Propaganda

Propaganda is just spin or lies designed to influence an audience - it might be for politics or for a religion. It need not involve nationalism. It's closely related to marketing. We can't stop people lying on behalf of a cause or product. Society is built on this fact. But perhaps we can try to make people more discerning.

Propaganda works because people are ignorant and believe anything they're told if it confirms their biases or caters to their (often subconscious) desires. (As such, being able to view information through a critical lens requires one to view oneself through a critical lens - a skill only a minority of people possess).

If one wishes to solve the spreading of lies (and I view propaganda as being a manifestation of that, as are most forms of marketing), one should strive to cure ignorance.

Quoting I like sushi

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood?

If this is a fairly reasonable statement then is propaganda then to be assessed as ‘negative’ in that it is a means to manipulate and spread falsehoods?

There are two different mindsets here. One, those who call out government programs and public statements as propaganda are the anti-manipulation group. They believe that anything coming out of the government's proverbial a$$ is propaganda that is designed, as you said, to manipulate and spread falsehoods. The other mindset is the public officials themselves, or their cohorts and supporters, whose work tries to avoid being labeled propaganda because of again, of the image it projects -- manipulation and falsehoods. So, the term propaganda is only used by the anti-nation or anti-government.

Quoting Tom Storm

Propaganda is just spin or lies designed to influence an audience - it might be for politics or for a religion. It need not involve nationalism. It's closely related to marketing. We can't stop people lying on behalf of a cause or product. Society is built on this fact. But perhaps we can try to make people more discerning.

Correct.

Reply to I like sushi Not just nationality, but every form of identification is necessarily divisive and leads to conflict. See Swift's parody of the Big-endians v the Little-endians for example. And truth is always the first casualty of every conflict.

Quoting I like sushi

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood?

If it's frequently used by nation states, we should understand that anybody spreading ideas, information, or a rumor for the purpose of helping (or injuring) someone is making propaganda. What's crucial to understand that there is an agenda, and objective to be reached with the actions.

We have to understand that the act of propaganda is used by a multitude of actors.

@ssu @unenlightened

I guess if you don’t agree that ‘propaganda’ is viewed by many as something mostly about patriotic ideals and nationhood there is not much of a discussion to be had here.

Maybe most people are more clued in to political wrangles (beyond state ideologies) than I give them credit for.

Quoting ssu

What's crucial to understand that there is an agenda, and objective to be reached with the actions.

We have to understand that the act of propaganda is used by a multitude of actors.

"Propaganda" and "agenda" are words that aren't used by the government or nation or state -- only the critics used them. Because they are politically negative charged ideas.

Reply to I like sushi Propaganda, advertising, special pleading, rhetoric;

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.[1] Propaganda can be found in news and journalism, government, advertising, entertainment, education, and activism[2] and is often associated with material which is prepared by governments as part of war efforts, political campaigns, health campaigns, revolutionaries, big businesses, ultra-religious organizations, the media, and certain individuals such as soapboxers.

Wiki.

I certainly don't want to shut down the discussion, but point out merely that it is not limited to governments and nation states. There has long been an argument between those who claim that patriotism is a virtue and those who see it as a vice. I favour the latter view, but want to emphasise that it applies also to religions, races, genders, and any other identified and distinguished groups.

My country right or wrong.

https://www.thoughtco.com/my-country-right-or-wrong-2831839

We know at the extreme that the patriotic member of a Nazi governed country is a supporter of horrors unless she is a traitor to her government. Is there a middle ground of critical patriotism?

I'm half watching a news report of a football mach between a Saudi royal owned British club and a Russian oligarch owned British club. Fortunately for me, I have no interest in football. But I am not turning off the central heating either. There is no clean money, and no clean oil or gas. Is there clean patriotism? I say not, but only a naively innocent patriotism, that does not see its own dirt.

Quoting L'éléphant

"Propaganda" and "agenda" are words that aren't used by the government or nation or state -- only the critics used them. Because they are politically negative charged ideas.

They aren't either used by political pressure groups or by lobbyists. Due to similar reasons. It's been a long time since "Propaganda" was replaced just with "Information" or "Public Relations".

.

Quoting unenlightened

I certainly don't want to shut down the discussion, but point out merely that it is not limited to governments and nation states.

I know. I framed the colloquial meaning as being more about state/nationhood. If you don’t agree that’s fine.

Quoting L'éléphant

hrrmpf, all propaganda

:lol: I hope some of your late grandma's wisdom rubbed off on you. RIP grandma :flower:

Quoting unenlightened

truth is always the first casualty of every conflict.

:fire: Lovely!

Quoting Agent Smith

I hope some of your late grandma's wisdom rubbed off on you.

