Propaganda in a State of War
The Jawa Report
Far too many people are unclear on the concept of propaganda. In their minds, propaganda is equated with intentional lies spread by governments. This is wrong. From Merriam-Webster we learn that propaganda is:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the
purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause,
or a person
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
Propaganda, then, has nothing to do with the accuracy of information, only with its deliberate use to further goals. Hence, The Jawa Report has always proudly proclaimed our mission to be that of spreading propaganda in the cause of America and targetting those who spread the propaganda of the enemy.
Propaganda is not a problem, it is what that propaganda is used for that is a problem.
So, when the Left villifies the use of propaganda in furthering the goal of winning the war in Iraq, they are:
a) unaware of how to use the term properly,
b) unaware that all armies--by definition--must engage in the spread of propaganda because facts are meaningless without some context,
c) are hypocritically comfortable with a Marine killing a terrorist but not with a Marine paying a newspaper to say that the terrorist is bad, or
d) are only comfortable when propaganda is prepared by them-
-in which case they don't believe the propaganda is really propaganda, because we all know that the objective truth is whatever the Left says it is--in which case we return to (a) since this means that they are unclear on the definition of propaganda.
Earlier today a Leftist reader e-mailed me a story from the L.A. Times which claims the U.S. pays Iraqi newspapers to publish stories favorable to the U.S. By definition this is propaganda. What is vexing, though, is why any one would have any objections to this unless they are making any of mistakes a-d listed above?
Jeff Goldstein is always a good man to go to in a pinch when semantics are at issue.
I’m not so sure I see “largely factual” pro-
American “propaganda” as too much of a problem if it
helps to burnish the image of Americans in the eyes of
skeptical Iraqis long under the boot heel of a tyranical
dictator—and in doing so, helps save soldiers lives and
expedites the victory on the ground and the establishment
of a strong and viable Iraqi government.
Also, it bears noting here the the US military is working
with willing Iraqi newspapers in an effort to thwart the
insurgency by defeating them not just on the battlefield,
but in the sphere of public perception.
Questions: have we used these same techniques in other
wars? Certainly. Should we? Absolutely—particularly if it
could save US soldiers’ lives and help end the
insurgency. [READ THE REST]
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19436/
And Steve Green chimes in:
Except, of course, the news isn't "fake." Biased? Yes,
but it's supposed to be - it's part of the propaganda
campaign. Propaganda is important in any war, but it's
vital in a media war.
That's not fascism; that's fighting a battle where no one
gets shot at and no one gets killed.
Which is exactly the point. How can one be in favor of killing in war but not telling stories in war?
What made the Nazi propaganda of Josef Goebells and Tokyo Rose so wrong (and why both were legitimate military targets) was not that it was propaganda but that it was propaganda meant to undermine the victory of the United States millitary.
Propaganda is a weapon in war. When any weapon is in the hands of our military, it is an asset. Weapons are bad only when they are in the hands of the enemy.
Which makes one wonder why Leftists, so-called 'moderates', or even some on the Right, would consider a weapon in the hands of the U.S. military a bad thing? Unless, of course, they considered the real enemy to be.......
Not that I would ever question anyone's patriotism....
mypetjawa.mu.nu
m-w.com
latimes.com
vodkapundit.com
atrios.blogspot.com
themoderatevoice.com
reason.com
