http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/usa.htm
Is propaganda necessary during war? Is the Committee on Public Information created by Wilson justified given the “clear and present danger” of the war? These are all small pages, please look at them all and let’s talk. Is war propaganda Orwellian or is it just common sense? Clearly arresting Eugene Debs and suggesting people eat less meat are in different categories, but where do you draw the line?
30 comments:
Safety is always a top priority. I agree that propaganda is an incredibly effective and useful tool in guaranteeing safety during times of “danger” and national crisis. When there is a clear and present danger, it is important to stir nationalism and support from citizens. Hoover’s food policies are a good example of positive propaganda. The posters helped bring together the nationalism and unity of the people towards a single cause that helped tremendously during the war. There is no harm in printing posters that impose American patriotism. Signs that show, “together we win,” or “your country needs you,” are positive and effective ways to gather national support.
But there are boundaries where propaganda goes too far in manipulating the public. In desperate situations, propaganda begins to part with our morals and the intrinsic values of our country. When the government raids newspaper and censors the press, it is distorting the publics’ opinion and views.
Propaganda should only be used to stir patriotism during times of crisis. Despite the degree of urgency, it should never distort people's political views or perception.
I agree with Andrew's first comment, uniting the nation with patriotism is helpful but there is a fine line between overdoing it. I admire Hoover's decision to not waste food instead of rationalizing it. It seemed kind of exciting, but then again that was just the way that the text book made it seem.
The last site with the actual propaganda was the most interesting. It was peculiar to read "Don't waste food. Save it for Europe and our allies." It's a little farfetched and I can imagine people thinking "Why would I do that?"
Regarding the navy, the posters made the army look so powerful and promising, which is exactly like our high-tech commericials that the Navy is The One. Commercials for the Navy are always very inspiring and uplifing and I always want to go save the world when I see them. In effect, the liberating music and single file formation of the troops is propoganda too. I read in the sports magazine with Ryan Thatcher that, aparently, I can grow more as an individual and a leader int eh navy than going to sit it classes after high school. That's not only an Anti-Harvard-Westlake mentality but also a little misleading. Propoganda is still going on and, as Jon might agree with, it is our human nature and it will not end. In a hundred years from now, people will look at our commercials for the Navy on their newer edition of youtube and write a blog on it.
I am not completely opposed to propaganda, but I think that there is a line. There is good propaganda and then there is bad, misleading propaganda. Billboards, posters, and commercials have been increasingly influencing us to be more environmentally conscience, to eat more healthily & exercise, and to be "above the influence," etc. They have also made us aware of the AIDS epidemic and the crises around the word (one.org).
On the other hand, considering the "war in Iraq/on terrorism," there have been a significant amount of ads convincing us why we should join the army. They put such a positive spin on the situation, encouraging to go fight for the navy, and I think that the disadvantages most definitely outweigh the advantages. They SAY that they offer to pay for our schooling after we're done with our service over there, but does that really happen? Would you risk witnessing the death of your friend in battle and the trauma that later ensues just for that? Unfortunately, many would or don't realize that that is what they are signing up for. Also, by offering this, they are targeting a huge majority of the youthful population to think more about joining the army. But there are people that think they have nothing else in life for them, so they turn to the army. One of my friends dropped out of school to join the army because he was failing, and felt like he had nothing else going for him. A few months ago, he came back. My family was talking to him and he admitted that the "benefits" were not worth it at all, and he would have much rather not given up on school. I know that is only one person, but you can't help but think how many people are affected like this.
In times of war, a certain amount of propaganda is reasonable. The "United We Stand" posters after 9/11 were powerful, yet not misleading at all. It brought the United States together during a tough time but it did not drastically influence or change our opinions.
I agree with Andrew's first statement. Very rarely propoganda can be used for good but I think that it mostly has a negative effect. Most times that propaganda is used to completely distort the public's opinion, essentially promoting a manipulative lie or doesn't exactly tell the whole truth. When propaganda goes to the point where it becomes racist I think it has definitely gone too far. I think that it is shameful that sometimes America has to stoop so low as to go to these primitive lengths of depicting our problems. If this is the only way that we can motivate people in our country then thats ridiculous. Its like trickery and some of the images are super creepy.
