Propaganda

Picking up on the theme of my last post, it occurred to me today that a very important word is both losing favor -- most often simply through misuse -- and is also shifting it's meaning. This time the shift is not toward another word in the same domain, if you will, rather it is sliding into a separate domain and will be overwhelmed by the current standard term there. That word, of course, is "propaganda". We should keep it around, I think. It's a good word, and it actually communicates quite a bit. But, what is propaganda anyway?

If we stop to reflect for a minute, we see it is a form of communication. It's primary purpose is to influence its listeners (or readers or viewers, depending upon the media). The influence should be in a particular way, of course, that is, in favor of the position or assertions being made by the issuer, most commonly but now hardly ever known as the propagandist. The influencing is accomplished by presenting facts selectively. That doesn't mean it's an outright lie, rather, the selection allows the stater to simply leave things out in order to encourage the listener to draw particular conclusions. What is more, propaganda is generally presented emotionally. Emotion, not reason, should be directing the decision-making processes of the listener. That's how we generally understand the term these days.

Granted, this was a political term for the longest of times, but I don't hear it so much in that domain of discourse any more. I do see exactly that happening on a daily basis, and that is my cause for concern. We are all confronted with it day in and day out ... Americans and Brits more than, say, Germans or the French, but no one these days is immune to it. We know it as advertising.

Now before our marketing friends get all weird on me, stop and think about it for a minute. Advertising is a form of communication. It's primary purpose is to influence its listeners (or readers or viewers, depending upon the media). The influence should be in a particular way, of course, that is, in favor of the position or assertions being made by the advertiser. The influencing is accomplished by presenting facts seletively, also in order to encourage the listener to draw particular conclusions. And I doubt that anyone would disagree that it is presented emotionally. So where, I ask you, is the real difference?

I don't see one, so I'm sticking to my guns.

Generally, things like this wouldn't bother me all that much, but I am reminded of McLuhan's aphorism on the one side: the price of eternal vigilance is indifference (we simply get worn down by it all, throw in the towel, and end up with too big a car payment or a world war or whatever). On the other side, there aren't enough people these days educated enough to (a) know what propaganda really is or (b) have been taught or allowed to think critically enough to defend themselves. We can all do something about (a), but (b), well, that's a bigger problem ... and one that's bigger than I want address at the moment.

The next time you're being schlocked or enticed, or being amused to reach into your pocket for money, I'd suggest you stop and think. Of course, what works in marketing, well, that should be right and proper for politics now, shouldn't it. Think about it.