Is propaganda the same as public relations? Or can a clear line be drawn between the two?
Public relations began as a post-war effort to control the masses. The concept was derived by a man named Edward Bernays, who incidentally was the nephew of one Sigmund Freud.
Bernays was working as a press agent prior to U.S. involvement in WWII and was invited to become a part of the U.S. propaganda machine later on. It was only after the war had ended that he determined, "If you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace."
He concluded that, based on his uncle's deductions about the human mind and his success in promoting the war at home and abroad, propaganda could be used to dominate the masses and create a means to use the unconscious mind to sway the public's thinking during peace time.
In this spirit, and as a result of the negative connotation of the word propaganda, he derived a new phrase to describe the process of mass manipulation. He was the first to use the words "public relations."
One of his earliest campaigns encircled the social unacceptability of women smokers. In order to break down this barrier and entice women to light up, he tied smoking to the suffragette movement based on Freud's conclusion that a cigarette was a phallic symbol. He called them "torches of freedom."
So are the terms pr and propaganda synonymous? I think it depends on how you look at it. According to Bernays, he created the term public relations so that he could conduct similar business in peace time free of the negative connotation of the word propaganda. Propaganda had become a bad word thanks to Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister. Throughout the war, Goebbels developed campaigns that were built around generating centralized hate and building war support for the efforts of the Nazi party. His campaigns were all consuming and citizens of German occupied territory were exposed to these messages at all times throughout the day in films, posters and radio programming. The success of the propaganda Goebbels created rested on one thing, shielding the masses from both the consequences on what they've been lead to believe and extinguishing the voices of those who are of an opposing view.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
Today, I think public relations is meant to be used more as a vehicle for communication with the public and information sharing than it is used for manipulation. Pr is generally utilized to develop a positive perception of an organization, or person and very often pr is used to generate positive behaviour, thoughts and attitudes that benefit many.
One of the most defining differences between the two is centered on the idea that propaganda is used to generate a negative image of a person, group, institution or corporation while pr is used to generate a positive image.
Does propaganda still exist? I think it largely depends on where you are in the world. In nations where information is filtered and strictly governed by the powers that be it is easy to sway public opinion however you choose. In democratic nations where freedom of press, freedom of information and freedom of speech exist it is more difficult for propaganda to exist. Large corporations and governments are subject to laws ensuring that they are responsible in the way they conduct business with the public. That’s not to say that propaganda doesn’t exist in democratic nations mind you, but thanks to largely unregulated content on the World Wide Web and the sheer volume of information that the general public has available to them at any time it is difficult to create all encompassing mass think. Public relations exists to convey messages. At times pr is used to create behavioural and attitudinal changes, but this is not done through the disguising of information and skewing of the facts. In fact, it is done by presenting the facts and posing a call to action. Any person wishing to form an opinion can always do further research and decide if they agree with a call to action, or not.
Are you practicing pr or propaganda? In the end I think it comes down to a fine line and the line is drawn on responsibility and integrity.
Definitions:
The Oxford dictionary definitions (www.askoxford.com):
Propaganda • noun information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
Public Relations • plural noun treated as sing. the professional maintenance of a favourable public image by an organization or famous person.
Webster’s English Dictionary definitions (www.merriam-webster.com):
Propaganda Main Entry: pro•pa•gan•da
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV †1623Date: 17181 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person3 : 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.
Public Relations Main Entry: public relations
Function: noun plural but usually singular in construction
Usage: often attributive Date: 1807: the business of inducing the public to have understanding for and goodwill toward a person, firm, or institution; also : the degree of understanding and goodwill achieved
Information sources:
thinkexist.com
Love, Hate and Propaganda (CBC)
1 comment:
I agree that the internet has made it more difficult for us in the west to be manipulated by propaganda because we do have access to independent media and free speech. In other words, our information isn't really restricted. I mean, look at your blog. You control what goes into it and how it is edited. You have limitless opportunities to publicize it -- perhaps even sharing it with the masses. The problem with this, I think, is that it can make hate, ignorance and other dangerous efforts more active. Just recently I accidentally stumbled on a "Pro-ana" blog -- an anorexic blogger encouraging and advising other people with anorexia on how to keep their weight down. Because of the internet, these influences are everywhere -- and accessible to impressionable people. How do we control this access, or at least educate people on it, without censoring or infringing on the blogger's rights?
Censorship isn't nearly as huge a problem in Canada as it is in other places. Still, I think we are so saturated with images, messages and rhetoric, that there is great potential for us to become desensitized or manipulated. I hope we have learned from past uses of propaganda like what you have documented here.
Post a Comment