I believe propaganda is a very useful tool in wartime and can help a country develop a strong sense of nationalism. it is an effective way to unite the general public under one cause and to make the public more aware to situations. sometimes propaganda uses visual depictions rather than just essays and words, which greatly appeals to the public and gets them more interested in the situation. propaganda, however, surely has its boundaries. at times propaganda and false depictions can lead to actually distorting the truth and gives false impressions. Surely there must be some boundary of morals when using propaganda and it can definetly be taken too far, but overall i believe propaganda is very effective and a useful tool.
Andrew gives a prime example of helpful and effective propaganda, Hoover's food policies such as "Meatless Tuesdays", etc. i also agree with him that propaganda really supports American patriotism
I agree with Neha and others that propaganda can stir up nationalism, which is vital during wartime. The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy was 5 minutes from my house in NY so during the summer, I would go to camps there. I would see the men and women with short hair, unifroms and it was wierd to see them walk in single file line, making perpendicular defnitive turns instead of just strolling diagonally. I was talking to one of the girls and she was telling me how she found out that joining provided a free education and her family needed that so she "just signed up." Education is a great benefit but people should know what they are getitng into.
If we lived in Israel, we would be in the army in a year and half instead of in college. My cousin just left to the defense force and despite everyone telling him to back down to a safer division he didn't want to because that would be such a losery thing to do. THe progaganda makes it like the higher rank you have, the socially cooler you are. Its so wierd. I have really mixed feeling about obligating kids to join the army and go through such hardshpips, danger and rough conditions. That's what makes you grow, some say, but it can traumatize people for life.
THIS IS FOR BAR AND NIR KASHANI
The word "propaganda" generally has a negative connotation but as most people already mentioned, it has proven to be beneficial as well. Often during wars and hardships (WWI), propaganda has helped lift the spirit of Americans and has increased nationalism while conserving food and other essential goods.
However, propaganda can also be a very dangerous strategy. With the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, propaganda was used as a form of censorship to control the opinion of Americans on the war. This technique crosses the line as it can drastically alter how people perceive the war and limit their knowledge about what their country is experiencing.
Candace
Yes I agree with some of you guys that propoganda is definitely useful but seriously can you recall a time at all where propaganda has been used solely for something good? I can't think of anything thats purely innocent. Yes nationalism is great and being united is too but I think that the america needs to instead of trying to solve the problem of not enough people wanting to participate or support the US but if we found out the reason for WHY people dont want ot in the first place then we wouldnt even have that problem and we wouldnt have to resort to propaganda. But that will never happen/thats a pretty idealistic idea.
I agree with Brittany in that certain forms of propaganda make the U.S. seem pathetic and ridiculous. We shouldn't have to trick people into joining the army or believing in certain ideas or principles. Not only is it unjust to distort people's views, but it also makes our country look weak. Paulina mentioned how in Israel everyone must join the army when they are 18, however most Israelis are proud and willing to fight for their country. Although it is a requirement, people are mislead or tricked by false benefits. Maybe that is why the Israeli army is so strong- because their soldiers want to fight and know what they are getting themselves into.
Candace
I believe that propaganda has always been a ridiculously effective tool in swaying public opinion, but it often crosses the line. I think the extent of metaphors and the exaggeration of racist characteristics is completely out of line. Public Information is one thing- had the Committee simply given the facts to America, maybe we wouldn't have been involved with the war in the first place. By twisting public opinion with images that make the situation horrifying while playing on the public's heartstrings is simply a tool for the government to get the outcome they want.
The Espionage Act is proof of that. By such an act, the distribution of the truth was fined in order for Americans to be victorious. The Sedition Act was made to keep the mouths shut of those who realized this about the Espionage Act. Even the name the "Committee on Public Information" is deceiving.
