnam was less of the policies that got us involved and more along the lines of not doing more to win, even if it involved nuclear or regional escalation. 1020. Wombat - 2/27/2002 2:39:10 PM US political party foreign policy cycles between isolationism and internationalism. The Republicans got very badly burned by their isolationism before WWII, and the Democrats got cured of their enthusiasm for internationalism by Vietnam. It took each party several decades to recover from those political traumas. 1021. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 2:58:20 PM Concerned - 1022. Wombat - 2/27/2002 3:02:40 PM Clinton also used high-tech weaponry to force Milosevic to disgorge Kosovo. This was done to much Republican criticism, of course. Zojak hits the nail on the head. 1023. zojak quafeth - 2/27/2002 3:33:57 PM (I feel like the fact monitor) 1024. Wombat - 2/27/2002 3:46:03 PM Mr. Fact Monitor: 1025. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2002 3:47:15 PM Wombat (1019): Hearst was a Democrat at the time he supposedly made that statement. 1026. Wombat - 2/27/2002 3:49:12 PM It is propaganda to knowingly make a false statement for perceived political gain. It is not propaganda to correct that false statement. 1027. Wombat - 2/27/2002 3:50:16 PM Indy: 1028. Jonesatlaw - 2/27/2002 4:59:11 PM It is propaganda to knowingly make a false statement for perceived political gain. It is not propaganda to correct that false statement. 1029. zojak quafeth - 2/28/2002 10:56:33 AM Wombat: 1030. Liberty and Justice - 2/28/2002 1:03:58 PM I suggest people read some books on propaganda. Chomsky and Herman have written a lot about it. (Manufactured Consent, is particularlly good. Also see the FAIR website. 1031. CalGal - 2/28/2002 1:29:24 PM Not if you're in CalGal land, then it depends who you are arguing for and who's playing defense. 1032. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2002 2:17:35 PM Welcome LaJ! A Chomsky fan are you? Just what we need. 1033. Wombat - 2/28/2002 2:18:08 PM Anyone who approvingly quotes Chomsky and Herman and the proceeds to lecture on our ignorance is starting a discussion with two strikes against them. 1034. Jonesatlaw - 2/28/2002 5:59:59 PM CalGal- You are the person presenting the proposition that offense/defense and for self/others are the relevent questions in assessing advocacy versus propaganda. I think it is preposterous, you disagree. 1035. arkymalarky - 2/28/2002 7:33:04 PM Exactly. That was a random construct, as I pointed out earlier, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined as propaganda. 1036. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 9:17:56 PM OFFICE OF STRATEGIC 1037. Cellar Door - 2/28/2002 9:18:08 PM Will the Palestinians feel more secure in working with the Bush Administration if Ari is allowed to take the fall? Will the Israelis? Who's running the White House, anyway? The American people deserve to know that, above all. 1038. Wombat - 3/1/2002 8:34:32 AM Seemed like a Karl Rove stunt to me. 1039. jexster - 3/1/2002 12:41:24 PM It took all of seven days to shut down the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence -- roughly the same amount of time that anyone actually knew it existed. 1040. Liberty and Justice - 3/2/2002 1:22:38 AM The latest FAIR program with emphasis on current government propaganda. 1041. LohrM - 3/2/2002 3:15:10 PM Alas, in Cuba all the US ever needed to do was simply state the facts about Castro's economy and police... And encourage Miami Cubans to go back and forth and show off their success. That seems both cheaper and more effective than a formal psywar campaign. 1042. Liberty and Justice - 3/2/2002 11:28:28 PM > Alas, in Cuba all the US ever needed to do was simply state the facts about Castro's economy and police... And encourage Miami Cubans to go back and forth and show off their success. That seems both cheaper and more effective than a formal psywar campaign. 1043. PelleNilsson - 3/3/2002 2:50:56 PM 1044. PelleNilsson - 3/3/2002 2:56:57 PM 1045. judithathome - 3/3/2002 2:58:32 PM Too much cammi cover.... 