I love that this was US propaganda at one point.
The US always has failings, but this message is something we can be proud of.
The US always has failings, but this message is something we can be proud of.
It started off, in the early-50s, with things like "Remember, Freedom of the Press is one of the most important Freedoms." and "Remember, Freedoms come not from humans, but from nature/God itself."
Then it slowly morphed into "Remember, we practice security so we can defend our liberties: every security breach harms our liberty."
Then is quickly morphed into "Please don't have classified conversations in the carpool."
Well, that too really. Just a different breed of shyster, but they'll come for your wallet as sure as they will your freedoms.
Propaganda is really interesting in the way it carries a narrative. It's like a good movie, gives you an idea about what you're going to watch, and then slowly flows to the places you expected it to go to, but it does it in unique and interesting way.
There is certainly something innate in the human mind that loves these predictive narratives.
It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).
Yes, it's anti-Nazi but it's still has very obvious problems.
And, why would anyone like it?
Of course you're going to get nationalism-tinged anti-fascist propaganda from the US Dept. of the Army in 1945.
There are large voting blocs who need to hear and comprehend the message of this film that happens to be propaganda, right now.
Can you explain, who are the large (how big is large?) voting blocks that need to comprehend the message in the film?
I'm plugged into a lot of media that isn't typical USA pablum, so I learn a lot about extremists. But the first two examples get play in mainstream news media and even the others appear on non-fringe (just not mainstream) sources, like the Southern Poverty Law Center and such.
I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".
You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".
There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.
> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.
Which I think most people consider bad. If the information is true and not misleading, it would be considered educational or informational.
The bias is what would make somebody consider some propaganda good and others bad.
Like - anti-fascist propaganda is good because it’s biased against an anti-human and oppressive ideology.
The current connotation to me seems a result of propaganda from authoritarian states (nazis in germany, communists in the old communist bloc) and the presupposition that the propaganda they pushed was misleading and/or false.
It's the original "no true Scotsman": there the broad definition (Scotsman=person from Scotland) is used to argue for the narrow definition ("real" Scotsman=good and upstanding person from Scotland)