The war was overall romanticized to be some way for America to have glory and for Americans to be brave. The extent at which the war was pushed upon America is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
I agree that we shouldn't have to trick people in to joining the army. I agree with what Andrew said that propaganda should be used to encourage and be a catalyst nationalism, rather than completely alter the truth. There is rightfully so a negative connotation to the word "propaganda", because that is how it has so often been used! To a certain degree I understand what some people have been saying about "boosting morale" through propaganda, but based on the pictures from the last link, I honestly don't think any of them were very effective at that, but were more overwhelming and really pushing the war on Americans and forcing them to be patriotic. There's a definitely a line and I think it was crossed.
I think propoganda is a great way to generate patriotism but at the same time I don't think it is usually morally okay. Many time propoganda is used with bad intentions but it is very useful and very effective.
-Sayumi
Like brittany said I really believe that propoganda is usually morally not okay.It never has good intentions and I believe because it is so effective becuase it isn't really used for solely good purposes.
=Sayumi
I definitely think that propaganda is needed during the war because it helps unite the country. I realize that like everyone has been saying, it can cross the line, but I really think it's a smart and effective tool when used correctly. I think the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act are completely unfair as the government is capable of thwarting the public's opinion. If the US was really a nation that allowed freedom of speech, it would not have passed those acts at the time. Those acts are a bit corrupt as the government is not letting the citizens express their true feelings on the war. Like Andrew said, there are definitely some boundaries to propaganda. For example, the poster that we saw in class that represented Germany as a huge ape was a bit too much. Propaganda should be able to sway people in positive ways, not misrepresent the foreign affairs of other countries. I also think that propaganda went a bit too far during WWI because the United States was doing the exact same thing Germany was doing only in Latin America. If Germany is supposedly an ape....aren't we also the apes in Latin America? Again, I do see why the government would feel the need to impose such strong views but they might want to think twice before they judge other countries for doing the same thing we are.
I agree with Andrew's second comment completely. I wonder how the country would go about in changing its propaganda for it not to distort our public's opinion. It would definitely be interesting to see.
I definitely think there is a line to draw when talking about propaganda. When I think of commercials I watch today, most of them just focus on appealing to the public and creating good feelings toward a specific product. But when someone is trying to make their ideas look like your ideas, that becomes Orwellian. A commercial simply says: "buy our mascara, you get no clumps, and darker lashes" which acts as encouragement. Nothing near real propaganda. When I read the article about the CPI and how they found ways to punish students for studying the German language and how they called Germans beasts, I thought that was crossing the line. If the cause you are promoting is a good enough one, then you don't have to make the enemy look bad in order to get the public on your side. The CPI went too far in their attempt to target Germany as the enemy. Encouragement versus force, good feelings about the viewer himself versus bad feelings in general. Those are some of the differences between safe and honest propaganda and Orwellian propaganda. Uniting the public for a good cause to make a certain situation better, that should be the goal of promoters for a mascara or for a world war.
I agree with Andrew too. When propaganda turns into manipulation you know you have gone too far. Posters are good, safe protests even, but twisting the perception of the public is lying and cheating. Maybe some commercials do that.....
I think in some cases, propaganda is extremely helpful and important. When it comes to the welfare of the country and the good of others, it is an extremely effective way of making a change that is much needed. I think it informs the public of problems that need to be resolved and it raises the morale and patriotism of a country. On the other hand, I think propaganda can get out of hand. It can exaggerate the truth to an such an extent where it is no longer the truth. It can increase unnecessary hatred for something or someone and can feed lies to the public to make them believe a certain way that may not be morally correct.
I gree with Andrea... Propaganda is extremely effective and sadly necessary during times of war. If the government was completely honest with us, we would probably be in a different situation right now
I agree with Amanda. There is a line to draw when it comes to propaganda; however, not everyone will agree on the same line. Everyone has different motives along with different morals. Not everyone will agree on the same place to draw that fine line, and I don't think it will ever be possible...unfortunately.
