Propaganda

The word propaganda comes from the Latin word meaning to propagate or to sow. In its most neutral sense it means to disseminate or promote particular ideas. Propaganda has been defined in many ways, most of which center on synonyms such as lies, distortions, deceit, manipulation, psychological warfare, brainwashing, and the more recent word spin.

Spin, in particular, emphasizes the frequent difficulty of differentiating public relations from propaganda in that it is associated with the manipulation of political and corporate information to affect the way in which news is presented. As a result, the term spin doctors is now often used as a synonym for professional public relations practitioners. Propaganda has been associated with mass communication, mass persuasion, mind control, and mass brainwashing. It has a history of being used to promote an ideology and way of life that benefits some to the disadvantage of others. Few examples are more notorious than the propaganda efforts of Hitler, which he claimed to have learned from the British and American propaganda machines during the First World War.

People often see tactics they don't like as “propaganda,” whereas when they approve of mass media campaigns they call them “preaching of the truth.” Modern practitioners of public relations and academics focus on the concepts of symbolic manipulation, cognitive manipulation, scientific mass persuasion, and asymmetry as defining attributes that separate propaganda and unethical public relations from ethical and responsible approaches to the profession.

Many scholars have grappled with a definition of the word propaganda. The French philosopher Jacques Ellul, in his book Propaganda (1965), suggested that it was an essential part of modern technologically advanced societies, and Michael Sproule (1994) suggested that it is “the work of a large organization, nation, or group to win over the public for special interests through a massive orchestration of attractive conclusions packaged to conceal both their persuasive purpose and lack of sound supporting reasons” (p. 8). The social psychologist Leonard W. Doob summarized these definitional difficulties in 1989 by suggesting that “a clear-cut definition of propaganda is neither possible nor desirable” (p. 375).

Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have created a definition that focuses on propaganda as a communication process, more specifically on the purpose of the process: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (1999, p. 6). This definition stresses that propaganda is “willful, intentional, and premeditated” (1999, p. 6). Although it clearly establishes propaganda as a neutral technique, it also comes close to a definition of public relations held by some of its practitioners and many of its critics, thus emphasizing the difficulty in establishing a clearer differentiation between the two practices.

The relationship of propaganda to public relations has always been a contentious one. Both of these practices stem from a common desire to affect the attitudes and perceptions held by people, collectively defined as publics, crowds, citizens, or consumers, toward an infinite variety of subjects, in order to shift opinion and beliefs in a desired direction. Propaganda in particular has been defined in largely negative terms because of its close historical association with religion, warfare, and political practices. Public relations, thanks largely to the strenuous [Page 653]efforts of its own practitioners, has managed to establish itself as a legitimate activity that enhances the images and perceptions of a wide variety of institutions. However, the common ancestry of these two practices tends to blur the distinction between them, with the result that there is often confusion in the minds of the public as to what is propaganda and what is legitimate and ethical public relations.

...