Talk:Propaganda

	This Politics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs more content; Needs more citations; Needs more snark.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Article Direction

I posted this on the forum, but it's worth asking here too. Should this proceed as a straightforward definition of propaganda, even though WP already did that more exhaustively and better, or should it have more of an edge to it, looking at CP as modern Conservative propaganda in a nutshell? Or alternately, looking at the Conservative movement's use of propaganda without putting as much focus on CP in particular (although of course mentioning it) and instead dealing with the wider Culture War concept (assuming that's not worth an article of its own)? --Kels 15:19, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

I vote for "looking at the Conservative movement's use of propaganda" as a diff with WP, after some decent definitiony things... Examining talking points, the echo chamber, RW talk radio, etc. Whoa, I just noticed that we share an initialism with Right Wing! And perhaps on a more ecumenical note, examples or successful and unsuccessful propaganda efforts from any political direction? human^{be in} 18:35, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia...

...is not really propaganda, for the same reason that the nutjob screaming outside my subway stop or the guy muttering to himself on the corner isn't propaganda - CP represents the ravings of a few individuals with marginal political ideas and not an attempt by a state or other organised political entity to shape public opinion. PFoster 23:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. A few individuals with marginal political ideas... who happen to promote those ideas as encyclopedic fact. That is undeniably propaganda -- the fearmongery over abortion and "Hollywood values" is a glaring example of the kind of deliberate distortion they use to support their views. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Tsubasa-Jelly} 23:28, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Respectfully, no: It's political discourse, and appallingly bad political discourse, but it's fractured and marginal, exactly as propaganda is not. They can try to promote their silly ideas as political fact, but they are a couple of voices in the electronic wilderness with no real reach, no cohesive message and most of all, no power. Words mean something - and while there are a lot of ways to describe what CP is, "propaganda" isn't really one of them.PFoster 23:32, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

There is such a thing as failed propaganda. The fact that they have no real influence doesn't make their intentions any less twisted. And you can be disrespectful if you really want to :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Tsubasa-Jelly} 23:35, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Are (PFoster) you suggesting that Andy's tirades about Wikipedia are merely for his own personal mental health? I'm pretty sure at least part of CP is anti-Wikipedia propaganda. Remember that propaganda doesn't have to be deliberate falsehoods. Lyra (I know a man with a goat) 00:16, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with the peanut butter and jelly head's thing about "failed" propaganda. CP is an attempt at propaganda. That it fails, epically, is another issue. human 00:21, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention all that railing against Darwin, Dawkins and evolution in general. It's largely passing along the propaganda brought to us by the Discovery Institute and others. Repeating propaganda with the same goals in mind, regardless of audience, is still an attempt at propaganda. It's quite clear that they want it to be effective. --Kels 00:33, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Poor Kendoll. Poor Kendoll. He thinks he is famous. human 01:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

So I have a question

Are you people here at rational wiki "experts for hire" or do you really just blindly accept everything the establishment tells you? I mean to me, the problem with people who call themselves "skeptics" is that they question everything (which is good)... except what the establishment or status quo tells them. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.48.49.40 / talk / contribs}

I believe that this site constantly scrutinizes the establishment and the status quo for any faults it may have. If you look hard enough, you will find it. Nullahnung (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you draw the line between advertising and propaganda?

Yes, the article says it's about how big the audience is, but often much of advertising reaches a larger public than that of a government. Are there any other criteria and where are you supposed to draw the line?
The Holistic Detective (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a good question, advertisement would be to convince you to do something by making want to do it, but propaganda would be more to make you believe in a certain way by trying to change ones views or the way one thinks. So in a sense there is a narrow line between them as you can turn advertising into propaganda easily. --Rimuru Tempest 19:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how "propaganda" is defined. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives " the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" and Oxford gives "(mass noun) Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." All advertising is a form of propaganda in that it wants to think that their good/service is better/cheaper then a competitor's...or that good/service is needed in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda can come from any source

I as a Christian will not deny that certain "Christians" have abused a certain religious tool for propaganda too, but does Black Lives Matter not count? Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton has asked the FIA to punish drivers who refuse to bow down. Should that not count as propaganda? 217.128.167.152 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

First Amendment. Or do you hate the constitution and freedom? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a non sequitur respose. Propaganda is not incompatible with the First Amendment. The problem is when it get to moral panic levels and people are afraid to produce a counterargument - McCarthyism case in point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This article misrepresents the concept of propaganda

This article erroneously suggests, not through text but through composition, that propaganda is obviously-evil mind-control media. Propaganda can also manifest in relatively plain and unassuming ways. I think it needs dramatic rewrites for this reason. Monochroma (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)