Propaganda in the 20th Century

propaganda in the 20th Century see the "need" for propaganda, but I don't think I can completely agree with David Welch's argument that propaganda "had an essential, and not always dishonorable, role in the conduct of affairs in the 20th Century.

My first reaction to Welsh's statement is to disagree with the part where he says that propaganda is not always dishonorable. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis named seven techniques: "Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon" (http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/intro.ipa.html).I find none of those techniques to be particularly honorable.

The use of propaganda by a government to attempt to influence public opinion is natural, but I think some of the information presented about the use of propaganda by the British in World War I actually disproves Welch's assertion. He says that after the war, mistrust developed on the part of ordinary citizens who realized that conditions at the front had been deliberately obscured behind patriotic slogans and by 'atrocity propaganda' that had fabricated obscene stereotypes of the enemy."

Welch goes on to say that the British government later began to think that propaganda was dangerous to attempt during peacetime.

It is my feeling that the government may well have had good intentions when it began to spread its propaganda during World War I, but the fact that information was "deliberately obscured" and that other information had been fabricated did the government more harm in the long-run than the good it got in the short-term. First, while the war was won, the government was later not trusted by the citizens, making it harder for the government to persuade the public of anything, even if something were to be a legitimate threat. The issue is honesty: "On some occasions, truth has a place in propaganda, but it is fundamentally incidental to the exercise" (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79111157.html)

Second, it gave the Germans a source they could use to put out counter-propaganda. Also, if the British had chosen not to obscure and/or fabricate information and gotten the same effect, then the propaganda may have been honorable - but they didn't.

Welch later wrote that after 1945, "culture had been reduced to the lowest common denominator for the purposes of mass consumption," which made the public "vulnerable to manipulation." This may have been true for a period of years, but I think that changed after Watergate. People became more distrustful than ever of government, and they've passed that distrust down to their children and grandchildren, whether they realize it or not.

When Welch writes that "propaganda is most effective when it reinforces already held ideas and beliefs," I think he's right. The problem with that is that, though, is that the recipient of the propaganda has to be willing to receive it. If one is unwilling to believe the propaganda, it won't be effective. I think that's why so many people don't vote anymore - they're too cynical of the process and information they receive from those who want to hold office. For use on political activists on each end of the political spectrum, propaganda can be quite effective, but the disseminator of the propaganda isn't really influencing their opinions.

A found interesting the line where Welch wrote, "...to work properly, propaganda must strike a balance between reason and emotion." That may be true - it's probably why some political advertisements have been so effective, such as the "Daisy" ad used against Goldwater in 1964 and the "Willie Horton" ad used by then-Vice President George Bush against Michael Dukakis. Both of those ads were effective, but I question anyone who would argue that the ads were honorable.

The one instance I can think of in which propaganda was utilized effectively and honorably was in some of the campaigns used by the U.S. government at home during World War II. Slogans such as "Loose lips sink ships" and the like seemed to influence the public, and they weren't harmful.

This, however seems to be the exception to the rule. In that case, the propaganda may have been essential, and it wasn't dishonorable, but it's the only case I can think of that supports Welch's argument. The rest seems to meet the "essential" part of his argument, but the other instances never seem to be honorable.

This exercise has also made me wonder if government propaganda can be effective any more for any length of time. The U.S. government apparently used propaganda to engage in a war with Iraq (whether they meant to or not), but it didn't last long because details came out about the government's information. And it seems that most arguments in favor of the war are falling on deaf ears any more as the public seems to want the war to be over.