Propaganda


 * Definition**

The root of propaganda comes from the word to propagate in post-classical Latin (Propaganda, 1989, p. 632). To propagate means to produce, cause or reproduce (Propagate, 1989, p. 633). Propaganda, however, is defined as the spreading of ideas, attitudes, and doctrines rather than a more literal definition of production and reproduction.

Propaganda was first used in 1622 for the Congregation of (the) Propaganda (Propaganda, 1989, p. 632). This was a committee of Cardinals responsible for foreign missions and spreading the Catholic faith, founded by Pope Gregory XV (Propaganda, 1989, p. 632). The use of propaganda was later broadened to “any association, systematic scheme, or concerted movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine or movement” (Propaganda, 1989, p. 632). It’s more recent use includes “the systematic propagation of information or ideas by an interested party” particularly “in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instill a particular attitude or response” (Propaganda, 1989, p. 632). Ever since World War I when the British used propaganda to garner US support, the word has taken on a negative connotation (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 352).

Walter Lippmann was a scholar that saw propaganda as negative. Lippmann wrote //Public Opinion//, which focused on the role of the news media during World War I and their influence on public opinion, particularly the negative effect of propaganda on democracy (Bryant & Zillmann, 2009, p. 11). This book had an impact on public opinion research for years to come (Bryant & Zillmann, 2009, p. 11).

The study of communication began in the late 1930s focusing mostly on mass media and propaganda (McChesney, 2007, p. 28). The climate was right for a critical study of propaganda mainly because enemy countries at that time, such as Germany, were using propaganda techniques, and there was still very little known about it (McChesney, 2007, p. 29). During this time the study was focused more on the psychological effects of propaganda. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis was created in 1937 when the hypodermic needle model of media effects was popularized (Bryant & Zillmann, p. 11). The institute felt that the only way to protect people from propaganda was to learn about it in order to help inoculate citizens from its effects (Bryant & Zillmann, p. 11).


 * Propaganda Techniques**

The Institute of Propaganda Analysis identified seven propaganda techniques:
 * 1) **name-calling:** (giving an idea or product a bad name (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 353)).
 * 2) **glittering generalities:** (the opposite of name-calling. Praise is given to a product or person so people accept and approve an idea or product, once again, without examining evidence (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 353).
 * 3) **transfer:** (carries over the authority or prestige of something already respected to a new person, product or idea (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 353).
 * 4) **testimonial:** (either using a celebrity or other respected person to recommend a product (as often done in infomercials) or using a hated person to tell people that a product is bad (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 354)).
 * 5) **plain folks:** (uses an appeal to common values like family and patriotism, to garner support (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 354)).
 * 6) **card-stacking:** (manipulating information to make a product appear better than it actually is (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 354)). This is often done through an unfair comparison or by omitting important facts, and it often gives the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, or person (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 354).
 * 7) **bandwagon:** (an appeal to be part of a group (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 356)).

Each of these techniques relies on a flawed reasoning (i.e. fallacy ) or an appeal to emotions, which is one of the reasons that propaganda developed a negative connotation. Propaganda uses a flawed logic to disseminate ideas and information. However, not all scholars viewed propaganda as negative. Harold Lasswell, one of the most famous scholars on propaganda, began to study how elites could use propaganda to spread their own interests (McChesney, 2007, p. 29). He focused a great deal on the intention of the propagandist rather than the effects of propaganda (Ellul, 1973, p. xi). Lasswell argued that propaganda was neither positive nor negative, simply a tool to be used (Welch, 2003, p. 317). By adopting discourse theory, Weaver, Motion, and Roper indicated how should we evaluate propaganda, “whether propaganda is ethical or not has to be assessed in relations to the context which it is practiced, the ends to which it is used, the quality of transparency in terms of the persuader’s openness about the ‘ends’ they are seeking to achieve, and, as far as one is able to judge, the consequences of those ends” (Weaver, Motion, & Roper, 2006, p.13).


