To completely belabor this, Mark's suggestion is exactly what I'm talking about: putting additional facts before the public. When we discussed propaganda earlier, I advocated using the dictionary definition (that is, information that comes from one side); I'm not sure who called it "a systematic method of indoctrinating people to believe evil, vicious lies."
Well yeah okay I even would've agreed with you in the 80s about the 'going to the store' analogy (for me it was: If I ask someone to pass the salt I usually do get salt). However, the Rashomon-style trip is only exhausting if you're constantly trying to nail down the truth. If you accept that more than one thing can be 'true' at a time, then you are left with choices, politics and strategies. Which might frequently amount to propaganda (especially in the eye of your opponent).
I think the bit that got my attention here was not so much your invocation of "truth" as this: "I still strongly disagree with Mark that propaganda is a value-neutral word like "weather" and that the left must use it because the Bushies do." I guess I hold a third position: that propaganda is anything but value-neutral, it's value-laden, constructed, myth-button-pushing, easy-to-swallow experience. But that shouldn't make it off limits to the left. I know I sound like a fuddy-duddy here, but I do think there's potential power-for-good in knowing your tools. As someone who is saddled with an overabundance of nerdy ernest-ness myself, I get the value of employing what showmanship skills you have to make a point effectively, occasionally spoon-feeding difficult ideas to an unititiated audience, sugar-coating scary change with fun and momentum. Picking sides, taking a stand, putting on a show. It's all potentially propaganda, but it's still inline with what I believe to be right and wrong. I think the homestyle, hand-held video of Dean's speech is just that. It's the style of the people--youngsters who hold technology in their hands and post crappy quicktime.There's a lot of media saavy involved in the presentation--canny, yes, but still very fine indeed.
I started with the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." And I tweaked it away from the relatively neutral "... propagation of ... information reflecting the views ..." to a very common and more sinister connotation. But note, the original definition says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the "information" and nothing about the virtue or evil of the "doctrine".
A few days ago I came across an academic web site that has thumbnails of Nazi and East German propaganda posters. While the Nazi cause is repugnant, I have to respect the skill of these propagandists. (I can respect the skill of an enemy without respecting the enemy.) Clearly these guys were practicing "a systematic method of indoctrinating people to believe evil, vicious lies." But my argument is that this is not the only variety of propaganda.
On the other hand, Webster's provides specific information on the etymology of propaganda:
1. (R. C. Ch.) (a) A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622, charged with the management of missions. (b) The college of the Propaganda, instituted by Urban VIII. (1623-1644) to educate priests for missions in all parts of the world.
2. Hence, any organization or plan for spreading a particular doctrine or a system of principles.
As a recovering Catholic, I can say that the word is tainted with evil from its very origin.
But I often use the word, even though it carries negative connotations, because I believe there is a battle of ideas raging in this country right now. While the Rove and Norquist and Limbaugh are the opposing combatants, the prize is the hearts and minds of the complacent. And it's possible to use truth-based propaganda to displace apathy.
I don't view "truth-based propaganda" as an oxymoron. To me this means finding compelling methods of conveying truth, whether with pictures, songs, video, whatever. But ultimately it has to be compelling to an audience that is both complacent and in information overload.
(Sally said it more succinctly.)
|
- tom moody 1-27-2004 7:12 am
Well yeah okay I even would've agreed with you in the 80s about the 'going to the store' analogy (for me it was: If I ask someone to pass the salt I usually do get salt). However, the Rashomon-style trip is only exhausting if you're constantly trying to nail down the truth. If you accept that more than one thing can be 'true' at a time, then you are left with choices, politics and strategies. Which might frequently amount to propaganda (especially in the eye of your opponent).
I think the bit that got my attention here was not so much your invocation of "truth" as this: "I still strongly disagree with Mark that propaganda is a value-neutral word like "weather" and that the left must use it because the Bushies do." I guess I hold a third position: that propaganda is anything but value-neutral, it's value-laden, constructed, myth-button-pushing, easy-to-swallow experience. But that shouldn't make it off limits to the left. I know I sound like a fuddy-duddy here, but I do think there's potential power-for-good in knowing your tools. As someone who is saddled with an overabundance of nerdy ernest-ness myself, I get the value of employing what showmanship skills you have to make a point effectively, occasionally spoon-feeding difficult ideas to an unititiated audience, sugar-coating scary change with fun and momentum. Picking sides, taking a stand, putting on a show. It's all potentially propaganda, but it's still inline with what I believe to be right and wrong. I think the homestyle, hand-held video of Dean's speech is just that. It's the style of the people--youngsters who hold technology in their hands and post crappy quicktime.There's a lot of media saavy involved in the presentation--canny, yes, but still very fine indeed.
- sally mckay 1-27-2004 8:11 am [add a comment]
I started with the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." And I tweaked it away from the relatively neutral "... propagation of ... information reflecting the views ..." to a very common and more sinister connotation. But note, the original definition says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the "information" and nothing about the virtue or evil of the "doctrine".
A few days ago I came across an academic web site that has thumbnails of Nazi and East German propaganda posters. While the Nazi cause is repugnant, I have to respect the skill of these propagandists. (I can respect the skill of an enemy without respecting the enemy.) Clearly these guys were practicing "a systematic method of indoctrinating people to believe evil, vicious lies." But my argument is that this is not the only variety of propaganda.
On the other hand, Webster's provides specific information on the etymology of propaganda: As a recovering Catholic, I can say that the word is tainted with evil from its very origin.
But I often use the word, even though it carries negative connotations, because I believe there is a battle of ideas raging in this country right now. While the Rove and Norquist and Limbaugh are the opposing combatants, the prize is the hearts and minds of the complacent. And it's possible to use truth-based propaganda to displace apathy.
I don't view "truth-based propaganda" as an oxymoron. To me this means finding compelling methods of conveying truth, whether with pictures, songs, video, whatever. But ultimately it has to be compelling to an audience that is both complacent and in information overload.
(Sally said it more succinctly.)
- mark 1-27-2004 8:45 am [add a comment]