Thread: The Engineering of Consent

Propaganda doesn't have to be lies. Uncle Sam posters are propaganda. Where is the lie in that? During the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong would broadcast things like "Your country doesn't care about you, G.I.". This isn't exactly a lie either. Propaganda is merely any rhetoric true or false that is meant to elicit a specific response.

I agree with Xaq -- I think that definition of propaganda is closer to what the term is commonly understood to mean. Which is why I'm hesitant to accept the central thesis of this thread. It seems to me that there's nothing intrinsically unethical about propaganda. This thread is propaganda.

Propaganda is an appeal to emotion for something that I don't agree with. If you ever want to know if somethings propaganda, first check that it's an appeal to emotion. If it is, come check with me to see if I agree with its conclusion or not.

The lie from army recruitment, comes from them leaving out all the important information, and never telling you the full story. The uncle sam poster itself isn't that bad, but you have to take the entire campaign they use to recruit people. A poster itself isn't really propaganda, but when it is combined with all the other stuff, it surely is.

Presenting information, isn't propaganda. It is the lying, and concealing important facts, and trying to trick people that makes propaganda so bad.

You take a good car commercial for example. They are trying to get you to buy their product, but they do it by listing the features, and telling you the price. It might be slightly bias but it isn't propaganda. However if you look at say an army ad, there is no information at all. The entire thing is an emotional appeal to try and trick you into joining the army. Not only are they as vague as possible to hide things, but they usually show the job in a way that doesn't reflect reality.

Propaganda becomes pretty obvious when it is used to warp reality to appear as something totally different than what it actually is.

I stand by what I said before. A solid position based on logic and reason, backed with data is always better than propaganda. If you have a solid well thought out position, why would you result to propaganda? Logic and reason is always a better way to influence people. Propaganda is always used by people who think that logic will not work. Otherwise, they would just use a logical argument, would they not?

Leaving out all the important information? What exactly is this hidden important information that people don't already know about joining the army?

More generally, "concealing the facts" seems like a hopeless criterion for identifying propaganda. No piece of communication can ever possibly contain every single fact that might conceivably be relevant to the issue at hand; so every communication is in some sense "concealing" certain facts. What then makes certain communications "propaganda" and others not?

I'm a little confused by your car commercial example. I don't know how long it's been since you've seen a car commercial, but pretty much all the car commercials that I've seen in the recent past basically consist of showing sleek shots of a shiny car zipping around either a beautiful natural landscape or a lively urban night scene, while the narrator spouts some vague lines about "this new car is better than ever!" Car commercials are almost completely emotional appeals and decidedly not objective appeals to the audience's logical faculties.

And finally, I will very strongly disagree that using "logic, reason, and data" to present an argument is usually the most effective way to persuade people. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most people don't respond to rigorous logical appeals! That's why they are not so common in, e.g., ad campaigns; marketers have learned over the decades that that's not the effective way to sell a product. Emotional appeals sell products. Logical arguments don't.

At the most general level, my main objection to all of this is that the concept of "propaganda" seems unclear and just plain biased. It seems mainly to be a blanket term for certain persuasion attempts that you happen not to ideologically identify with, as Phil said.

I did say good car commercials because obviously there are ones like you said. However a great deal of them give a lot of details about the car and the new features. They often explain why it is better than others. You know, this car has more horsepower, it can pull more, it has side air bags to make it safer, it has on star so you don't get lost, its half the price. Stuff like that, they explain the features on why it is better.

It seems like you keep going back that all communication is propaganda but people don't actively try to manipulate each other in normal conversations. Normal people don't speak half truths and lies, play on your feelings, and try to trick you in order to get you to agree with them. When people use that kind of argument, we usually call them an ass. That isn't normal communication.

Logic, reason and data usually is the best way to persuade people, if your goal is a long term change in their thinking. You can trick and fool people with propaganda for a short time, but eventually they realize it. Any long term change in their opinion needs to be the result of logic and reason.

Originally Posted by Aldric

I did say good car commercials because obviously there are ones like you said. However a great deal of them give a lot of details about the car and the new features. They often explain why it is better than others. You know, this car has more horsepower, it can pull more, it has side air bags to make it safer, it has on star so you don't get lost, its half the price. Stuff like that, they explain the features on why it is better.

This approach is just another form of propaganda. The fact that they only focus on the positive features as opposed to the negative ones gives the viewer a false notion that the car is better than all others in all ways, when it is not. The emotional appeal is still there, except it is masked by biased "logic". Most of those commercials also use sophisticated music and announcers to further implant the idea of the car being the best choice into the viewer's mind.


The idea of propaganda is not to control somebody. It's to associate a product with an emotional appeal to present the product in a good light. Using emotions in advertising is not lying. You can't lie with an emotion, since emotions are obviously not logical. It is the consumer's responsibility to further investigate the product and weigh it with alternative options if they are interested in buying an advertised product.

