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.)
|
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