Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Progaganda or no?
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@markrabiner.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:56:36 -0800
References: <710A65AB-F4F6-11D6-BD61-0003936CAC22@directvinternet.com>

Matthew Powell wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 03:26 PM, Martin Howard wrote:
> > My on-line dictionary (American Heritage through Sherlock in OS X.2)
> > defines the following terms:
> >
> > Propaganda, (n): 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause
> > or of information reflecting the views and interests of those
> > advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the
> > advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
> 
> Isn't this a fairly new definition? I've always believed that propaganda
> originated as a fairly value-neutral term - but after World War II, with
> the Nazi reliance on a Minister OF Propaganda, we began associating it
> with a negative connotation.
> 

I believe the French have a different spin on it.
I read a big fat book on it decades ago which said that Propaganda has
to tell the people what they already want to hear. You are just
reinforcing their own beliefs. Might have been a book by a French guy!


Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Progaganda or no?)
In reply to: Message from Matthew Powell <mlpowell@directvinternet.com> (Re: [Leica] Progaganda or no?)