1046. AytchMan - 3/3/2002 4:39:18 PM He's wearing the new AK-79 "BrownNose" Joint Tactical Sniffer. 1047. Ms. No - 3/5/2002 2:24:49 PM Yeah, the "GreenNose" is a Tactical Joint Sniffer. 1048. judithathome - 3/5/2002 2:27:06 PM :-) 1049. Cellar Door - 3/6/2002 10:31:54 AM 1050. Property of Jesus - 3/6/2002 11:01:07 AM Too late, CD. Al Gore Jr. said it, and he took the heat for misstating the obvious. 1051. judithathome - 3/6/2002 11:10:06 AM Maybe you'd belive your own kind: 1052. Cellar Door - 3/6/2002 11:20:14 AM You should learn to read less selectively Props. 1053. Property of Jesus - 3/6/2002 11:29:19 AM Duh! A la Clinton, Presidents Reagan and Bush should get the credit then since they signed the telecommunication legislation that Congress approved during Gore's tenure there. 1054. Ms. No - 3/7/2002 11:38:55 AM Discussion here seems to be pretty much done so I'm tacking an R.I.P. on this thread and will retire it by noon tomorrow. 1055. rubberducky - 3/7/2002 1:50:12 PM thanks for an interesting thread, Ms. No The Mote | Mote Archive
judithathome
I loved that documentary about The Swiss Spaghetti Harvest. I remember them waxing eloquently about the ritual of the meal of the first harvest; the tenderest of the pickings.
Thanks for reminding me.
Message # 545 and beyond discusses some of the issues you bring up.
For example, I am an advocate for my injured client, yet since I get a percentage of the verdict as a fee, I am working in my own interests.
No, you aren't. You are doing your job. Your job is that of advocate.
If I attempt to persuade someone soley through the force of morality to act in a manner inconsistent with their personal interests and mine as well, for the purpose of upholding a moral absolute [as I see it]- I engage in neither advocacy nor propaganda?
You might be advocating an idea or value. But it doesn't matter whether you use morality or lies, nor does it matter what the other person's interests are, since you aren't advocating on the individual's behalf, but the idea/value.
I realize you will be tempted to deny the possibility of the last example
Why? It's perfectly possible to argue for an ideal of any sort.
Are marriage proposals propaganda, or does it depend on who's marrying up/down?
???
Neither. They are offers. Are you talking about any information campaigns that are undertaken to affect the outcome? They would be propaganda.
If you bother him more he will tell you to stay off the sauce, or get out of the wine cellar, or some silly tripe. You see, WoW is nothing more or less than a propagandist for the Democratic Party. His propagandy is not effective as it preaches to the choir. No matter how inane his posts, certain liberals will pop in to tell him how great he is. If he has ever said a good thing about a Republican, with perhaps the exception of Powell, I have not seen it.
Al D- Let me guess - tonight's AA meeting was cancelled, right?
Jones--betty brought up the fact that since most people define propaganda with negative connotations (ie, incorrectly) this means that they have won (Message # 491)
I agreed with her that it is impossible to fight against the majority will of the people when it comes to language change, and said:
But if the meanings are shifting, then the only possible resolution is that advocacy and propaganda have the same meaning, but different connotations. Thus for purposes of this discussion, we can make them synonomous. Advocacy is, in fact, propaganda--it's just that some people like its goals.
So you can't have it both ways. Once you define advocacy and propaganda in terms of the value of their goals and methodologies, then you have to accept that both have lost their value as meaningful definitions and have devolved into slander or praise for any information campaign. They are functionally synomous, like "murder" and "butcher".
Then a lawyer is a propagandist, a government is an advocate, and everyone gets to argue about it based on whether or not they think that a campaign "appealed to the worst in human nature" or "honestly appealed to reason".
Thus propaganda and advocacy march down the path of the *isms to meaningless, agenda-driven labels.
