> Propaganda isn’t bad by its nature (after-all, almost any content that relays information can be considered a form of propaganda).
I have to disagree, propaganda is bad, as its aim isn't to inform, but to manipulate through dishonesty.
I have to disagree, propaganda is bad, as its aim isn't to inform, but to manipulate through dishonesty.
The article's core purpose is to describe manipulative and insincere propaganda strategies so that the reader learns defenses against these strategies. This is very much in line with the negative definition of propaganda, and not just the very general "propagate information" definition.
That's a narrow view of propaganda. You can manipulate through honesty as well.
Think about it like this. Parents manipulate their children all the time to make them do things they don't want to do. They do not do it honestly, but it certainly it not perceived a societal harm despite inherent dishonesty.
[0] Quoting the article, “The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear.”
As to misrepresenting information, the same subset of information could be seen as fair by one group and misrepresentation by another group.
What matters is the purpose of the activity. If one consistently spreads selective information from which one stands to gain in terms of money or power, I’d say that’s a problem, whether you call it propaganda or not. On the other hand, other types of selective information we could call “propaganda” (e.g., anti-drug or pro-savings commercials) might actually be beneficial to the society.