while reading a post over at Andrew Sullivan from a WorldNetDaily reader posted on FrontPageMag.com regarding her upset with a column by Dennis Prager [History Will Harshly Judge Those for Iraq Withdrawal]the similarities between the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives [aka Karl Rove] with the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda [aka Joseph Goebbels].
Yes, that is quite a notated first paragraph, and I did it on purpose because it is just the sort of thing that both offices would put out. Very logical, very precise and filled with sources to prove their points. It's called propaganda.
"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion
So what struck me in not finding a difference between the two is just what is the difference between propaganda and information?
We get information from the news, from television, from radio, from the internet and many other places. How exactly do we tell the difference? What makes me believe one source over another? My personal feeling? My agreement with one point over another? If that's the case, what came first my agreement itself or my agreement after reading/hearing the information from a source(s)?
One thing that came up interesting while reading the comments after the letter on FrontPageMag.com was this one posting:
Hi Zin. I'll tell you this, whoever wrote this anonymous diatribe that SQ posted, didn't have the guts to own it. I'm sick of comparison's with Hitler, and dictatorships, and such. This is full of hate, and accusations of collusion, etc.
I know that most here at FPM are anonymous, and I understand, especially if they might be recognizable to us were we to know their real names. However, when one speaks of our President and his administration in the terms presented in SQ's post, then anonymity is cowardly in my opinion.
I have no idea why SQ thought this was meaningful is beyond me. We hear this crap every day from the left, and this is just more of the same. Can you imagine, comparing the Jews during WWII to the Muslims of today?
This person came away after reading it with the same connection I did. The difference is that person wails about the inequity of making the comparison. I question how people decide on interpretations. This kind of answers some of my questions.
The person in the original letter thought one way and then changed her mind after watching and listening to what was going on with the Iraq debate. The second person, obviously, had the same thoughts but has not changed them. Why not? She has to have been hearing the same things. Or has she?
propaganda or information...