Propaganda

[GPDP]

How did this word come to gain such negative connotations? Every group aiming to guide popular opinion towards a cause uses it, so why is held in such low regard? I figure people would properly identify information by such groups to be propaganda, but instead of critiquing the information based on its contents and ideas, they deride it precisely because it's propaganda.

From what I understand, propaganda wasn't always viewed in such a negative light. So how did it come to this? Any ideas?

[Communist]

Definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda):
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV †1623 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
---------------------------------------------------------------->


Propaganda wasn't always viewed negatively. But by the middle of the 1920's or so, the word was so entrenched in the anti-fascist (lol) and anti-socialist <propaganda> of the US that it forcibly assumed a nasty aura. Occasionally you'll hear the imperialists let slip that they, too, practice propaganda, such as radio transmissions etc. to unfriendly foreign powers. But usually they characterize it as something else, like, er, education, knowing how poorly the word is viewed.

[ComradeOm]

Because people like to believe the myth that the media is somehow impartial. They dislike the idea that there is some state/corporation/group telling them what to think. This lie further serves to provide a distinction between liberal and non-liberal societies - propaganda is construed to mean posters and portraits of the Dear Leader and then contrasted with the supposed absence of propaganda in Western democracies

Interestingly enough, I've been told that the word, or its equivalent, does not carry the same negative connotations in Russia

[NecroCommie]

Because people like to believe the myth that the media is somehow impartial. They dislike the idea that there is some state/corporation/group telling them what to think.
I would have to agree. The negative connotation is derived from the illusion of politically neutral information. It is believed that politically "neutral" information is somehow superior to politically loaded information.

Not only that, but the idea of propaganda actually working dispels the illusion that we westerners are somehow more individuals than community centered herd animals. Some individualists completely deny the possibility of media converting huge masses of people to an abstract cause that 'gasp', might not value their "individuality".

[GPDP]

I can't help but feel this is tied to the disdain given to ideology in this country.

I think that's why Obama can get away with breaking promises and negotiating with Republicans - he excuses it on grounds of transcending ideological differences and pragmatism. This, for some reason, is viewed favorably by a lot of people. To them, ideology implies rigidity, stubbornness, and an unwillingness to debate and compromise.

Of course, it is absurd to suggest political discourse and action in this country are non-ideological - most people do have some semblance of an ideology, even if not a very coherent one. But it seems the mindset is to try to leave such ideological differences aside for pragmatic reasons.

Perhaps this is part of why propaganda is seen as negative. It is profoundly ideological, carrying a specific agenda. And for some reason, people don't like that, at least not when it's obvious (unlike the mainstream media).

[und]

Because people like to believe the myth that the media is somehow impartial. They dislike the idea that there is some state/corporation/group telling them what to think. This lie further serves to provide a distinction between liberal and non-liberal societies - propaganda is construed to mean posters and portraits of the Dear Leader and then contrasted with the supposed absence of propaganda in Western democracies

Interestingly enough, I've been told that the word, or its equivalent, does not carry the same negative connotations in Russia

Just like the "<rambling about letters concerning Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds> this comes after Megrahi came home to a hero's welcome".

I can't believe how often I've heard or read that shit. Their objective is just to get you used to the idea. Just like all propaganda. If you see it as an everyday thing, it's easier for you to overlook details and to eventually forget, which is of course the final step taken by any propagandist. Making you forget.

Remember the Iraq war? Nobody talks about it now because it's become a matter-of-fact thing in our world.