Originally Posted by Alric

It seems like you keep going back that all communication is propaganda but people don't actively try to manipulate each other in normal conversations. Normal people don't speak half truths and lies, play on your feelings, and try to trick you in order to get you to agree with them. When people use that kind of argument, we usually call them an ass. That isn't normal communication.

In my experience, that pretty much is normal communication. They don't do it consciously or "on purpose" but the vast majority of communication that I see seems to be constructed to manipulate emotional sympathy rather than logical sympathy. This is why two people can describe the same events from two different "perspectives". Each is using the set of half truths and lies that are favorable to them and which they remember as being the truth. Granted, they're generally misleading themselves along with you but it's still deception.

EDIT:
The whole problem is that when evolving as a social animal, it's much more rewarding to "elevate" oneself above "perceptive reality" (where what matters is approaching accurate and complete perceptions of reality) to live in "social reality" (where what matters is other's perceptions of reality) and to manipulate that than it is to remain in "perceptive reality".

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I noticed there isn't a lot of discussion about propaganda. Not just here but anywhere, yet it is arguably one of the most important issues of the 20th century. I wanted to make this thread about Edward Bernays work, and just propaganda in general.

Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) was listed as one of the top 100 most influential people in the 20th century by life magazine, credited as "the father of public relations", and yet, not a lot of discussion about him. He argues in his book "propaganda" that being able to manipulate the opinion of the masses is a essential element of democracy:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

He also argues in his book "The Engineering of Consent" that they must do this (control opinions, attitudes, attitudes towards other, etc). Especially to the American public who are described as fundamentally irrational and dangerous people who can't be trusted.

Also any discussion about the "Propaganda Model" theorized by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, particularly the five filters that "news" must pass before entering mainstream, is welcome. Here is a link to it for reference: The Propaganda Model Propaganda model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are your thoughts and opinions on all of this?

And just for anyone who is interested, Here are some links to some talks on Propaganda:
Noam Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind- YouTube - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of The Public Mind Part 1 of 7
Noam Chomsky - About Propaganda- YouTube - Noam Chomsky about Proaganda (1h Interview) 1/6
Edward Bernays : Propaganda and Public Relations- YouTube - :: Edward Bernays : on Propaganda and Public Relations ::

If you have an interest as to why society follows the will of a minority then I would suggest reading Etienne de la Boetie's work called The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

Originally Posted by Alric

The lie from army recruitment, comes from them leaving out all the important information, and never telling you the full story. The uncle sam poster itself isn't that bad, but you have to take the entire campaign they use to recruit people.

I digress from my position that propaganda is favorable in capitalistic advertising, to point out its misuse in recruiting. (This is not the same as the propaganda used in army commercials or the like)

I have spoken with army recruiters in the past and compared what they said to the experiences of individuals who have joined the army and other branches of service. I find that it frequently happens that army recruiters will make false promises to get people to enlist. For instance, an army recruiter might promise an interested individual that he/she will get a laptop or a new car when they enlist in the armed forces, but once they enlist they will find that they were duped into thinking so, and have to live with their decision without getting the new car or laptop they were promised. Recruiters make these kinds of false promises all the time, and I have noticed that the recruiters I spoke to made the same type of false promises, yet tried to conceal them by telling stories of their own experiences and using other passive methods.

This wouldn't be considered the same type of propaganda as providing a logically true, but largely emotional appeal; rather, this is the type of propaganda that makes people do things that they didn't intend because someone lied to them, if you could call that propaganda at all as opposed to blatant lying. All in all, however, this is the only type of lying that I have seen occurring in the scene of recruitment into the armed forces.


The commercials you see on TV aim to capture the spirit of nationalism and the pride of individuals who serve in the armed forces to defend their country. If it wasn't for these qualities of the many Americans who decide to join our armed forces, our nation wouldn't have the necessary human resources required for national defense, and would have to resort to using the selective service. It is much more agreeable to emotionally persuade individuals who are already interested in the armed forces to enlist than to select them at random against their will. When such emotions are used, one could say that the individual is being manipulated with their emotions, but one could also argue that the individual is agreeing to experience the emotions the commercial attempts to evoke in the the first place.

It isn't true that we would lack the human resources for national defense, if we didn't use propaganda to recruit people. We would lack the human resources to be constantly at war like we are today, however if we stopped invading other countries and focused on defense, that wouldn't be an issue. So the ideal situation isn't to draft people so we can continue to war, but to stop going to war with so many countries all the time. And if we had to draft people to continue the wars, you would find that support for the wars would very quickly evaporate.

