Editing Propaganda (section)

==Public perceptions==

In the early 20th century the term propaganda was used by the founders of the nascent [[public relations]] industry to refer to their people. Literally translated from the [[Latin]] [[gerundive]] as "things that must be disseminated", in some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. The connotations of the term "propaganda" can also vary over time. For example, in [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]] and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the [[Southern Cone]], the word "propaganda" usually refers to the most common manipulative media in business terms&nbsp;– "advertising".<ref>{{cite web|title=English translation of Portuguese 'propaganda'|url=https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/portuguese-english/propaganda|website=collinsdictionary.com|access-date=2 January 2024}}</ref>

[[File:Skandinavism.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.75|Poster of the 19th-century [[Scandinavism|Scandinavist]] movement]]
In English, ''propaganda'' was originally a neutral term for the dissemination of information in favor of any given cause. During the 20th century, however, the term acquired a thoroughly negative meaning in western countries, representing the intentional dissemination of often false, but certainly "compelling" claims to support or justify political actions or ideologies. According to [[Harold Lasswell]], the term began to fall out of favor due to growing public suspicion of propaganda in the wake of its use during World War I by the [[Committee on Public Information|Creel Committee]] in the United States and the [[Ministry of Information (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Information]] in Britain: Writing in 1928, Lasswell observed, "In democratic countries the official propaganda bureau was looked upon with genuine alarm, for fear that it might be suborned to party and personal ends. The outcry in the United States against Mr. [[George Creel|Creel's]] famous Bureau of Public Information (or 'Inflammation') helped to din into the public mind the fact that propaganda existed. ... The public's discovery of propaganda has led to a great of lamentation over it. Propaganda has become an epithet of contempt and hate, and the propagandists have sought protective coloration in such names as 'public relations council,' 'specialist in public education,' 'public relations adviser.' "<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 2378152|last1 = Lasswell|first1 = Harold D.|title = The Function of the Propagandist|journal = International Journal of Ethics|volume = 38|issue = 3|pages = 258–268|year = 1928|doi = 10.1086/intejethi.38.3.2378152|s2cid = 145021449}} pp. 260–261</ref> In 1949, political science professor Dayton David McKean wrote, "After World War I the word came to be applied to 'what you don't like of the other fellow's publicity,' as Edward L. Bernays said...."<ref>p. 113, ''Party and Pressure Politics'', Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1949.</ref>

===Contestation===

The term is essentially contested and some have argued for a neutral definition,<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1080/14616700220145641 |title = Strategic Communications or Democratic Propaganda?|journal = Journalism Studies|volume = 3|issue = 3|pages = 437–441|year = 2002|last1 = Taylor|first1 = Philip M.|s2cid = 144546254}}</ref><ref name="Briant2015p9">{{Cite book |jstor = j.ctt18mvn1n|title = Propaganda and Counter-terrorism|last1 = Briant|first1 = Emma Louise|year = 2015|isbn = 9780719091056|publisher = Manchester University Press|location=Manchester|page=9}}</ref> arguing that ethics depend on intent and context,<ref name="Briant2015">{{Cite book |jstor = j.ctt18mvn1n|title = Propaganda and Counter-terrorism|last1 = Briant|first1 = Emma Louise|year = 2015|isbn = 9780719091056|publisher = Manchester University Press|location=Manchester}}</ref> while others define it as necessarily unethical and negative.<ref>Doob, L.W. (1949), Public Opinion and Propaganda, London: Cresset Press p 240</ref> [[Emma Briant]] defines it as "the deliberate manipulation of representations (including text, pictures, video, speech etc.) with the intention of producing any effect in the audience (e.g. action or inaction; reinforcement or transformation of feelings, ideas, attitudes or behaviours) that is desired by the propagandist."<ref name="Briant2015p9" /> The same author explains the importance of consistent terminology across history, particularly as contemporary euphemistic synonyms are used in governments' continual efforts to rebrand their operations such as 'information support' and [[strategic communication]].<ref name="Briant2015p9" /> Other scholars also see benefits to acknowledging that propaganda can be interpreted as beneficial or harmful, depending on the message sender, target audience, message, and context.<ref name=":0" />

David Goodman argues that the 1936 [[League of Nations]] "Convention on the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace" tried to create the standards for a liberal international public sphere. The Convention encouraged empathetic and neighborly radio broadcasts to other nations. It called for League prohibitions on international broadcast containing hostile speech and false claims. It tried to define the line between liberal and illiberal policies in communications, and emphasized the dangers of nationalist chauvinism. With Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia active on the radio, its liberal goals were ignored, while free speech advocates warned that the code represented restraints on free speech.<ref>David Goodman, "Liberal and Illiberal Internationalism in the Making of the League of Nations Convention on Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace." ''Journal of World History'' 31.1 (2020): 165-193. [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/750118/pdf excerpt]</ref>