The question is inspired by its use to dismiss information in several of the Israel/Palestinian threads (see for example herefrom posts# 88, 92 and some following, and herefrom post# 386, 389, and 392.) The issue goes beyond the particular subject however.
Is the charge of an information source being “propaganda” sufficient for the information to be dismissed out of hand? Or is not all information presented in the cause of making a particular case or argument actually propaganda and the word is just used to besmirch accurate information from another side of a debate that you do not want to deal with? Please note: propaganda does not equal disinformation. I am discussing truthful information presented in an attempt to influence opinions in a certain direction.
In my mind if the implication is that the information is false then say so and make the case; if the information is out of context and therefore misleading then make that case and explain the context or the missing information. But to dismiss facts as inconsequential and worthy of consideration by virtue of calling them “propaganda”, as seems to be an increasingly common tactic here lately, seems an unfair and lazy approach to debate.
BG
When can a selection of facts presented in a manner to influence opinions not be accurately called propaganda by someone who disagrees with the POV?
I think people like Rove and Hitler, in using propoganda for nefarious purposes, have given the technique a particularly bad reputation.
The receptive ability of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, their forgetfulness enormous. Therefore, all propaganda has to limit itself to a very few points and repeat them like slogans until even the very last man is able to understand what you want him to understand.
I’d say accusations of “propaganda!” are argumentum ad hominem boiled down to a single pithy word. By dismissing the source of the information, one conveniently disposes of the information. It is a logical fallacy, of course.
And yet the anti-abolitionists, the civil rights workers, the Union organizers, the Founding Fathers, the American leadership in WW2, etc. … all also employed propagnda and often very well and to great effect.
It’s an attempt to avoid honest debate via misdirection.
Some makes a point that you can neither show is false to facts, nor show is lacking essential context, nor show omits certain essential facts? Simply call it propaganda. Problem solved. Essentially, much of the time when people use the word to dismiss an argument is should be read as “I cannot do anything at all to disprove your claims, but I find them at odds with my pre-judged position and/or the ‘narrative’ I have accepted, and I do not wish to deal with them in an intellectually honest fashion. As a result, I am wishing them into the corn field.”
When the selection of facts doesn’t purposefully strip them of context nor twist them to fit a point of view, isn’t cherry-picked to support a point, and isn’t lifted from a biased source of information (ie one who has a vested interest in publicizing certain facts, but not others, or to manipulate them as above).
This is assuming the facts are real in the first place, obviously.
For example, if I say that the drug DoperX is responsible for 30 deaths a year, but opt not to mention that it represents 0.0001% of all drug related fatalities, for the purpose of getting people to agree this drug should be banned, I’m engaging in propaganda, and should rightly be called on my bullshit.
If I acknowledge that it’s only a 0.0001%, but argue that it’s enough to make me want that drug off the market, I’m not. I’m just a little bit dense.
Ideally, you want to convince people that you’re right because you really are, not through misdirection. If your opinion doesn’t take *all *facts into account, you can’t really be right, can you ?
Even that isn’t the whole picture. It’s still possible that the drug DoperX was only prescribed 30 times. The total number of DoperX deaths are miniscule compared to all drug deaths, but compared to all people taking it, the figure is alarming.
But that drives at the heart of propaganda’s purpose: to drum up popular support for (or against) a position in lieu of careful analysis.
That support can be drummed up specifically by that weight of that careful analysis. And it can still be handwaved away as “propaganda” if it doesn’t fit with the counter-factual narrative of someone listening to it.
No matter where the information is picked from, if it’s accurate it’s accurate. Attempting to handwave away facts because you don’t like the source is a textbook fallacy.
No, that’s not propaganda. Someone can argue that 30 deaths a year makes something bannable without being required to, then, state how many deaths occur from all other similar objects/products. Even your strange example of a ‘fully fleshed out bit of non-propaganda’ does not, for instance, take into account how many deaths there are per year versus how many are due to all drug induced deaths. Or how that varies state by state in America. Or how that compares from one nation to another. Or how that compares from one time period to another. Or how it compares to various socioeconomic groups in various regions of various nations at various times. Or how that compares to various age ranges of various socioeconomic groups in various regions of various nations at various times.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Yes, you can. You’re using a rather glaring fallacy. The correctness of a position exists independently of how it’s arrived at. You’ve just committed the fallacy fallacy.
And also rather obviously, anything not exhaustively, preternaturally encyclopedic can’t take “all” the facts into account. Your drug example above shows that you have an artificial and arbitrary cutoff point where which you determine constitutes “all”.
I’ll agree that dismissing facts as “propaganda” is a foolish way to debate. Facts are facts, regardless of their source.
That, however, does not lessen my contempt for propaganda. Regardless of certain propaganda’s literal veracity, attempting to sway my opinion on a particular subject by showing only one side of the story and obscuring or hiding (or simply not mentioning) other relevant facts is manipulative dishonesty.
