http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/usa.htm
Is propaganda necessary during war? Is the Committee on Public Information created by Wilson justified given the “clear and present danger” of the war? These are all small pages, please look at them all and let’s talk. Is war propaganda Orwellian or is it just common sense? Clearly arresting Eugene Debs and suggesting people eat less meat are in different categories, but where do you draw the line?
29 comments:
like it says in the question, there is a place to "draw the line." I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with creating a stronger sense of nationalism via media in an attempt to boost public support. However, i think the line is drawn when people are censored form voicing their opinions on something that is contrary to the government's beliefs, and when the propaganda that is issued out to the public blinds us. I think that if propaganda is so intense that the citiznes of a nation at war cannot see another side of an issue there is a problem, becuase then we are just ignorant. But if citiznes in a nation at war understand the entire spectrum of an issue, and the government of the country is simply trying to put a little bit more pressure on their citizens to support a war by means of propaganda, i see no problem.
that was cary
The propaganda was acceptable to encourage meatless Tuesdays and was necessary to keep the supplies needed affordable during wartime. But, the degree to which the United States government used propaganda crossed a fine line.
They mislead the public and distorted public opinion. The government censored what people were exposed to in order to get support for the United States. What I believe completely went overboard were the Espionage and Sedition Acts. The government went against free speech by disallowing individuals to voice their opinions. For example, Eugene Debs who was the leader of the socialists was sentenced to prison just because he voiced his opposition to the war. I do not believe that the government had any right to imprison this man solely based on the fact he did not agree with their policies. What happened to our constitutionally sanctioned freedom of speech in this country? Ultimately, it is expected that the government would try to diminish the opposition to the war, but by censoring people to the extent they did, most definitely crossed the line.
I believe that Propaganda can absolutely go too far.
example, the propaganda that occurs in 1984 is way cross the line. A country should not change the number of casualties in a war, make up pictures, or not allow freedoms usually allowed in time of peace (ex= US limiting freedom of speech).
An example of the 'creation' of an image, i believe, can be seen in the movie Letter from Iwojima, in which men take a picture on a set holding a flag and they portray the picture as being in the war zone and that image helped change the citizens' minds and perhaps helped win the war.
Is this unjust/too far? I sort of want to hear other's opinions. I don't think it is unjust for the government because this specific example does not limit citizen's voices or really lie about war-facts (such as casualties/ how well their country is doing).
To me Propaganda is what it is, people will take it different ways. Some believe that small propaganda such as saying US casualties followed by something positive is unfair, and others think that '1984-like propaganda' is okay.
To me, there's some gray in between.
-NICK BERMAN
I believe that propaganda is not a problem when it's promoting a stronger sense of nationalism or just putting up some harmless posters. When it gets to the point of things like the Espionage and Sedition Acts, that's where I draw the line. Keeping people from saying what they think is important is unconstitutional. It is a person's right to speak their mind and not get in trouble for it. President Wilson took this liberty away from Americans because it was a time of war. People only saw one side of the war. Propaganda brought people the glorious side of war, not the reality and gore. Giving people false happiness is not the way to make a nation strong, secure and stable. There should be a line drawn between taking away people's liberties and trying to unite a nation. It seems like in WWI, Wilson crossed the line with propaganda.
Claire Soley
The problem with propaganda is that it's difficult to figure out the difference between what could be harmful propaganda and what can be called an innocent opinion. If there's going to be propaganda, I'd like for there at least to be a balance... not just one side of an issue. But on the whole, I think propaganda is a generally negative thing. I mean, when you say 'propaganda,' don't you generally think 'lies'? During the war (and during WWII, as well) there was not only propaganda promoting such things as the conservation of resources and food supplies for the troops, but racist propaganda. And besides, we all know that propaganda isn't a reliable source. It may give some a feeling of strength, but it's probably an unwieldy one. Propaganda, in my opinion, is generally a way of putting a positive spin, or at least calling for patriotic rallies, around problems. Propaganda is a sort of cover-up, masking the greater issue. Either that, or it's simply misleading. Is war all heroics and glory? Clearly not! It's also murdering and marching and PTSD. But have you seen those "Army Strong" commercials airing these days...?
