From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I suggest someone else more familiar with the Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman model tackle this next. As it stands it is influenced more by the Jane Jacobs and George Lakoff views, which are now covered better under secession and conceptual metaphor.

Although secession relies on conceptual metaphor, and moral politics relies on conceptual metaphor, and point of view relies somewhat on conceptual metaphor, I have tried to leave these concepts relate mostly through propaganda self, the core concept here. That propaganda and political economy have a necessary relationship is one way to characterize the theory of moral politics itself. If one rejects this, one might reject this present article defining propaganda, in favour of one more directly descended from Chomsky and Herman.

I look forward to edit wars on this, the more so now that there are three different propaganda detection strategies related. I don't see how one can separate these from point of view ultimately. This is very very complex.

As I said, someone who knows the Chomsky/Herman model to the point of dogma should try to challenge this. It's an extraordinarily hard thing to write about, propaganda, when your audience is (a) global (b) not used to thinking of itself as having any systemic bias of English-speaking peoples and of Internet pre-requisites, and (c) possibly of all political stripes and all possible variations on the question of "what is truth". So taking an anti-imperial view may be just out the only thing one can really do in this article.

1920s to 1940s

The Jacques Ellul ideas are interesting, probably the the period from the late 1920s to the early 1940s needs more coverage. Jacques Ellul talks about "molding the man" or something like that, did not the Soviets and the Nazis use this kind of propaganda on their own people (with different content of course)? Also, it is considered propaganda to describe some one else's views as propaganda, does it work that way too? I hate to take this to a ridiculous point, but if every one accuses every one else of using propaganda, then who is actually using propaganda? These are serious questions. May be I do not understand the term well enough.

The above stated question, "if every one accuses every one else..." is focused right at the core of these issues of veracity, trust, integrity, and more. Political discourse in the U.S. isn't even discourse any more; it is two different camps on opposite sides of a vast chasm, slinging slurs and unsubstantiated allegations at each other. That's why I brought in the topic of partisan, particularly its definition of being contrary to the promotion of productive, rational, honest, public discourse.

The prevaling attitude of "we want power at any cost" is typical of the last four years in Washington, D.C. There is a LOT of spending ("at any cost"); there are ethics challenges (Tom DeLay) which are met with rules to disregard ethics standards; the Senate passes bills which nobody has read, and which contain provisions for which nobody will take responsibilty; the House will blatantly break its own rules in order to badger its members into conforming to the party line on votes. It's not "government" by the kindest of definitions; certainly not "democracy". It is partisan. It is a disgrace.
--Maynard 22:20, 21 Dec 2004 (EST)

I'm not sure that the addition of "But beware of deliberately placed lies that are repeated with the hope that people will believe it if it is repeated often enough" in the "Recognizing Propaganda" is really all that helpful. It pre-supposes that media viewers / readers recognise it as a lie when the section is about spotting plausible information designed to deceive.--Bob Burton 04:47, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)