And on you.

Quoting L'éléphant

And on you.

:smile:

Reply to Agent Smith :grin:
Are you gonna be nice now?

Quoting L'éléphant

Are you gonna be nice now?

I'll have to think about it. :wink:

Reply to Agent Smith Well, think fast.

Quoting L'éléphant

Well, think fast.

Slow and steady wins the race? :grin:

Reply to Agent Smith True. Is that your propaganda?

Quoting L'éléphant

True. Is that your propaganda?

My subconscious: I don't know what's going on there.

Quoting I like sushi

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood?

Propaganda promotes a political view or a movement, and not all of those are nationalist or patriotic, so the term commonly also refers to the art, slogans, and rhetoric of revolutionary internationalist movements. The Russian Revolution and early Soviet Union, for example, are famous for their propaganda posters, many of which were specifically aimed against nationalism. If most propaganda is tied to nationalism, it's because most political movements have been and still are tied to nationalism.

Here is some propaganda:


Consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the international unity of the proletariat!


Pioneer makes friends with children from all the world's countries


We are for friendship and peace! Our ardent greeting is flying around the world! We stand for friendship and peace!


Lenin in our hearts

Regarding the poster above, today we'd be tempted to question why the blond white guy is at the front [EDIT: now that I look again, he looks quite central Asian, so the following point might be less relevant]. This indicates that there's a patriotic element to some of these posters, that ethnic Russians were the target audience and that they were being encouraged to be proud of leading the cause of internationalism. And some of the others could be seen as claiming the world for communism as against the capitalist West, and you might see that as nationalist in some sense.

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. Public health campaigns fit under this definition. I find this anti-alcohol poster quite effective:



What shame! He got drunk, swore, smashed a tree and now he's ashamed to look people in the face

Although it's not spreading falsehoods, it does present only one side of the story.

Quoting jamalrob

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. Public health campaigns fit under this definition. I find this anti-alcohol poster quite effective

I agree, and also believe it's not limited to one side or World view.

Perhaps the thing with propaganda that it's basically very aggressive. Propaganda doesn't say "Here is our viewpoint and solution, but feel free to think about something else". It doesn't list pros and cons and give people to come to their own conclusions. It's that the other side is wrong. And not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. And what is promoted isn't just right, it's the only crucial way or we face utter doom. The issues aren't questionable and cannot be compromised. Propaganda wants to instill passion to the cause.

In a way for example Greta is a propagandist, a modern day Jeanne d'Arc, who herself was basically a tool of medieval propaganda. Young Greta excoriating adults for not doing enough and these then wildly cheering for Greta is propaganda. Of course now when she is a young adult and soon a middle aged women, the role of the innocent child telling the truth isn't for her anymore. And of course the pregnant mother in Mariupol carried on a stretcher who then dies along with the unborn child is also used as propaganda. It naturally evokes strong feelings.

(And let's just have only the picture of Greta here)

Quoting jamalrob

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support

When do we realise we are under the influence of propaganda of would-be dictators and fascists?
After the event? When and how do we wake up and see what is really going on, if that is even possible?
Does it depend on access, willingness or new, intelligent minds...?

Quoting Jo Nesbø

Putin’s narrative around why Russia has gone to war in Ukraine is gaining ground with a majority of Russians without access to social media or foreign reporting.

But the younger generation in Russia uses virtual private networks and other technological loopholes to access different views on what is happening. Their numbers are still small, but they are a resourceful group who will, themselves, eventually become journalists, writers and artists, using stories as weapons.

The arts and propaganda.
The Best Story Wins?

Jo Nesbø writes:

I faced Russia’s wrath for my novel and TV series, Occupied. The Kremlin knows art can tell the truth about war – and it fears that.

I thought it would be obvious that the point of the fictional world in Occupied was not to say anything about Russia – just as Steven Spielberg’s aim in Jaws was not to say anything about great white sharks. However, the Russian authorities did not take it very well

He claims that the aim of the narrator of fiction is 'to say something true, not necessarily factual'.
Is that true? How true is true?

Nesbø says fiction is not to report on the details of who, what, where and when, rather to move hearts and minds. Yes. But why can't it be a bit of both? Changing names and time?
Fiction is seen as a powerful strategy, especially when readers aren't aware they are being 'propagandised'.

Other art forms in propaganda. Films.
Think America. Hollywood. John Wayne Westerns. Clint Eastwood cool guy. Always winners.
Ideals romanticised. Bullets flying for freedom. Always with the guns. Accepted by some as a way of life and death. Necessary to protect freedom. Hmmm.

