Language and Propaganda - an example

I'm not just liberal but sometimes left. I'm a quickly aging white woman who has had an interesting life, but never centered on making great money: you would laugh at my total income ever. I never earned much and am way under the poverty line now. I am for BLM generally.

My not being centered on making scads of money is from my thinking other stuff is more important, part of my lifetime choices. I know you will say that is white privilege, and I'll say it was from what happened to my brain when we went from middle class to poor for years, forever for my parents, when I was about 11. But I also get blacks in Los Angeles areas had it tougher than me, by far.

On one of our first dates, my white husband took me to see Watts Towers, in his neighborhood.

What are you doing, slimeing the left and pale women?

My point is about ideology. I am a leftist, and the ideological arguments that come from the left bother me more than those that come from the right, partially because I want to avoid making decisions based on doctrine rather than on judgement and reason.

I'm not sure his personal opinion can be considered propaganda, but I'd like to see examples of what makes his opinion TRUE fact. That's because we all have opinions.

left doctrine?
Rolls eyes. My friends or acquaintance haven't been doctrinaire.

I speak re U.S. views; I get it the rest of the world including Canada and UK and France and so on likely think US left is sillyness. Doctrine can be like a fresh tootsie roll.

So people who disagree with you are "doctrinaire" and people who agree without aren't "doctrinaire".

It is so lucky that your political views work out that way.

I don't get what you are talking about. I said my friends weren't doctrinaire, as in, they would bat around opinions, which, perhaps a surprise to you, would be modified, worked over in time. Or not, but agreement might show up in talking.

I did not say that people who disagreed with my political views at any given time (hate to clue you in, but they could vary) were doctrinaire.

I never said people who disagreed with me in real life are doctrinaire. Pretty much they were not.

I'll leave, you have an agenda going.

I'll add that looking to a career in advertising made sense to me, but reading the Hidden Persuaders got to me.


Oops, I posted.

This is just Max trying to sound smug and superior, he's so bloody wonderful, he doesn't call posters bad names, only he recognises the use of propaganda across the political spectrum, even if his only example is how tough men like him have it nowadays. It's hipster morality, bland, superficial and lacking in soul.

The only reason he's derailing the thread is so he can scold us all for not being as enlightened as him. I think he even believes it. That's what happens when you don't have a sense of humour.

Back to the first question by Blatham, re-looking at it, I'm one who didn't go into advertising.

I'll posit that images matter in concurrence with photos and language.

What I wonder, being me, is why anyone is attracted to Trump.

Because they love the fact that they have a very wealthy white guy who has the media attention, and Trump is a bigot just like them.

I figure it is hair envy..
also lip maneuver ability

I don't mean to make fun of someone's looks - oh, wait, yes I do. Concoctions get to be funny.

Let me challenge this. We have to, I think, differentiate between "propaganda" and other similar terms, like "marketing" or "public relations". If, for example, a company makes a quality product and markets it (BMW, say) describing its products in a good light, the use of "propaganda" to describe what they are doing misses some crucial distinction with the way we normally think of the term.

Or if a government or a political figure or an NGO etc strive to make their good work well known, again, the use of "propaganda" doesn't seem appropriate to me. If we use the term to describe any communication attempting to influence an audience, then the truly important aspects of what I call "propaganda" are lost.

Propaganda surely is better conceived or defined as a purposefully deceptive communications operation. Astro-turf initiatives, for example, where the true forces behind it are hidden and where the pretense of an ad hoc, citizen-generated movement is forwarded. Naming a bill or some such in a manner that disguises what it is about, likewise. Orwell's ministries in 1984 are fine examples, the naming meant to deceive.

It's consistent with:

I think the definition of the word is useful here.

It seems to me that propaganda and marketing are the same thing with one key difference. When people who agree with you do it, it is "marketing". When people you disagree with do it, it is "propaganda". This thread confirms this.

Is the claim here that liberals are not biased, but that conservatives are? I have already given two examples where arguments made by liberals are intentionally misleading. Finding and pointing out the cognitive biases of people who disagree with you is fun.

It takes intellectual honesty to find your own cognitive biases.

They both make biased opinions. One only needs to factcheck any statement to find out whether it's true or not.
Propaganda and marketing seems to be the same. They both attempt to sell an idea or product which may not be what they represent.
The latest product that misrepresented their product was VMW. Why the management of the company would resort to such misleading information about their product remains a mystery to me.
At their highs, Volkswagen stock traded at the high $160s. After the scandal, it dropped to the low $70s. That's a lesson for CEO's of all companies. Once trust is lost of a trade name, it's difficult to regain it. It will cost billions to fix the problem, and future sales. That means many jobs at the company and their suppliers will be lost.

