Though images can be used in propaganda, the main mode of transmission is language. I'll offer an example here and folks can speak to it if they care to.
Yesterday, Freedom Caucus member from Kansas Tim Huelskamp lost his primary contest to another candidate. He wasn't happy about it and blamed "special interests" for his defeat.
This morning, fellow FC member Jim Jordan of Ohio joined in the complaint.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) released a scathing statement Wednesday morning blasting House GOP leaders for the primary loss of fellow Freedom caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), a fifth generation farmer who found himself without a job Tuesday night after playing official agitator to his own party's leadership for years.
"At times, Tim’s commitment to fighting for smaller, more accountable government required him to stand up and say no to ‘business as usual’ in Washington," Jordan wrote in the release. "For this, he was punished by the same party insiders and special interests that Republican voters across the country overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box throughout the presidential nomination process."
..."In an ugly and dishonest campaign, Tim’s record was attacked and misrepresented by big money special interest groups who wanted to exact their revenge," Jordan said.
Let's note right off the bat here that the Freedom Caucus is intimately tied into the Koch network http://bit.ly/2aIPqd7
and that Huselkamp's run was heavily supported, in funding and activism, by the Club for Growth (first link). His winning opponent was funded by another conservative group.
So what to make of the claims re "special interests" and "outside money"?
That's the propaganda line and narrative. Broadly across right wing media now, "special interests" means any contingent of citizens (gays, women, unions, blacks, Latinos, liberals, media entities, etc) that are not aligned with the GOP and the Koch network. White christian conservatives are never, in this framing, described or conceived as a "special interest". If the funding sources arise from, say, the renewable energy sector, that's a "special interest" whereas the petroleum/extraction industries are never framed in the same way.
The goal, of course, is to delegitimize (as unusual, somewhat alien, perhaps un-American) any organized opposition and funding sources which are not aligned with the Koch operations or with the GOP.
When you hear or read "special interests", understand this is very often a propagandist move because of how it is used.
There's nothing wrong with some group of individuals or entities which belief similarly and who might cooperate to achieve sub-community goals (like women's rights). That's inevitable. But the manipulation of language as I've described is propagandist.
Another example I won't get into right now is "identity politics" as it is currently used on the right.