I believe that propaganda is something that is necessary in a nation during a war if the government wishes to get the nations peoples to support the war. I believe that if there can be ridiculous advertisements between competing companies that’s okay why is it suddenly not okay when the government tries to do something similar and for an even better cause. For example the Mac vs. pc ads which is just the Mac guy saying all this stuff and the pc failing at having any comebacks is exactly what propaganda is. I do not understand why its okay for companies whose motive is just to make more money and not okay for the government which is just trying to get the nations people to support the war. Propaganda is advertising, it’s not like these ideas are being forced on anyone, its up to the people to decide whether or not to go with it and support the war just like how people decide which product they are going to guy after watching commercials.
basicly it seems the majority of our class beleive that propaganda is somewhat good but also bad and manipulative. so on this point i must dissagree with everyone on something. of course propaganda wont tell the whole truth. it wouldnt be effective if it did. but every single advertizement in todays society has some amount of lie in them or they depict a rediculous situation to make the public thing the product is better than it actually is. except for coke. coke is as delicious as they say.
Haha, I'd agree with Charlie that those Mac/PC commercials are very brainwashing, and really effective.
During times of crisis, it's well arguable that a united public is very necessary to carry out certain tasks and to perhaps live closest to a normal life as possible. With such mindset, I feel as though propagand, without question, is indeed really important and helpful to the stability of a nation. Sure, things may be a bit manipulative and the government has a had in the thoughts of the citizens, perhaps the idea itself is not too democratic or representational of the United States, assuming that we are blogging in the perspective of the United States. However, war is a national crisis and to not act in a orderly, yet rapid fashion in keeping the public morale high and keeping the public on the same page, collapse is only in the near future.
The troops are important and the gunfire itself is a vital component to the war. But, just as vital, is the support of the people and their undying fervor for a certain cause. Nations go to war, not armies, and it just goes far enough to say that these nations have their own people and their own thoughts that would unite the country best in pushing toward a common cause and goal that may be reflected in later years.
Of course, as Andrea said, there are times when propagand, without question, is immoral and simply a tool for the government to take advantage of, namely the Espionage and Sedition Act. The fine line rests in the question--when do we need to use propaganda? I feel as though the answer to this question lies somewhere in between having to push for public support for a common cause that will be beneficial to everyone and to the nation as a whole. But that is very hard to determine, let alone guarantee.
We may try to figure out why people don't want to do a certain thing, like what Brittany said, and why a certain cause is left unsupported. But to be honest, our trust is with the government and we elect such people to run the country because we trust that they will make the best decisions, that of among all other people across the globe, these people would best represent our feelings and our thoughts and our desires and our preferences. We can complain and we can argue that propaganda is immoral even during times of desperation and when we are perhaps headed toward the wrong direction, but is it really the government to just watch us fly by and leave us be when we are bringing detrimental effects to ourselves? Or what if the US really needs this war to maintain certain relationships or to support certain causes?
It's a tough issue to really have a definite answer for. But all in all, what more can we do but to trust that our government will look out for us and do the best it can for the benefit of the country and people within that country. Can the government be corrupt? Of course, as history shows and as human nature shows. And in such light, we cannot be naive and we must be aware of what exactly is going on in respect to the government and ourselves. But, at base, we still have to entrust in the ruling body.
I don't think propoganda is necessary for rallying a nation to support a war. I'm sure that some people would have favored the war without being influence by propoganda, but I guess the US needed to rekindle nationalism.
I think we need to draw the line between biased propoganda and censorship. Censorship is unconstitutional. Persuading people to favor one side of an issue through advertisement is not. In my opinion, propoganda is annoying. But as an intelligent human being I'd like to think that I can ignore blatant propoganda that supports a side I don't agree with.
The Espionage Act and The Sedition Act are unconstitutional. That's a fact, they limit free speech, end of story. I hope we live in a country that wouldn't eventually pass an amendment that would legalize this type of censorship.
While it is very annoying to have news stations with biased coverage, we can always change the channel. The truth is out there, it may be hard to find, but it's there.
i miss blogs
Post a Comment