Be aware!
-Phoebe
Claire, i agree wiht you that Wilson crossed the line because he restricted people form saying whatever they believed, however, i disagree with you on the oint you made about how giving one side of an issue makes a country weaker. Though i agree that it si worng to keep a nation's citizens in the dark, i believe that in a time of warthe governement at soem points in time need to be a bit lopsided in how they deliver information and news, because public support is needed. Ignorance is bliss at a time of war and terror.
that was cary
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
Miriam Webster
From this definition, there is nothing that can really make propaganda inherently bad, since every piece of information will fall under that definition.
However, the word gives a connotation implying misleading someone, and so I will talk about the effects of giving someone false information or only selectively giving them true information.
It can be traced through history that the propagation of information has inevitably led to better situations for individuals- people that know more are more able to confront the owners of the means of production. Knowledge is, and always has been, power. Because of this, to cut people off from and misfeed them knowledge is necessarily to harm their right to autonomy, since they are no longer fully able to act in their own rational self-interest (since rationality can only exist truly with complete context). Thus, the major harm that stems from propoganda comes mainly from negative propoganda, preventing bad publicity, and from the misrepresentation of the truth. Since other than this propaganda is essentially making a fully truthful and informing argument, there is no harm to autonomy, since the positive and truthful propaganda only gives information.
Thus the harms to the autonomy of the individual must be justified for "bad", or negative, propaganda to be justified. Since autonomy is one's essential right, the only such justification can come when there is a greater threat to individual autonomy or when the governments obligation to protect its citizenry demands it. The latter suggestion can be thrown aside rather easily, since the only threat to US citizens came in the form of the minority borgeoise's business interests abroad. The United States is and always has been (or claimed to be at least) interested in the protection of the majority regardless of status. Since the US at this point had very little personal threat (the war was waged in europe) there can be very little threat to the US people. No, rather than to protect the people, the US used its propaganda to protect US power, the political machine acting to legitimize itself in a self-interested matter rather than to rationally act to best protect its citizens. While encouragement of harmless rationing was fine, the US and other nations whitewashing the germans as huns, for example, led in large part to A) Anti-German American racism in the US, B) Extreme Punitive measures taken against germany in disregard of the 14 points, and C) the grudge forming in germany that inevitably led to hitler taking power in germany. Think of the suffering that would have been avoided had the "enemy" been respected as similar to the allies, simply trying to maintain respect and power in a highly unstable european theater of politics. such long-ranging impacts far outweigh any short-term benefits of negative propaganda.
Alison- I agree that the US crossed a fine line, but i think it is important to try to determine where that line lays. The support of voluntary rationing seems not to, in my opinion, because it forced nothing upon the people. Calling germans huns constantly while stifling any conflicting opinions creates a world where all people know equates germans to huns, thus not allowing them to make informed decisions for themselves. Such information blockades still occur in the news media today, but the propagation of internet information has made it nigh impossible to utterly stifle the truth. This is where i believe wikileaks is so amazingly useful as a tool for resisting such propaganda in the future. How can the government withhold information from the US with the extreme dispersion of sources around the country, as anyone with a computer can tell the world their story. Can such damaging propaganda even exist in the modern age? Common sense says it shouldn't, but a paranoid part of me thinks that somehow it still does. Nevertheless, it is clear that we have come a long way, thanks in part to the government and the freedom of information act.