A speaker is a propagandist, if s/he uses glittering generalities, name calling, transfer, improper testimonials, intentionally defective logic, unwarranted extrapolations, and/or induces unwarranted fear in order to persuade without regard to reasoning, regardless of whom benefits.
It is just as much an *ism to proclaim that if I use these methods for someone else that I am an advocate. Your model would term Trotskty, and Goebbles as advocates because they spoke on behalf of Lennin and Hitler. I know you will urge that they had their own selfish interests at hear as well, and I don't deny it.
Your alternative merely substitutes the equally subjective assessment of on whom the speaker is REALLY acting, for an analysis based on discrete and observable criteria. You decry the agenda driven labels, and yet reject analysis which looks beyond the perceived agenda of the speaker.
No, a speaker is just a speaker. It's absurd to say that someone is a propagandist just because they use improper testimonials.
Your model would term Trotskty, and Goebbles as advocates because they spoke on behalf of Lennin and Hitler. I know you will urge that they had their own selfish interests at hear as well, and I don't deny it.
Goebbels is the quintessential propagandist. He didn't act on behalf of Hitler; he was an agent of the German government. His own selfish interests are also besides the point, since acting on behalf of his own interests don't necessarily make him a propagandist. What mattered to Goebbels was the same thing that mattered to Hitler: persuading the German people to support ideas that would allow them to further their agenda for Germany.
You know, this is the third or fourth time that I've assumed you'd read an earlier conversation when in fact you hadn't. I'm not suggesting you should have, it may have been unreasonable of me to assume you had.
But I said much earlier that advocacy is defense of a cause, idea or person, propaganda is offense on behalf of the interests of an individual, organization, or government. There is an inevitable blurring of the line in two areas: when it benefits oneself as opposed to others, and when defense turns to offense.
But Nazi propaganda isn't anywhere close to those lines.
As a separate thought, I'm not sure that a government can advocate, since it must always act in its own self-interest.
Cal, your assumption is that "the government" is something other than citizens who attempt to represent the common good of it's people.
I know plenty of people who work for local, state and federal government and who try to do what is honest and good for everyone.
It's not all corrupt and inefficient.
Regardless of the job or the ideology of the person who holds it, it's the integrity and the attitude of that person that will determine if the true goals of their position (rather than their self-interest) is acheived.
One rarely sees a thoroughly bad idea advanced by government. Lots of stuff from silly to smelly gets done, but somebody usually benefits, even if it's not the American people. But can anyone see an upside to having an office of government propaganda with an official license to lie?
They say if you fight someone long enough, you become like your enemy, but this Soviet notion is such a bummer that it was useless even to them back in the day. But the Bush administration is apparently determined to bring us not one but two bureaus of propaganda.
If you are against abortion you call yourself pro-life. You call those for abortion anti-life.
If you are for abortion you are pro-choice. You call those against it, anti-choice.
Once you have staked out your position, what does it really matter what you're called? It shouldn't. The only thing that should matter in the debate is your position and the basis for it. That's what should be argued.
By making labels for the positions and attaching connotations to them, you detract from the real issues and instead go for the gut feel - the generalization, etc.
I guess the point is that no one will call himself a propagandist. One will always be an "advocate" while the other side always be a propagandist. I say tom-ay-toe, you say tom-ah-toe, the propagandist says red, tempting juicy fruit, that gushes its seed all over your face when bitten into.
Goebbels is the quintessential propagandist. He didn't act on behalf of Hitler; he was an agent of the German government. His own selfish interests are also besides the point, since acting on behalf of his own interests don't necessarily make him a propagandist. What mattered to Goebbels was the same thing that mattered to Hitler: persuading the German people to support ideas that would allow them to further their agenda for Germany.
If I understand your position correctly, the government can never advocate because it is pursuing a governmental agenda. Any public benefit is simply a side dish. As a result, under your view, it's always propaganda.
An individual, however, if arguing for a position that benefits himself or any entity other than the government is an advocate and can never be a propagandist.