Nesbø continues:

Quoting Jo Nesbø- Vladimir Putin knows the power of stories. With a better one, we can beat him -

Today, the entire world is essentially sitting in the same movie theatre, watching events unfold in Ukraine. But what we are seeing – figuratively speaking – are dubbed versions, featuring subtitles in our own languages. There is a battle under way between different versions of the story, and the best one will prove triumphant

.

I'm not sure that words are as powerful as bullets to overcome and persuade people to surrender.
A bullet to the head... or a head to the bullet?

Quoting ssu

And of course the pregnant mother in Mariupol carried on a stretcher who then dies along with the unborn child is also used as propaganda. It naturally evokes strong feelings.

It might well be used as propaganda.
However, at the time it was filmed and photographed it evoked strong feelings because it was in the moment and real. We could all see the effects of war. The bombing of a maternity hospital.

The other picture was of a pregnant woman, shocked as she crosses the rubble of war.
Also used as propaganda.
This time as 'Fake News' - the spin by the Russian embassy.
The whole thing was staged.

Not so.

Quoting Daily Wire: Twitter Deletes Russian Embassy U.K. Tweets Claiming Maternity Hospital Was Staged

Let’s take their claims one by one. Marianna Podgurskaya, the woman they claim to be a crisis actor, is indeed a beauty influencer who actually lives in Mariupol. Multiple recent images show she’s heavily pregnant, which is why she’d be at a maternity hospital yesterday,” he tweeted, sharing photos from Podgurskaya’s social media accounts.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-deletes-russian-embassy-u-k-tweets-claiming-maternity-hospital-was-staged

Conspiracy researcher Mike Rothschild argued that Twitter should have gone further, and advocated removing all “propaganda accounts” from the platform entirely.

Reply to Amity One can always argue that everything is fake: things just become more and more complex and more elaborately staged and larger conspiracies.

Of course, in the time of twitter and facebook and all the equivalents, these are possible to verify.

Usually the "fake news" argument is only to capture the moment as the focus will surely move to the next thing at least in a week or so. Hence the obvious fakeness of fake news doesn't even matter. That some people or organizations verify it to be fake doesn't matter, as the verification will take time. The idea is only to confuse. Or just to change the discourse. Yet not all propaganda is lying. Best is to tell the truth. A wonderful example of propaganda towards the enemy was German WW1 propaganda aimed at Americans joining the war. The piece urged the American joining the Army simply to dig a hole in their backyard, fill it with water, go to sit in the whole and have a lunatic to try to shoot you while in the hole. In fact, an apt description of the trenches of WW1.

As said, propaganda is usually something that will try to affect ones feelings, not thinking. To instill the feeling of outrage, compassion, fear, joy, upbeat patriotism, and so on.

Perfect example of propaganda to instill the fighting spirit and have people to support the Ukrainian cause is the case of the tractors towing enemy armour. It's a popular, funny upbeat meme. Here Radio Free Europe shows a montage that could be easily shown in Russian media, if the sides just would be different (Ukrainians being the invaders and Russians the defenders).



I think that we should simply have the ability to notice what is such influencing and once we understand the "spin", we can make our own conclusions. If there is propaganda in an message, then just take it to account. Notice what is true and what is spin. I think that people give far too importance to propaganda and media influencing and simply use it as an excuse, "Everything being propaganda", to not to even bother about the issues at hand.

Quoting ssu

One can always argue that everything is fake: things just become more and more complex and more elaborately staged and larger conspiracies.

Talking about elaborate staging and propaganda.
This clip from CH4 News is chilling. Putin's War Rally.
https://www.channel4.com/news/putin-vows-kremlin-aims-will-be-achieved-at-war-rally

A national celebration. 8yrs since the war began with the annexation of Crimea.
Putin the dictator, centre stage, cheered on in a full auditorium.
The use of the Z symbol.

Images from this event are contrasted with those unfolding in Ukraine.
Listen to Putin's rhetoric starting at 1:59. The brotherhood of brave soldiers...'shielding each other from bullets on the battlefield with their own bodies as if for a brother. We haven't seen such unity in a long time.'

So it goes.

Quoting I like sushi

stillborn ideology

:lol: Good one! Blighted ovum! Much worse, more painful.

Propaganda, what is it?

Truth, sexed up, and/or lies sold as truths. Reminds me of how business is done these days. It's like driving at 39.99999 km/hr or 40.0000001 km/hr on a stretch of road with a speed limit of 40 km/hr. She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not,... Moral cops looking at each other with blank expressions. Is s/he breaking the law? Well, yes, but not really.

Reply to I like sushi Here is a NYT podcast with a transcript relevant to the topic: Jane Coaston and Peter Pomerantsev, who both know a good deal about propaganda, discuss propaganda in the context of Russia's war with Ukraine. At the beginning they try to define propaganda in general, and I think they do a decent job.