 * Propaganda Model**

During the Cold War, which was the heyday of international propaganda, propaganda became quite negative, even to communication scholars, and was viewed as something that only enemy states would do (McChesney, 2007, p. 30). However, during this time, Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky developed the propaganda model (McChesney, 2007, p. 65). There are five filters of this model:
 * 1) media ownership:
 * 2) advertising:
 * 3) sourcing:
 * 4) flak: and
 * 5) anticommunist ideology (McChesney, 2007, p. 65).

This model was used to explain why similar stories were treated differently in the media depending on their relationship to US elites interests (McChesney, 2007, p. 65). According to the propaganda model, news is shaped by the filters of the elite (Klein, Byerly, & McEachern, 2009, p. 333). This model is still applied to critical media assessments performed today. Other scholars even argued propaganda as a necessary part of a technological society rather than a negative technique used by enemy governments (Ellul, 1973, p. 6).


 * Propaganda and Communication**

Propaganda is still researched in the field of communication today. The actual propaganda messages are studied including both current and historical uses of propaganda. Even the uncritical treatment of former President George W. Bush in the news media after September 11, 2001, is studied as propaganda (McChesney, 2007, p. 170). The effects of propaganda are also studied. Today, propaganda is often used to describe politicians and political organizations and their rhetoric or the advertising and public relations industry (Wilson & Wilson, 2001, p. 352). More often than not, this is done through the study of advertisements.

Public relations is often confused with propaganda, despite much literature having established the propaganda or press agentry model as only one of at least four models of public relations practice (Sha & Meyer, 2002, p.64). As ethical propaganda sounds like an oxymoron, public relations practitioners are expected to foster dialogue between the organization and its publics, and seek mutually beneficial outcomes and relationships. Public relations is painted as a socially responsible function. It has, however, been pointed out that the distinction is not that clear-cut and critical scholars often place propaganda and public relations on a continuum (Ihlen & Gelders, 2010, p.60). Since these strategies are widely used in public communication of government, how should we evaluate the ethical issues of propaganda and public relations? Are they effective tools for government to communicate with people to build mutual understandings on policies, facilitate pubic welfares, and even propel a more mature civil society? The essence of public communication is still a form of ideology production which should be discussed carefully. Public relations can be used and misused. It becomes unethical, for instance, when it “undercuts our powers of conscious choice making” (Johannesen, 2002, p.115).

Minor Revision Wei-Fen Chen July 2012

include component="comments" page="page:Propaganda" limit="10"


 * References**

Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (2009). A retrospective and prospective look at media effects. In R. Nabi & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), //The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects// (9-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ellul, J. (1973). //Propaganda: The formation of men’s attitudes//. New York: Vintage Books.

Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government Communication about Potential Policies: Public Relations, Propaganda, or Both? //Public Relations Review, 36,// 59-62.

Johannesen, L. (2002). Ethics in Human Communication (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Klein, A.G., Byerly, C.M., and McEachern, T. M. (2009). Counterframing Public Dissent: An analysis of antiwar coverage in the U.S. media. //Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26//(4), 331-350.

McChesney, R. W. (2007). //Communication Revolution: Critical junctures and the future of media//. New York, NY: The New Press.

Parsons, P. (2004). //Ethics in Public Relations.// VA: Kogan Page.

Propaganda. (1989). In J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.), //Oxford English Dictionary// (p. 632, 2nd ed., Vol. XII). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Propagate. (1989). In J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.), //Oxford English Dictionary// (p. 633, 2nd ed., Vol. XII). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Sha,B., & Meyer, K. (2002). Children and Government Propaganda: A Review of Census in Schools. //Journal of Promotion Management, 8//(2), 63-87.

Welch, D. (2003). Propaganda, definitions of. In N.J. Cull, D. Culbert, & D. Welch. Propaganda and mass persuasion: a historical encyclopedia, 1500 to the present (317-323). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

Waver, K., Motion, J., & Roper, J. (2006). From Propaganda to Discourse (and Back Again): Truth, Power the Public Interest and Public Relations. In L’Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (Eds,). //Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice// (7-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilson, J. R. & Wilson, S. R. (2001). //Mass media/mass culture: An introduction.// New York: McGraw-Hill.