When is propaganda acceptable and who should control it?

  • Thread starter steppenwolf
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the topic of propaganda and its prevalence in society. The speakers agree that propaganda is harmful and should not be used, but also acknowledge its presence in various forms such as advertising and government manipulation. They question when propaganda is acceptable and who should control the information that the public receives. However, with the rise of technology and the internet, the idea of propaganda may become less relevant as people have access to a variety of information sources. The conversation also touches on the influence of market forces and the role of violence in media.
  • #1
steppenwolf
with the war in iraq there are all the usual debates about propoganda going on, not that there's much to debate, everyone seems to be (rightfully so) against any form of propoganda in the media or otherwise. i am very anti-propoganda, it seems that brainwashing a population is worse then imprisoning them, as it is a mental imprisonment, much harder to escape.

so what if the propoganda is essentially beneficial to the population? should the government lie if it is for a good cause, and is there ever a good enough cause? i am currently considering a research project about economic propoganda in particular, if the population was kept in the dark about how the economy was faring it would sometimes be a lot easier to control this wild beast. so should we maintain an ignorant and blissful state of stability? or even lie about how things are going, considering that people's lives and quality of life is dependant on their ignorant/misguided view of the economy.

basically, when is propoganda ok? who should be in control of what the public is lead to believe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Propaganda is not nessecarily lies, it is the presentation of a one sided arguement, and it endevours to exclude/ignore the other side of the argument completely whenever possible.

An advertising campaign for a movie is an example of propaganda, as no one who worked to produce the movie tells you it 'bites the big one', 'really slow', 'a definate sleeping pill', things like that, they all tell you it's 'great', 'fantastic', 'the best', 'instant classic', that kind of information that is meant to press one point of view, as being the only point of view.

That's propaganda.
 
  • #3
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Then there is propoganda.

Hitler and the ex-soviet union were both infamous for what is called "The Big Lie." When the news first leaked that the Nazis were committing genocide and stuffing bodies into ovens they simply denied it. Not even the president of the United States could believe such stories and he had access to serious evidence. No one could be that inhuman, now could they. This is the modern world after all. Wrong!

US propoganda is infamous for usually being more subtle and, thus, more insidious. After a few decades, a half century or so, no one cares anymore. All the people directly affected are dead or dying. That's why from time to time you'll hear governments like United States appologise for genocide, slavery, and other things that occurred fifty years or more in the past. If you're lucky, they'll even pay some small token in the way of reperations.

Anyone convinced propoganda is just for the good of the people has been listening to too much propoganda. Either that, or they're living in denial which is even more frightening.
 
  • #4
well i think it is generally a combination of both. this big problem is that it seems like something that is really hard to break a person of.
 
  • #5
with the war in iraq there are all the usual debates about propoganda going on, not that there's much to debate, everyone seems to be (rightfully so) against any form of propoganda in the media or otherwise. i am very anti-propoganda, it seems that brainwashing a population is worse then imprisoning them, as it is a mental imprisonment, much harder to escape.
The primary freedom is not freedom of speech, but freedom of thought. But in reality, I don't think anybody has that. Nations brainwash, it's what nations do. It's what holds them together. Patriotism, the love of the motherland, it all boils down to propaganda in one way or another. The real world is a complex system, and easily exploited with the all too tempting lies.

Propaganda is never ok. Especially so in a democracy. But it will never be stopped because sometimes it is just addictive. Governments simply tap into people's will to believe what they want to believe. Sometimes propaganda doesn't even have to be used - we delude ourselves. In the end, in general, we want to be happy. We want blissful ignorance. We only speak out when the government gets caught.

I would prefer the horrible truth to the sugar coated lies. But in the real world, many people would disagree.
 
  • #6
basically, when is propoganda ok? who should be in control of what the public is lead to believe?

I don't know if this question is going to have much relevence for long. Unlike when I was kid, people can now watch five hundred channels instead of three and can access information from around the world on the internet.

They say the great american forte' is marketing. We aren't famous for producing quality products at low prices, we're famous for being able to sell things and produce entertainment like hollywood movies. However, as Algazeera, the world weekly news, and rap music are proving, people want more sex and violence in everything. Either you give them what they want or they'll just go elsewhere.

That's why so many american made movies began incorporating more graphic violence with all the mutilation, blood, and gore decades ago. First their Japanese audiences demanded it and then when the american audiences got used to it they demanded it as well. The music industry then began breaking sales records with rap music.