Alison- I agree that the US crossed a fine line, but i think it is important to try to determine where that line lays. The support of voluntary rationing seems not to, in my opinion, because it forced nothing upon the people. Calling germans huns constantly while stifling any conflicting opinions creates a world where all people know equates germans to huns, thus not allowing them to make informed decisions for themselves. Such information blockades still occur in the news media today, but the propagation of internet information has made it nigh impossible to utterly stifle the truth. This is where i believe wikileaks is so amazingly useful as a tool for resisting such propaganda in the future. How can the government withhold information from the US with the extreme dispersion of sources around the country, as anyone with a computer can tell the world their story. Can such damaging propaganda even exist in the modern age? Common sense says it shouldn't, but a paranoid part of me thinks that somehow it still does. Nevertheless, it is clear that we have come a long way, thanks in part to the government and the freedom of information act.
I do believe that the propaganda was ok in some situations, but in others, such as now a days using propaganda to promote cigarettes and other things is too far. But Uncle Sam i believe is ok, promoting people to enroll in the army to help our country. But there are those that have gone too far. Therefore I do see why the govt would want to pass the Espionage and Sedition Acts but, they are forbidding people to say what they think. Therefore when the propaganda went too far, although the gov't reaction was logical it took away the peoples right to free speech.
Claire-- I agree with you when you said that the line needs between taking peoples liberties away and uniting the nation and that Wilson crossed the line in WW1 -- but i believe that he in some ways was justified because although he was preventing people from speaking their mind, some propaganda just goes too far, and who knows how the public may react
Phoebe, I agree with you. It is a very fine line to distinguish between propaganda that is helpful to the common good versus propaganda that is harmful.
Generally speaking it distorts the truth, but the majority of our country relies upon it to guide and base their decisions on. Unfortunately, it may be the best way to get people to agree on some issue, come together, and take action.
Nick,
I agree with you that there are gray areas when it comes to propaganda. I think your example of IwoJima is an example of how propaganda brought Americans together. It may or may not have made a difference if we had known the full truth at the time, but this one piece of propaganda seemed to help the nation. However, overall I don't think the nation should have the right to change situations or pictures to make Americans happier. We should face reality and not live in a dream world. Propaganda made this dream easier to live in as well as more comfortable than reality. We shouldn't live in the dark because of propaganda.
-Claire Soley
I think that propaganda can be used in beneficial ways. Because the war wasn't fought on our homeland, i think it might have been easy for some people to forget that there was a war going on. the american people needed to be constantly reminded that a huge world war was going on and that materials and raw goods had to be conserved. the propaganda poster that reads "our country is depending on you" would have motivated americans to work harder. this makes it seem like the government is relying on the people and thus giving the people more authority. in the together we win poster, it showed that the people all had a common goal and demonstrated that they were all in the war together. the posters that encouraged the americans buy bonds showed the americans that couldnt fight in the war how they could help the war effort. Basically, propaganda was necessary during the war because it kept the people motivated to achieve a common goal. i think its bad when the government publicly distribute lies. the propaganda that concerns conserving food and raw materials is understandable and isn't necessarily a lie. its the truth that the government needs to conserve goods and the posters are a way of reminding hte people that they have to conserve. basically, i think propaganda is ok if it isnt a lie.
-- Nina
Molly, I agree with you compeletely. when it comes to propaagnda that deals with limiting people's rights, it's wrong. the government shouldnt use propaganda in ways to limit citizen's rights. propaganda like that is terrible beacause i think it kinda brainwashes people into thinking that the government can do these unjustified immoral things. it limits the freedom of speech, a right that is clearly stated in the bill of rights and its not ok for the government to take it away.
--Nina
I personally believe that while propaganda can be very useful and even necesary to a war, it can often go beyond the realm of reason and become tasteless. The propoganda fueled the emotions of the Americans who weren't fighting the war, not allowing the war to fade into the background and just become another fact of existence to the average American. On the other hand, while propoganda is acceptable, and even a generally positive force, lying to and misinforming the public is another matter entirely. Consistently throughout history, leaders have lied to the populace in order to movitate them towards war, and without fail the pupulace discovers the truth and the war fails. So yes, misinformative propaganda does cross a line, but honest yet provocative proganda does have a place in the government system.