If those assumptions are true, then let's take the government bringing an action against a paper mill to enforce the Clean Water Act. To follow the strictures of the Act would nmean that the plant would cease operations. It would also mean that fish would stop dying in the river and the birth defects in the area would decrease...
So under your view, the government's suit and ensuing public relations campaign would be propaganda. The Mill's defense of it's position and ensuing public relations campaign would be advocacy?
The paper mill leads a news campaign to overturn some clean water act regs. The LPMPA (Large paper Mills Polluters Association) joins in. It also starts donating large sums to various congressional leaders. The EPA opposes the campaign.
Under your definition is the Paper Mill an advocate?
Is the LPMPA also advocating or propagandizing?
Is the EPA propagandizing since it's furthering a "government" agenda?
What about the congressmen who tok the cash? 
Nope.
So what about the rest there, Cal? Where do the examples fall?
Yes to the first. The second on its face appears to be defense only, "advocate" on its own behalf. But defense doesn't have to be either. You can defend yourself without necessarily being an advocate.
The paper mill leads a news campaign to overturn some clean water act regs.
Propaganda.
Is the EPA propagandizing since it's furthering a "government" agenda?
Opposition in and of itself doesn't have to be propaganda or advocacy.
However, suppose that the EPA put forth an information campaign that only corrected assertions made by the paper mill. That might be a case where a government is an advocate, which might mean it is possible. But it would blur quickly.
I hadn't seen your 932 before and I agree with it. That's why I've been disputing the positive and negative connotations.
But wouldn't you agree that ther are some genuine people who truly care about this country and their fellow citizens . . .first?
Um. No. I believe I said that a government can only act in its own self-interest.
That's pretty jaded, no? ement
The government is an entity separate from the individuals in it. As an entity, I'm not sure it can act in other than its own self-interest. There's no reason to assume this is a bad thing, either.
That is an illusion and a trick of language.
Are the cells in your body (an entity) separate from you?
Every part of "the entity" (government) makes independent decisions all of the time and I'm not assuming it's a bad thing.
It just surprises me to hear you assume what you seem to be assuming.
Pamela Anderson? No. I think she's horrific. She just looks so fake.
I'll end this with Ellen Barkin again. Attractive... 
Right, but the government is a separate entity from those individuals. If you can't see that, fine. But there's no point in discussing it further.
That's a ludicrous statement!
The term: "the government" is an arbitrary abstraction--a categorical label, that conveniently represents an idea for a bunch of people--but it has nothing to do with reality it poorly points to and it's you who doesn't "see" . . . that your conclusions are based on smoke . . .and you're right about one thing--there is absolutely no point in discussing it further.
Your unwillingness to see propaganda as inherently negative suggests there's a job for you in the George W. Bush administration. Say in that new propaganda office churing out information for world consumption that may or may not be accurate or correct --you'll just haveto "trust us."
Hmmm. Sounds like Cellar is propagandizing....
Words are fluid, but propaganda has always carried pejorative overtones in our political culture.
As generally understood, propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups... Propaganda thus differs fundamentally from scientific analysis. The propagandist tries to "put something across," good or bad. The scientist does not try to put anything across; he devotes his life to the discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is always prepared for and wants the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and ideas. Science flourishes on criticism. Dangerous propaganda crumbles before it.
Alfred McLung Lee & Elizabeth Bryant Lee, The Fine Art of Propaganda, 1939.
Defining Propaganda
The word "propaganda" has already been used several times, and the reader may wonder how this term is being used. The definition of propaganda has been widely debated, but there is little agreement about what it means. Some argue that all persuasive communication is propagandistic, while others suggest that only dishonest messages can be considered propaganda. Political activists of all stripes claim that they speak the truth while their opponents preach propaganda. In order to accommodate the breadth of the CPI's activities, this discussion relies on Harold Lasswell's broad interpretation of the term. "Not bombs nor bread," wrote Lasswell, "but words, pictures, songs, parades, and many similar devices are the typical means of making propaganda." According to Lasswell, "propaganda relies on symbols to attain its end: the manipulation of collective attitudes."
Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to "do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to overt, logical arguments. During the war, the CPI accomplished this by making calculated emotional appeals, by demonizing Germany, by linking the war to the goals of various social groups, and, when necessary, by lying outright.
Your link from your latest post does not work.
Is that possible, since the Pentagon was never in it?
Take it up with Donald Rumsfeld.
The Pentagon will close a new office that reportedly has proposed spreading false information abroad, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.
Rumsfeld said the Office of Strategic Influence would not have spread misinformation and that news reports and commentary have made it impossible for the agency to do its job.
connie either you're stupid or you're lying. Which is it dear?
cllrdr -
Present me with one, just one piece of 'misinformation' that the Office of Strategic Influence has distributed or else retract your scurrility.
The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that was used as an excuse to officially kick-start the Vietnam war never happened970
So, you're telling us that the 'Rats didn't even cobble up that much of a pretense to embroil us in that disgrace of a 'war'? Cite, please, or are we supposed to treasure the drivelings of your keyboard running over without substantiation?
The sin of the Office of Strategic Influence is the stupidity of an open discussion of this fact and admission that such tactics would be directed at our allies as well as our enemies. Machievelli (Chenney) is seriously at fault for allowing Rummy and Mayor McCheese out without adult supervision on this one, along with a few Pentagon types with more points on their heads than the building they work in.
jonesey -
Do not forget that I was referring to the Office of Strategic Influence specifically, not to the dissemination of any propaganda by the Pentagon in the past, and that my post was a play on JAH's link text.
jonesey -
Why don't either you or cllrdr enlighten us with your homework and leave your snideness in the sandbox?
JAL -
So, okay. I was being a little snarky. It still would be nice if cllrdr (gasp) actually provided a link wrt the GOTI.
There's your setup, Lefties. Can you handle it?
Re Message # 980, remember this-974. concerned - 2/27/02 6:02:07 AM
969. Cellar Door - 2/27/02 12:45:33 AM
The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that was used as an excuse to officially kick-start the Vietnam war never happened970
[Concerned]So, you're telling us that the 'Rats didn't even cobble up that much of a pretense to embroil us in that disgrace of a 'war'? Cite, please, or are we supposed to treasure the drivelings of your keyboard running over without substantiation?
If this isn't direct contradiction, it is most certainly a rejection of the assertion on the weight of Cellar's sayso.
Make up your mind, was LBJ pulling a fast one or not. We'll wait patiently.
BTW-Real Lefties think that LBJ is one of you, not one of them. Think protests, tear gas, Chicago, the whole world's watching? Ring a bell? It was in all the papers.
The US began conducting massive recon flights over Vietnam along the Ho Chi Min trail. At the same time South Vietnames guerrillas trained by the US were conducting strikes against the North Vietnamese.
The North Vietnamese launched an attack against (I believe 2) US destroyers. All torpedos lauched missed, but a shell fired at a destroyer hit and put a hole in the superstructure. US planes were launched from nearby carriers and the North Vietnamese PT boats that carried the attacks were destroyed.
Two nights later, on a very darkand overcast night, a sonar operator reported enemy contact and the US started shooting everywhere but apparently hit nothing.
Later that same day Johnson ordered retaliatory shore bombardments against the North Vietnamese and made his speech.
I guess the questions are:
1) did the Navy lie in reporting attacks?
2) did Johnson lie in saying an attack had been made?
As to 1) I think no. Imagine the stress on the ship as some kid is sitting listening to sonar. He reports something. Everone knows that 48 hours an attack did occur, the night is dark and overcast, so they did what many of us would propabaly do. They overreacted and started shooting everywhere. Situations like that happen often. That's why you have friendly fire deaths. That's why you wind up shooting down Iranian airliners. So I don't think that on that hight, the Navy lied. They may have been dead wrong in their assessment, but my opinion based on the facts as I understand them is that they didn't lie.
