Propaganda is not merely lies — although lies, rumors and disinformation have been used. But the lie is not a generally effective technique, despite the Nazis’ famous notion about the “Big Lie” inspiring more belief than a small one. Overt lies, when detected, compromise the credibility of the propagandist; however, the propagandist can always use a front organization or “leaks” to outsource incredible claims while still preserving the appearance of probity. Thus Jacques Ellul noted, in propaganda truth pays. There is no need to risk the lie when copious information consisting of select facts, arbitrary, operational definitions and statistics create a cognitive deluge which overwhelms the victim, who becomes therefore even more dependent on interpretive expert-propagandists to explain what it all means.

Additionally many matters within the province of propaganda are beyond truth or untruth per se, e.g., images or symbols. How can a photograph or an image be untrue? Unless offered as doctored evidence, an image merely is what it is. It may evoke a response, or a response to it can be conditioned through repetition, or it can be “interpreted,” hence, in part, its power, e.g. the golden arches, the hammer and sickle. This observation applies to slogans as well, which are often intentionally ambiguous so as to allow people to see in them whatever they need to see, e.g., “Change you can believe in,” which means anything, everything or nothing depending on the perceiver’s predispositions. Additionally, since the main thrust of propaganda has to do with the interpretation of meaning, which more often than not is ultimately unknown or in dispute, especially concerning complicated social issues, who is to say what may be the “correct” meaning of any major part of the human experience? The propagandist steps into this void, presenting a plausible case, perhaps one based on the crudest circumstantial evidence, but one suitable for his audience and purposes.

Is propaganda evil by definition, or does it convey social benefits? It has often been defended or minimized. Harold Lasswell discounted its long-term influence by claiming America’s various propagandas would cancel each other out in a free marketplace of competing propagandas. This of course assumes a free market. Lasswell’s assumption possibly no longer holds in the face of modern interpretive near-monopolies, e.g., government and ownership centralization, or the “cornering the market” in key areas within the information sociology, e.g., education policy, or the decline of citizen-based voluntary associations that might act as alternate information sources, and the concordant proliferation of staff-run groups wherein small, top-down organizations claim to speak on behalf of all humanity.

Edward Bernays boasted that propaganda had helped to make America great by promulgating new products, markets and ideas. Others say that good propaganda works for the “public interest” while bad propaganda advances “special interests.” Beware this line of argument, however, because autocrats routinely, if not invariably, claim the collective good as their warrant of personal legitimation. Further, “special interests” may well be you or anyone else who doesn’t go along with a current administrative agenda. Another common argument is that having more available information gives people more choices, so propagandists are therefore just providing a public service. Maybe this is true, but when information is thus subsidized it tends to serve those who have subsidized it, as is the case with press releases and think tank reports. Plus, propaganda is not neatly distinguishable from information. Is there even such a thing as neutral information? For information doesn’t just spontaneously appear in media — it serves some purpose. In any case, the lone individual is not up to the task of collecting raw data on world, national or even local events, and must depend on
propaganda’s interpretive experts to turn such data into information.

Some degree of propaganda may be good when viewed as a cost-benefit calculation, although we must always wonder who is doing the arithmetic. We might consider here the near universal belief among Americans of belonging to something called “the middle class,” a pretense that is absurd on its face. If the belief is regarded as a socialization propaganda, however, which causes people to aspire and behave “correctly” according to cultural models, the belief assures that much unpleasant work continues to get done. Arguing the contrary, though, such a belief may have permanently injured many who don’t know the difference between being a consumer and a citizen, and who haven’t truly developed themselves because they imagine themselves as having already “arrived.” It may also have damaged the nation by decreasing sustainable productivity and creating a false bubble of prosperity that appears recently to have burst.

Also, without propaganda societal unity might disappear. Extreme fragmentation might result. This was a fear of the Church as well, that without centralized control of meaning, the virtues of a higher, greater order might disappear and interpretive pluralism might degrade to the level where everyone merely strives against everyone else in a brutish Hobbesian fashion. Good or bad, however, propaganda is an omnipresent environmental fact. It seems impossible to imagine a mass society without it.

(Excerpted from Brian Anse Patrick, The Ten Commandments of Propaganda, available in our Webshop.)

Rise of the Anti-Media

The only comprehensive discussion of the American concealed weapon carry movement that has appeared in print, Professor Patrick traces the emergence and diffusion of this powerful and successful citizens’ movement. Patrick shows how a new American gun culture consisting largely of political amateurs emerged from the older, traditional and largely apolitical “hobby” gun culture, and […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $32.00

Buy Now

The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage

Were it not for the negative coverage that it receives from elite American news organizations, the National Rifle Association and American gun culture as a whole would not be in the position of strength they enjoy today. The more negative coverage the elite media have dished out, the more people have been attracted to NRA […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $26.00

Buy Now

The Ten Commandments of Propaganda

There is no escape from propaganda. Propagandists shape the informational sociology of our time. The Ten Commandments of Propaganda serves two purposes: offense and defense. It dispels mistaken, trivializing ideas about what propaganda is, and it is also a comprehensive guide to using and understanding propaganda effectively. The term propaganda holds a negative connotation in […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $22.00

Buy Now

Zombology: Zombies and the Decline of the West (and Guns)

In films, television, books, games, pornography, and now even in firearms and ammunition being sold to the American public, zombies are one of the mainstays of the popular culture of our time. Far from being only a passing curiosity, Brian Patrick dissects the zombie, showing it as the articulation of deep-seated fears within the Western […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $22.00

Buy Now

About The Author

Profile photo of Brian Anse Patrick
Contributor

Brian Anse Patrick is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Toledo. In addition to holding a Ph.D. in Communication Research from the University of Michigan, he is the author of "Rise of the Anti-Media: Informational Sociology of the American Concealed Weapon Carry Movement", which is a study of how advocates for the concealed carry movement in the US have successfully used alternative forms of media to successfully combat the opposition of informational elites, and "The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage", which is a landmark study of how negative bias in media coverage has actually benefited the NRA as a social movement. Prof. Patrick is nationally recognized as an expert on American gun culture and on the history and technique of propaganda.