Ben, I can't help but disagree with the assertion that propaganda is deliberately meant to mislead the masses, rather than to just popularize a particular standpoint. Also, I don't know how you can conclude that the negative propaganda towards Germany led to the disregard of the 14 points. By your definition, propaganda is put out by a select few to influence the masses, but the people who disregarded the 14 points weren't the masses who had been swayed by the propaganda, but rather the politicans themselves who had initiated it. While I agree that much suffering could have been eliminated had the Germans been treated as equals, I cannot agree that the propaganda prevalent in the US during WWI influenced the very same policy-makers who ordered it printed to treat the Germans harshly instead of following the 14 points.
Well, although I was the conservative voice in class today in our discussion regarding prostitution and drugs, I guess I sway back to my liberal side in this conversation. The purpose of propaganda is to inform, persuade, and most often mislead. Regardless of its tru purpose though, propaganda is a means of expression and thus limited curailing our propaganda rights is a breach in our freedom of speech. In a society enveloped by propaganda, most individuals learn quite early on that text on political cartoons and slogans on billboards are not to be positted but rather taken with a grain of salt. Propoganda should not have to be the voice of truth in our lives, but an whimsical outspoken one that shouts out a plethora of vastly different opinions. The main way propoganda can be harmful, in my opinion, is through the governments' limits. If the government outlaws a certain type of propoganda, and promotes advertisments that soley favor the government, what was once means of persuasion becomes means of possessing similar to the Orwellian nightmare in 1984.
...and by 1984 I mean the book not the year. lol
That being said, I also don't agree with Wilson's Espionage Act. Even though logically it may make sense to stifle the urge to express onself in order to promote safety for the country, the truth of the matter is that simply crushing people's vices will not guarantee safety. Also,laws such as the Espionage Act become difficult to enforce and leave not only a huge gray zone (of what is legitimate and illegitimate propagando) but also leave lots of room for the government to corrupt the population. During a time of war, it is vital that citizens express their true feelings about the country's state
eventhough i do not agree with propaganda, it is needed during time of war. If people really see the bad things their country is doing they would not support the war. For example, vilianizing the enemy allows for the public to support the killing and bombings agaisnt the attacker. Propaganda is as important in war time as soldiers and artilery.
-Brnadon Wilton
I do agree with cary on the idea of censorship. I know this a main principle of propaganda but, when the government takes away free speech they are going to far. They should not be allowed to stop people from voicing their opinions in the open public. I feel that propaganda should be used without stopping the right of citizens
-Brandon
I think its really hard to draw the line between what is acceptable propoganda and what is not. I have to say that the whole meatless tuesday thing was just absolutely genius. When I think about it, I see propoganda as sort of advertising. The government really is trying to get us to buy into some belief or practice. I think it can be a very successful thing, as long as it doesn't censor people's right to freedom of speech and whatnot.
I agree with Brandon in that propoganda is almost necessary during war. And I think Cary is right when he says that the government censoring others or even harming people for voicing their beliefs is wrong. When propaganda takes away the basic rights of citizens, that's when it goes too far.
Phoebe, i feel like there is a difference between making ads ecnouraging people to join the army and not have meat on tuesdays than the government censoring news articles and putting racist comments out there.
Phoebe-
Like Ben hinted at, Propaganda is not necessarily negative.
Yes it has a negative Connotation because we really only think of the extreme cases of propaganda; however, I think if we look at simple, every-day propaganda like a news report saying that 3 Us Marines were killed, but then saying right after that 30 Iraqi terrorists were killed, That is propaganda because it is using a fact to then shape it (in its delivery) to change one's thought process about the actions.
That may not be the best example, but it is just to prove that propaganda isn't always such a big deal, and propaganda like lotto commercials can be good.
-NICK BERMAN
I agree with Nick when he says the propaganda has a negative connotation when it really doesn't need to. Propaganda surrounds us all the time, and sometimes its so small it doesn't even matter.
--angela
Post a Comment