Propaganda is manipulative and aggressive. It does not respect its audience; it doesn't want people to think, evaluate and come to their own conclusions freely; it aims to instill a particular set of beliefs by any means necessary. It could be objected that the same characteristics can apply to other communication. This is true, but the difference here is in standards and expectations. When a conversation starts to resemble propaganda on one or both sides, we see that as a failing. But whatever your attitude towards propaganda (whether you think there can be good propaganda, as well as bad), this is no more and no less than what we expect of it.

(Personal anecdote: I briefly met Peter Pomerantsev in Prague when he was a still boy living there with his parents. I haven't had contact with him since then, though I've met his dad in London, a Russian-speaking poet and writer, originally from West Ukraine.)

Quoting SophistiCat

Personal anecdote: I briefly met Peter Pomerantsev in Prague when he was a still boy living there with his parents. I haven't had contact with him since then, though I've met his dad in London, a Russian-speaking poet and writer, originally from West Ukraine.)

Oh, how interesting.
I have only just met him as the 5th contributor to the Guardian article:
How to Solve a Problem: Like Putin
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670017

Thanks for your link to the podcast discussing propaganda. Will take a look, later.

Quoting jamalrob

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support.

Under this definition how would propaganda differ from education?

Reply to Theorem Ideally, education equips you with a wide range of knowledge and opinion, allowing you to make up your own mind. Propaganda is always one-sided. Of course, educational institutions and education policy can be used for propaganda purposes as well.

Quoting jamalrob

Propaganda is always one-sided

Fair enough, although I question whether this really qualifies as 'neutral'. Is purposefully presenting only 'one side of the story' not a form a deception?

Reply to Theorem I don't think presenting only one side of the story, or trying to influence behaviour and gain support for a cause, are always bad, and in that sense the definition is neutral, as opposed to the pejorative definition under which propaganda is always bad.

Whether propaganda is always deceptive in some sense, I'm not sure. Groups of people fight for their interests, and part of that effort is spreading their agendas, without spreading those of their enemies. This is inescapable in societies that allow contestation. Of course, we might expect that, for example, journalists who are covering these conflicts should present both sides and avoid propaganda.

Reply to jamalrob I think what's tripping me up about this definition is that it would seem to imply that all discourse qualifies as propaganda. After all, there is no value-neutral discourse, even granting that neutrality may sometimes be held up as an ideal worth striving for (e.g. your definition of 'education' above). What distinguishes the propagandist (as traditionally understood) is the means they're willing to use to disseminate their viewpoints, not the mere fact that they are advocating a viewpoint.

Reply to Theorem I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature?

Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda.

Quoting jamalrob

I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature?

I see 'agreement' as a first step along the road toward action - a difference of 'degree' rather than 'kind'. That said, I do agree that rhetoric and symbolism often play greater role in propaganda than in some other forms of discourse.

Quoting jamalrob

Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda.

No problem. I don't think it's 'wrong' per se. I'm just testing it out a little to see if I'd ever want to use the term in this way.

Quoting Amity

Oh, how interesting.
I have only just met him as the 5th contributor to the Guardian article:
How to Solve a Problem: Like Putin
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670017

Thanks, I'll have a look.

Reply to SophistiCat
:smile:
Great!
I look forward to your thoughts.
I'm struggling a bit.

Corrected the title of the thread to that of the article:
'How do we solve a problem like Putin? Five leading writers on Russia have their say'.

Reply to jamalrob I know this. Unlike many here I do know how to look up definitions of terms.

My view was based on the premise that the ‘average joe’ takes propaganda as something more strongly attached to patriotism than anything else. I may be completely wrong about this, which is fine.

My thought was whether or not ‘propaganda’ (as in the real meaning) would be more or less of a problem if nationhood wasn’t a thing? I played with this idea as it seems to me that a lack of patriotism/nationhood would reduce tribalism to some degree, and that ‘propaganda’ relies on a sense of tribalism at some level. If the general population of the planet abstained from ‘patriotism’ then I suggesting that maybe ‘propaganda’ would not be as much of a problem. Not that patriotism is the singular driving force of propaganda but I do believe that tribalism is and that patriotism is a more substantial form of tribalism - even though there is some ‘good’ within it.

Here is an offering from MUSE:



Propaganda permeates all levels of society, even between two people in a relationship as suggested by MUSE above so, I think its always been used to 'show your tribe/nation,' as the best one available. Is there any country (apart from perhaps the poorest ones) whose leaders do not constantly publically claim that their country and their politics is the best country and the best politics in the world ever ever EVER!