When should political/societal propaganda be a sanctioned tactic?
This page has been added to your favorites! Manage your favorites.
Put this topic on your website
Publish live topic results on your website! Just paste one of the following blocks of code into the HTML of your web page.
See examples
I'm defining propaganda as intentionally spinning, falsifying, or leaving out of information in order to promote a specific doctrine, system of principles, or call to action.
Tags: politics, propaganda, tactics
Votes By Month
(What is this?)
1. |
|
 
To use propaganda to further a purpose is to intentionally keep information from or feed false information to a group of people which is wrong.
|
|
2. |
|
There are times when something needs to get done by a group of people and there is not enough time to discuss in comittee, or othe...
[show more]
There are times when something needs to get done by a group of people and there is not enough time to discuss in comittee, or otherwise explore, every avenue of possible alternatives. In these situations, a leader must make a decision on what is best given the information at hand and then disperse information to the group such that the group acts according to the leader's will. [show less] |
|
3. |
|
As long as the side I agree with is the one dispersing the propaganda, it's cool with me.
|
|
4. |
|
I don't mind the spin or one-sided information. I just don't want to be given wrong information.
|
|
5. |
|
If I know I'm right, then who cares how I get other people to agree with me? If I'm right, then they're right for agreeing.
|
|
6. |
|
If the leaders of a political/societal group are convinced a particular course of action is required but no other avenue has been ...
[show more]
If the leaders of a political/societal group are convinced a particular course of action is required but no other avenue has been able to motivate the required group of people, propaganda is a viable alternative. [show less] |
|
7. |
|
(No description provided)
|
|
8. |
|
People don't know what's good for them. If they were told all the information on an issue they'd just be confused. They need their...
[show more]
People don't know what's good for them. If they were told all the information on an issue they'd just be confused. They need their political/societal leaders to feed them whatever information gets them to act correctly. [show less] |
|
9. |
|
But even then there must be scrutiny to see if those in power are abusing it.
|
|
| |
 |
Add a new answer! |
|
Topic Details
This topic was started by jslife
on March 15th, 2006. 73 grupies have voted on one or more of the 9 answers.
Tags: politics, propaganda, tactics
Get Notified
Get email notifications and feed updates on your home page by turning on the options below. You can also subscribe to topics automatically.
Please login or register to see notification options.
Comments
Leave a comment
Humm, do you consider a "lie of omission" wrong or false information?
'lie of omission' is analogous to the 'leaving out' part of my propaganda definition above to me.
Definition (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda ):
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.
In the immortal words of Howard Zinn, "You can't be neutral on a moving train."
In an ever-changing world, there is no such thing as impartiality, and as a consequence nothing that ISN'T propoganda. There is no way that every bit of minutae of every single topic could be discussed in a news release, or even a good long one on one talk. By that fact alone there are inherent lies of omission in every transmission.
Check out the Fallacy Files - http://www.fallacyfiles.org - It falls under the category of "Informal Fallscies" - Look for "One-sided arguements" and "Supressed Evidence."
Anyhow. Propaganda is just a five dollar word for "sales pitch." This question needs to be a bit more pointed. There's nothing wrong with propaganda, per se. However, there are some types of propaganda which I think are pretty sketchy. (Advertisements disguised as news segments, for example.)
wow you guys really take these questions to heart.
holotone should be on a debate team or something.
Actually, one more comment: In regards to holotone's remark "...there is no such thing as impartiality." - This is not strictly true.
(BTW, impartiality is still under philisohical debate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impartial)
IMNSHO, one can be impartial when it's in one's best interest to do so - any type of referee, for example.
While I agree with your general theme, I think the reality is less extreme than you make it out to be.
P.S. It just became clear to me that this topic is, in and of itself, a one-sided question. Propoganda is defined as bad, with nefarious purposes. Thus pointing us all in the direction of a certain response. The question is doing extactly what it's professing to be a bad tactic.