Usage of the term “propaganda” is interesting. …it’s much like “terrorism.”

Before World War II, the term was freely used in English in its literal sense, and its use (by business and properly chosen governments) was considered highly meritorious. With the rise of Hitler, the term began to have negative connotations, and by WWII was restricted to use of propaganda by enemies. It’s worth remembering that the Nazis were quite consciously borrowing Anglo-American propaganda, which they greatly admired, particularly business propaganda (advertising and other marketing devices). In other languages, the term is still used in its literal sense. Various methods have been devised to get around the problem. One is to refer to our propaganda as “public diplomacy,” or “information.”

In Israel, there are two terms for propaganda: one refers to the propaganda of enemies, the other to Israel’s own propaganda — the term that is used means “explanation,” the tacit assumption being that what Israel does is so obviously right that all that is necessary is to explain it to people. The terms “public diplomacy” (etc.) are based on the same principle. There was an amusing illustration recently with Karen Young’s “I’m a mom” tour of the Middle East, to explain to its backward people that they don’t understand how much we love them. Didn’t work too well, for reasons described in a very revealing way in the press.

What practice should we follow? Hard to say. Ed Herman and I have used the terms “propaganda,” “terror,” etc. in their literal sense, applying the same standard to ourselves that we do to others. That has its merits but also its disadvantages. In a deeply indoctrinated intellectual culture, it elicits fury and irrationality, and has to be suppressed in the mainstream, as is done very effectively. The suppression can be discussed elsewhere, but is next to taboo here.

Britain’s prestigious Review of International Affairs devoted a recent issue largely to a symposium on this specific topic, unimaginable here, where the existence of critique of media and other doctrinal institutions can be admitted, but only from the right. A recent illustration is several articles by media critic Michael Massing in the New York Review, showing that the right-wing critique is intellectually worthless (though significant because of its powerful backing). He and the editors know that there is a left critique which is very well developed and extensively documented (though of course without powerful backing). But it’s hard to imagine articles in US journals devoted to that topic.

---