That's not bad. We, I think properly, normally understand the term as relating to political endeavors/communications. Prior to WW2, "propaganda" had a broader meaning (as in the root, to propagate) and was used to describe advertising techniques. Edward Bernays, one of the greatest advertising minds ever had written a book on this titled "Propaganda". As it happens, that book was found in Goebbels' library. So advertising enterprises do not use that term in that way any longer. Bernays was also the first guy to use astro-turf operations (thought they weren't called that, of course) where the funders'/organizers' identities were purposefully disguised (in the most famous example, "Torches of freedom", the disguised source was a tobacco company).

So the techniques can be the same, including purposeful deceits. And the goal is the same - to alter consensus broadly in the community/nation or even the world. But if we're talking about selling hair dye (Blondes have more fun) or selling tobacco products (More doctors smoke Kool), the consequences to everyone are almost always seen as less egregious than manipulation of group consensus for political purposes.

The element of bias is, I'd argue, far less important than the element of deceit. Any advertiser or political group will be biased. So that alone is no big deal. In fact, it is unavoidable. But throw in purposeful deceits and we get close to this critter we're trying to understand properly. Include political goals and the element of a broad organized campaign to change the way large groups of people think and we're getting right on the money.

The most successful propaganda is the truth, but it's highly selective. Russian TV is a prime example of one sided broadcasting, especially concerning Ukraine and America. During the Royal Wedding their main story was about the arrests and detention of a bunch of well known anarchists. Nothing about the crowds who'd gathered in celebration or people like me who become Royalist as **** when we're given a day off work. (Not Royalist enough to watch the damn thing mind you.)

Closer to home we've got Vikorr who scours the net looking for negative stories about Muslims which he then posts, deliberately ignoring anything positive about Islam, or anything negative about Christianity/Hinduism/Judaism for that matter.

That's not the same as bias, bias is a human condition. You don't ignore the opposing arguments and opinions, you challenge them and point out why you think they're wrong. It's not propaganda, and those who claim it is are attention seeking narcissists of mediocre intellect whose only reason for posting is to attract attention and derail the thread with their own personal bugbears.

Name calling is an interesting strategy used quite often in politics (and of course on Able2Know). You state your opinion forcefully and then clearly state that anyone who disagrees with you is a "narcissist with mediocre intellect". It works to discredit the target of this attack personally.. although it works best when the personal attack follows some pre-existing stereotypes.

You see this coming from the American right. People who support the rights of Muslims are "terrorist sympathizers", or "weak on terror". You also see this from the American left. Remember how Gloria Steinem claimed that young women who supported Bernie Sanders were "just looking for boyfriends".

I don't know whether this particular technique is bias or propaganda. It is certainly manipulative and misleading.

This is not a bad point but I don't think I'd put it quite that way.

Selection of facts or opinions so as to present a one-sided view or interpretation is surely a key element in propagandist communication. Murdoch's operations are usually good examples of this but there are many others. But deceit is a fundamental aspect of this style where the stated premise or goal or standard of the operation is, "We forward a complete and fair analyses of the news". And we usually find that this sort of operation is very careless with the accuracy of what they do carry (again, Fox or News Int in England). Just as a side point, I don't think Murdoch can ever regain the power/influence he had in your country. Great pity that he and Rebekah didn't go to jail but getting them off the levers of power was more important.

Where a politician (and his media people) forwards true facts about his/her record as a politician (but doesn't mention the things he got wrong) I don't think I'd use the term propaganda in that case. I would use it where there is a clear pattern of mis-representation and forwarding of falsehoods. I admit the line here is a little fuzzy but "propaganda" is a very strong word and I'd prefer to reserve it for the behaviors of that sort.

Again with the selection bias.

Are you really blind to see the prevarication of the Clintons. I remember being told that the stories about sexual favors in the Oval Office were only vicious lies told by a "conspiracy". It turns out that these sexual escapades actually did take place. And the email server... any non-biased observer would have to admit that the Clintons are making deliberately misleading statements in an attempt to sway public opinion.

Mind you, I am a liberal. I want Hillary Clinton to win this election.

But to only see the propaganda of the political right is an example partisan blindness.