[runbathtime]

> Propaganda isn’t bad by its nature (after-all, almost any content that relays information can be considered a form of propaganda).

I have to disagree, propaganda is bad, as its aim isn't to inform, but to manipulate through dishonesty.

[tines]

You're using a different definition than the article. It's developed a negative connotation, but originally it referred to any dissemination of information made to influence public opinion. It refers to the motivation, not the content. Even citing true, non-misleading statistics in order to accomplish something good for society is propaganda, according to the old meaning. ("Propaganda" comes from a word that literally just means "propagate".)

[jturpin]

I don't know why people are saying the article uses a morally neutral definition of propaganda. It starts with saying "Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium) designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion rather than to inform using logical truths and facts. The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this generally isn’t what we are talking about when we use the term “propaganda”)".

The article's core purpose is to describe manipulative and insincere propaganda strategies so that the reader learns defenses against these strategies. This is very much in line with the negative definition of propaganda, and not just the very general "propagate information" definition.

[BitwiseFool]

How do we classify messaging campaigns the government puts out that aren't particularly manipulative or harmful? For instance, are posters telling people to wear mosquito repellent and to drain pools of standing water be considered propaganda? My understanding is that they would. But it fails the manipulative test. I don't know if we have a good word in the vernacular for the kinds of messaging I'm talking about. Public Service Announcement?

[BugsJustFindMe]

> but to manipulate through dishonesty.

That's a narrow view of propaganda. You can manipulate through honesty as well.

[lupire]

I think you are taking a wide view of "honesty".

[zero_deg_kevin]

Is it dishonest for reporters to report factually-accurate on sensational crimes if the reporting leads people to believe sensational crimes happen often? Which circle of hell do I end up in for posting about Shark Week on social media?

[BugsJustFindMe]

That's still being dishonest by omission about relative danger. I meant like the "lead paint is harmful" example that klyrs gave. Getting people to check for lead in their homes is also manipulation, but it's positive.

[klyrs]

"Don't eat lead paintchips, they cause brain damage" is an example of honest and beneficial propaganda

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Propaganda has bad reputation partially because it is associated with world war 2. Prior to that, it was freely used without negative connotations.

Think about it like this. Parents manipulate their children all the time to make them do things they don't want to do. They do not do it honestly, but it certainly it not perceived a societal harm despite inherent dishonesty.

[runbathtime]

Manipulating your own children (probably not good if you want functional kids) is a private affair without a political agenda.

[strogonoff]

One can’t simply relay absolutely all of the information. By choosing which information to relay, you could say one already engages in propaganda, selective spread of information[0]. The choice reflects one’s opinion on what you should pay attention to, which is conceptually not that different from propaganda.

[0] Quoting the article, “The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear.”

[runbathtime]

There is a difference between not relaying all information and selecting info or misrepresenting info used for an agenda.

[strogonoff]

How is not relaying all information different from selecting information to relat?

As to misrepresenting information, the same subset of information could be seen as fair by one group and misrepresentation by another group.

What matters is the purpose of the activity. If one consistently spreads selective information from which one stands to gain in terms of money or power, I’d say that’s a problem, whether you call it propaganda or not. On the other hand, other types of selective information we could call “propaganda” (e.g., anti-drug or pro-savings commercials) might actually be beneficial to the society.

[pessimizer]

PR is a PR term for propaganda. I think it was coined by Bernays.