A normal conversation doesn't not involved two people trying to influence each other into any sort of action. People do not try to subconsciously manipulate each other for their own good, I am not sure where you even got that. If you think that is a normal conversation, I would expect that you hang around a lot of shady people.

As for emotions, using emotions isn't by itself lying nor is it propaganda. If you use emotion to support an argument, then that is fine. However propaganda uses emotion in an irresponsible way. Using it while lying, or bringing up false images based on things that are not true, or using loaded words in ways they were never meant to be used. Its about the manipulation.

Originally Posted by Alric

It isn't true that we would lack the human resources for national defense, if we didn't use propaganda to recruit people. We would lack the human resources to be constantly at war like we are today, however if we stopped invading other countries and focused on defense, that wouldn't be an issue. So the ideal situation isn't to draft people so we can continue to war, but to stop going to war with so many countries all the time. And if we had to draft people to continue the wars, you would find that support for the wars would very quickly evaporate.

A normal conversation doesn't not involved two people trying to influence each other into any sort of action. People do not try to subconsciously manipulate each other for their own good, I am not sure where you even got that. If you think that is a normal conversation, I would expect that you hang around a lot of shady people.

As for emotions, using emotions isn't by itself lying nor is it propaganda. If you use emotion to support an argument, then that is fine. However propaganda uses emotion in an irresponsible way. Using it while lying, or bringing up false images based on things that are not true, or using loaded words in ways they were never meant to be used. Its about the manipulation.

Or we could disband the entire American military. That would stop the propaganda, frequent wars, excess debt, bloated national government, an aggressive imperialist foreign policy and the draft. Beers for everyone! Hooray! Concerning your comment on emotions, there is something wrong with using emotions to support your argument. You are actually committing a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion) when you do such.

I would be for getting rid of the military. Though I know a lot of people are against that. However, there is a large degree of cutting we can do, while still having a military. So even if people think we need a military they can be for huge cuts that brings it back to defense.

As for emotions, it isn't a fallacy. If your entire argument is based on emotion, then yes you are correct, it is. However, I specifically said using emotion to support an argument, and not to be the basis of the argument. Which means you have logical, well thought out reasons for believing it. In which case emotion can be used to help explain your side of the argument.

Originally Posted by Alric

It isn't true that we would lack the human resources for national defense, if we didn't use propaganda to recruit people. We would lack the human resources to be constantly at war like we are today, however if we stopped invading other countries and focused on defense, that wouldn't be an issue. So the ideal situation isn't to draft people so we can continue to war, but to stop going to war with so many countries all the time. And if we had to draft people to continue the wars, you would find that support for the wars would very quickly evaporate.

Our country requires a considerable amount of human resources for a strong defense. The point of military propaganda is to motivate people to have the courage to join the military. Many people won't take a job that puts their life on the line for the defense of their country unless it gives them some emotional appeal. The emotional appeal certainly inspired me to look into the military. I found that the money and opportunities were actually pretty good, which shows that military propaganda isn't dedicated to fucking you over. I can only assume the reason the military does not highlight these benefits is that the military requires a person to feel strongly about our country's defense in order to be a strong soldier.

I do agree that we need to pull out of the Middle East, but that doesn't mean we have to substantially cut down on our military. As for getting rid of our military altogether, that would leave us completely defenseless. It's just not a feasible option.

Originally Posted by Alric

A normal conversation doesn't not involved two people trying to influence each other into any sort of action. People do not try to subconsciously manipulate each other for their own good, I am not sure where you even got that. If you think that is a normal conversation, I would expect that you hang around a lot of shady people.

Conversation involves subtle persuasion of each participant's position on a subject. The transmission of information is not inherently selfish or malicious (although one might argue that it is selfish to some degree).

Originally Posted by Alric

... [P]ropaganda uses emotion in an irresponsible way. Using it while lying, or bringing up false images based on things that are not true, or using loaded words in ways they were never meant to be used. Its about the manipulation.

Propaganda does not entail the irresponsible use of emotion. Take army commercials, for example. These commercials use a responsible emotional appeal, in that they simply advertise the emotional qualities necessary to be an American soldier. That they evoke strong emotions in the viewer provides an effective way of getting a good idea of these emotional qualities. These commercials do not lie or deceive in any way. If you're going to be a soldier, you bet your ass you're going to be proud of your country, which is exactly the message given by the commercial, no bullshit. The viewer already knows that joining the army means risking your life for the protection of your country, but they are willing to take that risk to get the emotional gratification that being a soldier provides. People are often willing to overlook logic (though it's not required in harmless propaganda, as is the case with joining the armed forces) and decide to buy into the emotional appeal instead, which is completely fine since humans are emotional beings who truly value such an appeal. As far as I'm concerned, if the product isn't advertised as something other than what it actually is, then there is no harm in propaganda.