When someone is trying to persuade me, I consider anything other than full disclosure of all relevant information to be dishonesty. Cherry picking facts and stretching the truth in the attempt to make me come to conclusions I otherwise wouldn’t come to had I been fully informed – that’s one of the most evil things I can think of. It is theft of my mind and my autonomy.
My entire life is devoted to learning about the universe and studying reality. Central to all that is a notion of truth that transcends mere facts and trivia and applies to the entire picture of reality I’m trying to paint with those facts. Anyone who attempts to compromise that notion of truth in order to use me for their own ends is my enemy.
If a source of information has a questionable reputation or a major vested interest in promoting a certain dubious line, it is acceptable to raise doubts about the veracity of that source, although it’s more convincing if you can refute specific points with facts.
A problem arises when one of these sources employs a technique that’s come to be referred to as a “Gish gallop” - the spewing out of a collection of quotes and talking points in a volume designed to overwhelm any opponent, who cannot be expected to refute them all without extensive study (by which time the galloper has moved on to spewing a new collection of nonsense). This is a favorite tactic employed by evolution deniers and alternative medicine advocates. I think that in such cases, if you can successfully tackle some of the major claims and demonstrate the general unreliability of the source, it’s credible to dismiss the claimant in general as a “propagandist”.
“Hello soldier boy,” oh boy
shes spewing out her propaganda, propaganda
Might makes right, though you’re wrong, you’re right
to fight her propaganda, propaganda, propaganda
Sparks
You do realize that cursory readers of this thread are now Googling frantically to find out how to get supplies of DoperX?
Ah… but there we’re not talking about whether or not information itself is or isn’t “propaganda”, but whether or not a source has sufficient credibility to take their assertions at face value.
And that still leaves us with a null hypothesis that has to be falsified in order to take a source’s claims seriously, not a ‘null theory’ which has been proven.
If, for instance, the GOP released talking points about Bush’s legacy, we might question their accuracy and demand independent verification before we determined that they were correct. But if they said Bush’s name was George Walker Bush, they’d still be 100% correct.
I said propaganda was to drum up support for or against a position in lieu of analysis; my definition carefully does not define whether propaganda’s position is “correct.” The U.S. used propaganda to promote various behaviors during WWII (conserve, enlist, buy war bonds, etc) before we ever had proof of Nazi atrocities. A rigorous analysis would have taken years, but action was needed immediately.
The U.S. also used propaganda to drum up support for war against Iraq; as it turns out, we evidently forgot to do the careful analysis.
I can’t know that it’s accurate until it’s corroborated by a non-biased source. If Philip Morris tells me cigarettes cure cancer on top of giving rock hard erections, I’m not gonna take them at their word until another, independant source corroborates the assertion.
Gah. Y’all are reading way too much into my example. I was merely attempting to say that withholding facts( or dissenting opinions) you know of in order to drum up support is not the way to reach the truth. Nor is ignoring facts that don’t fit with your theory.
And DSeid, just because the technique has been used for ethical causes doesn’t mean the technique itself is ethical. And contrary to the proverb, the end never justifies the means.
Well, “propaganda” became a dirty word because of the way propaganda was used by the Nazis and Communists. So it is a dirty word in most uses because people who are old or educated know that the Nazis had an actual Minister of Propaganda who made up outrageous lies in support of Nazi policies.
When I use propaganda as a word, I’m talking about a marketing program to sell something. Usually that still implies it is something icky, designed to influence the public to swallow a bitter pill.
Is propaganda necessary in wartime? Necessary to “sell” government policy? Yes. Absolutely. A war effort by a nation where the people can stop the war requires such a thing to survive. But it isn’t part of a debate where the issuer of the propaganda is really open to changing his mind. And in war time that isn’t a good thing anyway. It’s “talking points”. Talking points are pure propaganda. Pundits on TV are pure propaganda. They call it talking points because Goebbels absolutely ruined the word in its pure sense. Rove has ruined “talking points”. These kinds of shills are not real debaters, but explainers of policy or outright advocates. Or just plain old liars. Such things are needed (not liars). I need to know why my government wants to invade Iraq. I do not need to be told false reasons, such as WMDs. Maybe I, as a citizen, should be lied to in such dire circumstances I cannot imagine. But should members of Congress also be lied to? No. But this is a bit far afield.
Bernay’s (who lived to be over 100) was an ad man before, during and after WWI who wanted people to know why we fought: “to save democracy” and happened to have access to his uncle, a psychology expert by the name of Sigmund Freud. Maybe you heard of him. It’s a short wonderful book.
It’s funny that Creationism has been brought up, because this is exactly the tip of their Wedge Strategy. They now call it “teach the controversy” and claim that teaching only evolution in schools is flawed (and scientific propaganda) because the Creationists opinions are not, also, taught.
While specifically addressing and rebutting differing views does make an argument stronger, ignoring them doesn’t, in any way, mean you’re not getting at a truthful position.