I remember being shocked when I heard my first rap album with endless sirens and gunshots going off in the background. At first I didn't realize the sounds were on the album and I thought WWIII was breaking out. Then I realized this was the reality many inner city people live with everyday.

Is it entertainment, propoganda, news, art, or what? Should we regulate it somehow or just let market forces drive everything? All of these are moot questions in my mind that, as often as not, are indistinguishable again from these things. Violence, however, remains violent no matter what form it takes or what you choose to call it.
 
  • #7
While a person could take Mr. Parson's view and call every one-sided argument "propaganda", I don't think much of anything can really be called propaganda in the ominous sense of the word that we think of it, with a few exceptions. In reality, nearly anything can be said to be one-sided, but in a marketplace of ideas that's ok. To really have propaganda you have to have a source that can effectively push that one side to the EXCLUSION of all others for some hidden purpose. This certainly happens (happened) in Saddam's regime. However, in a democracy, with a free press that competes, and with easy access to the internet, all of these one-sided views are available and individuals can make their own assessment.

Certainly, individuals in the government will spin their side to bolster their positions and reputations. But we have a multi-party system in which even here the views expressed are not monolithic. Despite conspiracy theorists and government paranoids, our government really doesn't have much power to exclude other views, with the exception of cases of national security. Sure, you can point out abuses but for the most part, a president can't even have sex in the oval office anymore without someone finding out - you really think they could hide anything important? Please.

The biggest threat to real information for the people doesn't come from the government. Instead, one modern threat is huge corporate oligarchies due to merger mania. Although we may have hundreds of channels, they are all owned by a handful of corporations. Since competition is the cornerstone of what keeps the press on the up and up, the lack of competition this situation breeds creates a threat to truth for the people.

Another closely related threat is almost because of the opposite concern - TOO MUCH emphasis on competition for ratings. This creates situations where the people are told what they WANT to hear instead of the truth. Take for example the Fox (not fox news) series of so-called "documentaries" about aliens. These were staged completely and had paid actors playing the aliens, yet nowhere in the program was it revealed that the entire thing was fake, except for the credits which quickly flashed the names of the actors playing the aliens in the supposedly ACTUAL footage! (probably because of union requirements).

And, lastly, another sort of distortion happens in the more mainstream media. This is when the news may be reporting true facts, and not actually lie anywhere, but because of the conglomeration of these news items, an overall impression of the world is created which is untrue. This happens because only that which is a rarity tends to be considered "big news". If one were to watch the news media, one would think that airplanes are more dangerous than cars, crime is getting worse, and pollution is getting worse when in fact the opposite is true in each of these cases.

Whether you call this propaganda or not is a linguistic judgement call, but either way, those are the real threats to knowledge for the people in my view.
 

1. Is propaganda always morally wrong?

No, propaganda is not always morally wrong. It depends on the intentions and methods used in the propaganda. If the propaganda is used to spread false information or manipulate people for personal gain, then it is considered morally wrong. However, if the propaganda is used to educate and inform people about a certain issue, it can be seen as morally acceptable.

2. Can propaganda be used for good purposes?

Yes, propaganda can be used for good purposes. It can be used to raise awareness about important social issues, promote positive values, and inspire people to take action for a greater cause. However, it is important for the propaganda to be truthful and not deceive or manipulate people.

3. Is it ethical to use propaganda to promote a political agenda?

The use of propaganda to promote a political agenda is a controversial topic. Some may argue that it is a necessary tool for political parties to spread their message and gain support. However, others may argue that it goes against the principles of democracy and manipulates the public's perception of a certain candidate or party. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide if they believe it is ethical or not.

4. Can propaganda be used to incite violence or hatred?

Propaganda that incites violence or hatred is highly unethical and can have serious consequences. It can lead to discrimination, persecution, and even acts of violence. Governments and organizations have a responsibility to monitor and regulate propaganda to prevent it from promoting hate and violence.

5. How can we ensure that propaganda is used ethically?

To ensure that propaganda is used ethically, it is important to have transparency and accountability in the creation and dissemination of propaganda. Governments and organizations should have regulations in place to prevent the spread of false information and manipulation. It is also important for individuals to critically evaluate the information presented to them and seek out multiple sources to form their own opinions.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
259
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
649
Replies
1
Views
964
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
20K
Replies
293
Views
32K
Back
Top