Propaganda that makes a logical argument must be either intellectually dishonest, unethical, or deceptive.
I first have to concede that no argument is exclusively logical. Even pure logic carries some gravitas that can be classified as ethos to an extent. So, let's say that propaganda, which at its core has a logical sequence of rational thoughts that are meant to convey a coherent message, must distort that sequence in either an unethical or dishonest way.
A distortion can occur by ignoring vital pieces of evidence, refusing to acknowledge objections, ignorantly or deliberately misquoting (citing) evidence, etc.
A distortion can also occur if the logical sequence is subverted by another medium. For example, if one runs images counter to the spoken or text based argument.
I must grant that my argument is predicated on a narrower definition of the word propaganda. If propaganda can be information disseminated to support or subvert an establishment, then it need not be, at its core, deceptive. If, in a situation of moral absolutes, one party, the one in the right, ran a propaganda campaign to subvert the establishment of the party that was in the wrong, then propaganda can exist without deception.
Yet, those days where moral absolutes occur are few and far between. Most problems are too big, too complex for black and white interpretations. It is in those issues that logos based propaganda must be deceptive.
3 comments:
So your idea is somewhat similar to my most recent post?
I'm making a more general argument about the nature of propaganda. This is more in response to cranky's claim that propaganda need not be deceptive.
Your post, as far as I understood it, was less about propaganda and more about the morality of presidential marketing, so to speak.
True, but the idea that the argument of the Washington Monthly that the "propoganda" and word choice used by Bush was deceptive isnt neccessarily true.
Post a Comment