Whether they were in international waters or in North Vietnam's territorial waters is disputed. What is not now disputed and was not mentioned at the time was that the two ships were in the same area as a South Vietnamese maritime commando raid, which the US was aware of. The Maddox and the Turner Joy were there to monitor North Vietnamese radio transmissions for intelligence purposes.
North Vietnamese torpedo boats drew an obvious if mistaken conclusion that the two destroyers were taking part in the raid, and fired on one of the destroyers (if the two destroyers were in North Vietnam's territorial waters, the action would have been both legal and appropriate).
I am suprised that Concerned would not support an effort to combat the scourge of Communism, even by Democrats.
My guess is that the report is what he was looking for so he used it. I have seen nothing to show that when he orderd the strikes and made the speech that he knew there ws no second attack. I know the info began to bubble to the surface later. When it did though, he certainly didn't say "oops, my bad." Why? Because the facts as he thought he knew them at the time supported his position.
Before the first attack, the DESOTO patrols off the North Vietnamese coast (which Maddox was part of) were moved from seven miles off the coast to four (still international waters--barely).
On the morning of July 31, 1964, the US Navy destroyer MADDOX (DD-731) began a reconnaissance patrol.... The main goal was to gather information about the coastal defense forces....
[South Vietnamese guerilla] operations, under OPLAN (Operations Plan) 34A, were carried out by moderate-sized vessels ... based at Danang.
Around midnight ... July 30-31, OPLAN 34A raiders from Danang shelled two of North Vietnam's offshore islands.
On the afternoon of August 2, when the MADDOX was not far from [one of the off-shore islands], three North Vietnamese torpedo boats came out ... attacked the MADDOX.... one bullet... hit the destroyer....
The MADDOX ... came back on August 3, accompanied by ... the TURNER JOY (DD-951).
There were more OPLAN 34A raids on the night of August 3-4.... The destroyers did not participate....
Late on the afternoon of August 4, the two destroyers headed away from the North Vietnamese coast toward the middle of the Gulf of Tonkin. That night, they began picking up what appeared to be high-speed vessels on their radar. They believed they were being attacked, and opened fire. Most of the supposed attacking vessels, however, appeared only on the radar of the TURNER JOY, not the radar of the MADDOX. Some men on the destroyers decided later that what had appeared on the radar had just been ghost images; others think the radar images were genuine torpedo boats attacking them....
The following afternoon, aircraft from two US aircraft carriers ... carried out retaliatory airstrikes....
On August 7, the US Congress passed ... the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution,".... The Johnson administration had been wanting to get such a resolution from the Congress; the Tonkin Gulf incidents made a good excuse. It does not appear, however, that the incidents had been deliberately concocted in order to provide the excuse.
First you assert that the incident never happened(#969), now you say "it" was "confected" to provoke an incident. From the facts I've seen reported, I disagree as to your first assertion. I'm not sure whether I disagree with your second, because I'm not sure what "it" is, and I'm not sure that "confected" works. (Sounds like someone I work with who always misuses the word penultimate). If "it" is the second incident, then I disagree, I don't think it was created out of varied event. If what you mean is that you think the US's aggressive recon and patrolling was an attempt to provoke a response, then I agree.
Yep.
But why re-fight an old war that we LOST?
Just exploring the contentions, that's all.
First attack August 2.
"Second attack" August 4.
Retaliatory strikes. August 4.
Speech to American people August 4.
Speech to Congress August 5
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution August 7.
I don't think the resolution was in response to a constructed campaign.
I think it's time for you to end your games and come clean. Do you agree with cllrdr's:
The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that was used as an excuse to officially kick-start the Vietnam war never happened970
or not?
I think it's dishonest of you not to indicate whether you agree or not with cllrdr's post. And until you do, you don't really have any basis to criticize my comparatively nuanced response.
It's nothing of the sort. Read what cllrdr posted and what I posted, and try not to conflate the two. And put away your broad brush.
Make up your mind, was LBJ pulling a fast one or not. We'll wait patiently.
Then you'll probably wait until we see your take, because that's not the issue I was addressing, now was it?
