The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

Sounds like it's referring to any marketing or public communications from any company government or individual. I'd qualify that as overly broad.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

In some languages “advertising” and “propaganda” are the same word, and not for nothing. Bernays worked in both advertising and politics. It’s the same set of tools whether its to sell cigarettes or war.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Would all rhetoric (persuading people) be propaganda? I think that makes the word useless.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it's not useless if it describes something.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's describing all communication, good and bad. This conversation we're having right now would be propaganda.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're trying to influence someone's understanding of the term propganda, which makes it propganda.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And you're communicating, which makes your comment propaganda. Or is it only propaganda when it's to political ends?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

turns out, everything is political, so, yes, it's all propaganda.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So I think that definition is useless, since there's nothing that isn't propaganda.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

have you read Foucault?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You want to summarize?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

no.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Than why'd you bring it up?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wanted to see if it was worth continuing this conversation

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You thought I'd have read it?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought if you had read it this might be a worthwhile conversation.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And yet you continue

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

this hasn't been a conversation for hours

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Should I set up a bot, we can just trade trivialities back and forth forever?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Rhetorical exchange between two people is one thing, mass persuasion is quite another, though they are not entirely unrelated.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

So would any speech to a bunch of people be propaganda? What makes something propaganda?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hollywood's role is propagate the owner class views upon the wagie population to create obedience with a few exceptions... And they don't make those movies anymore.

Lastime they did it was jocker and elites go to scared that they ensured to ruin the prequel. That vibe changed real quick lol

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

So no Luigi movie for us is what you’re saying 😞

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hollywood's role is to make money. They do that by making movies that appeal to people so that they'll pay for them, while not alienating their funding. There isn't some top down directive to portray oligarchs well, it's just part of the ballance. Another factor is that directors, at least established ones, tend to be rich, so they have that perspective in their work.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The profit motive certainly is a major aspect, maybe even the largest, but there’s more going on than just that. For instance, the US military-intelligence-industrial complex gets directly & indirectly involved, and this is well documented.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Through money. They don't let people film with their equipment unless they have some say in the outpout. But again, it isn't a conspiracy, it's factors and pressures that sometimes effect the output.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay sure, they conspired, but again, it’s not a conspiracy 😂

It seems like you’re jumping through hoops to maintain some kind of Panglossian, high school civics worldview.

Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths:

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Conspiracy I take as being secretive. I think this strategy is publicized.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To the extent that it has been exposed, yes, it is now publicly known, and to the extent that it hasn’t been, it’s not.

I pointed you to some of the seminal and most often cited works on the theory and practice and history of propaganda. Instead of telling us that you question the very validity of the term “propaganda” out of ignorance, how about engaging with the literature, or the Wikipedia entries about the literature, or the YouTube explainers about the literature?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm trying to nail down what propaganda is so we can talk about it. It's not much use taking about it if we mean different things.

I'd define propaganda as misconstruing the truth towards political ends. If it's commercial ends rather than political, it's false advertising. If it's not misconstruing, then it's advertising or public communications. Just to set a baseline.

I can't find what your sources are defining as propaganda from a brief look, so let's compare to my definition.

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You define it wrong. Propaganda is the same thing as public relations. Public relations is literally the American name for it per Bernays who coined both terms. He believed propaganda is a good thing but the term became loaded so he renamed it in a classic public relations style.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay cool, so your definition of propaganda is any communication for political ends?

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Every public communication is propaganda, politcal content is irelevant. It depends on the goals of said proaganda if it is bad or not.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 2 days ago

That's how censorship works in practice... Profit motive and ownership structure is just the American way of doing it.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I can't find what your sources are defining as propaganda from a brief look, let's compare to my definition.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it doesn't need to be misconstrued. the best propaganda imho is totally true and in context. spreading it with some kind of political goal is still propaganda.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cool, I wouldn't call that propaganda, but we can work with that.

Do the Captain America movies have an irl political goal? What would it be?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I haven't seen them, but I do know they work with the pentagon, so my guess is they aim to legitimize American hegemony and military spending

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have seen them, and the government is the bad guy, with the overreach of public surveillance being major topic. You'll need to be more specific, but that would probably entail watching them.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have no interest though. do you have a point?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It doesn't seem to fit with the criteria of being for political ends, so it wouldn't be propaganda.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

not having seen it, I obviously can't tell you what is messages are.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So I don't think it should be on this list, and I guess you don't disagree.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

I'm confident it is propaganda, but not having seen it, I don't know what politics it is pushing.