It was confected to provoke an "incident" to justify the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.
Direct contradiction of 969 (I see zojak pointed this out already, but I just logged in) Now I want to see Jonesy compare and contrast #969 and #994, but I doubt that he will, since what he's doing appears to be essentially sniping.
I posted the above. Does it include an a priori assumption that LBJ deliberately pulled a 'fast one'? Not that I can see. But, Jonesy apparently missed it, so I'm reposting it.
Wombats- What can I say? Republicans are just naturally more perspicacious than Democrats in these things. However, Lefties labeling Republicans the 'war party' is one of the more successful propaganda campaigns of the 20th Century, since to the extent it has succeeded, it requires that people avert their eyes from, among other things, the causes of our involvements in the Civil War, WWI and WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
The alternative approach to projecting military force to the above that the Left has favored recently has been 'peacekeeping' forces which have had very mixed success, and (besides better diplomacy which tends to avoid military entanglements) the one that Republican administrations has relied on more has been advanced weaponry which is far more effective, relatively economical and which inflicts much less collateral damage than their precursors.
My point is that it seems quite incongruous to me that the largest military involvements in US history occurred under Dem administrations, yet some have the audacity to refer to Republicans as the 'war party'. The other examples, which amount to the remaining large US engagements since the Mexican American War that I gave are outright examples of Dem warmongering, however.
1013 -
Did you miss my qualifier 'recently'?
Conceding the above for the moment, my point is that these are extremes of a continuum of foreign policy options(and not the only possible ones, either) which neither political party characteristically really inhabits, yet I see repeated attempts by Democrats to label Republicans as 'isolationists' or 'warmongers' far out of proportion to the applicability of such epithets. Conversely, I see little of the same emanating from the political right; rather they tend to criticize the effeteness, defeatism and myopia of Liberal foreign policy, more at the per case level.
"You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war."
What's that from, gang?
"You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war." W.R. Hearst, newspaper publisher and Republican.
The alternative approach ... the Left has favored recently has been 'peacekeeping' forces ... the one that Republican administrations has relied on more has been advanced weaponry which is far more effective, relatively economical and which inflicts much less collateral damage than their precursors.
Not sure I agree with this statement. Bush I sent peacekeepers to Somalia. Clinton kept them there, but changed the mission.
Clinton went after terrorists by throwing high-tech cruise missiles at aspirin factories, while Bush II has committed ground troops.
Sure, the troops have used advanced weaponry, but as weaponry progresses over time, we'll obviously use it more no matter who is in office.
Wombat -
I remember Kosovo a little differently. NATO began a Spring bombing campaign which resulted in Milosevice stepping up his "ethnic cleansing" program. Several hundred thousand people were killed. The bombing halted. Diplomacy began. Demands were made. Several months later, in the Fall, NATO put forth an ultimatum, withdraw from Kosovo or we'll bomb again. The deadline was extended a time or two. Milosevic then withdrew.
The dispute between Republicans and Dems at the time was not on methods, but on whether e should be there at all without a clear mission, and without clear, achievable objectives. That makes #1022 propaganda.
OK. Carry on.
The air campaign that led to the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo began on March 23, 1999 and continued until June 10, 1999. KFOR began entering Kosovo three days later. There were no further air strikes on Serbia after June 10.
My bad.
Not if you're in CalGal land, then it depends who you are arguing for and who's playing defense.
However, I agree with you, as would the IPA.
My bad. Got the dages mixed up.
People seem grossly ignorant of the history of the Balkans these past years, it would be good to start with the turn of the last century. In terms of historical evidence the Kosovo war was just an example of imperialist grabbing.
Don't be a fucking moron. It is clear that we've arrived again, at the place where the only thing you have to do is refrain from restating my posts. Either you enjoy lying or you have difficulty comprehending them, but whatever the case, knock it off. Just state your position, Jones. I realize it's banal, but that's your lot in life.
Skip the stuff where you assert that you never said offense/defense or for self/for others were relevent, that you said it differently etc. We've gone as far as we can go on that, just take my post as the offhand remark it was and leave it be.
CLINTON- BLAMING
ISSUES RETRACTION
ARI: PEACE TALKS DIDN'T CAUSE WAR AFTER ALL
ZERO CREDIBILITY!!
WILL ARI TAKE THE FALL?
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?
KARL, KAREN & CO.? THE N.S.C.?
Ari Fleischer's retraction of his "blame Bill Clinton" statement on the Middle East is an admission of a blunder of a kind unprecedented in the history of the modern American presidency.
Or was it really a blunder?
To hear Ari tell it, he just screwed up, making up American foreign policy on the spot, saying dangerously misleading things as they popped into his head.
And when he did, the phone lines jammed from Foggy Bottom to every capital city on the globe!
Fleischer's credibility now stands, at best, at zero. He has made the biggest mess of any press secretary in the history of the presidency.
There is only one way for him to salvage even some shreds of respectability -- and that is to come clean.
It defies every imaginable form of logic to imagine that Ari just went out there and started riffing on his own. That's just not how the White House works -- especially this scripted White House.
So who was in on helping Ari craft this "blame Clinton" line on the Middle East?
Was it Karl Rove, or Karen Hughes, or maybe both -- pulling a political stunt to blame Clinton yet again and take people's minds off the impending G.O.P. disaster in next week's California primary?
Or might it have been someone in the N.S.C., trying to manipulate Ari and turn American foreign policy, mischievously, in his or her direction?
Will Ari be the good soldier and take the fall -- knowing that he will never have lunch (or, for that matter, a Diet Coke) in D.C. again?
Or will the press corps force Ari to do the right thing by America and our allies and come clean -- making clear who was responsible for making this mess?
This isn't just a matter of appearances -- it's a matter of the most deadly importance. The peace of the world hangs in the balance. And it won't do to try and cover it up, as if Ari Fleischer simply took a clownish pratfall.
This is a matter of basic competence, honesty, and, yes, character.
Taking responsibility -- isn't that the G.O.P. mantra?
Well, press corps, let's see you make the White House live up to it.
Controversy over OSI originally heated up following a New York Times story suggesting the office might spread false reports to the foreign press or run "black" propaganda campaigns. After taking a beating over this --as critics barked that the U.S. shouldn't lie to the rest of the world --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pulled the plug. Indeed, it was all over so quickly, the debate over OSI didn't really progress far enough for anyone to bother asking whether office would actually have been very good at duping anyone.
A look back at some of the low points of U.S. psychological warfare, however, suggests that this might have been by far the more salient criticism. Consider the CIA's embarrassing forays in Cuba, well described in Jon Elliston's book Psywar on Cuba. By March of 1960, a little over a year after Cuban rebels seized power from dictator Fulgencio Batista, the CIA had developed plans to overthrow Castro. The propaganda war would span more than three decades, and employ traditional and nontraditional means of molding Cuban public opinion, including posters, newspapers, rumor campaigns, and radio and television broadcasts via planes, boats and submarines. The result was a chain of "psy-ops" blunders:
Office of Strategery RIP
I would like to ask Mr. Wombat why he thinks that he knows most of the details or even the salient details of the history of the Balkans and especially the period related the break up of Yugoslavia.
I am curious to know if he thinks it was the Yugoslav army that chased out the Albanian Kosovars as was stated in official propaganda? What does Mr. Wombat think he knows and how does he know it is correct???
Now... I've been posting here with Wombat for a good year and a half. Even when he and I disagree, I think he's well-informed. I *am* an Eastern Europe/Balkans academic (taught the history of the region at universities), and Wombat has always seemed to me to have a good grasp on events there...
But that is not what the USA government did.
But why does the guy on the left have a discoloured nose?
Of course, he "took the initiative in creating the internet." We all did.
Even Newt Gingrich acknowledged Gore's contribution in a panel discussion about the 1996 telecommunications bill: "In all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
Thanks to all who participated!
back to top