Difference between revisions of "Talk:Propaganda"
(tough stuff) |
(noting issue raised in User_talk:Propagator and possible need to distinguish practical activist/advertiser detect/expose definition from advocate/academic study/classify definition) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
As I said, someone who knows the Chomsky/Herman model to the point of dogma should try to challenge this. It's an extraordinarily hard thing to write about, propaganda, when your audience is (a) global (b) not used to thinking of itself as having any [[systemic bias]] of [[English-speaking peoples]] and of [[Internet]] pre-requisites, and (c) possibly of all political stripes and all possible variations on the question of "what is truth". So taking an anti-imperial view may be just out the only thing one can really do in this article. | As I said, someone who knows the Chomsky/Herman model to the point of dogma should try to challenge this. It's an extraordinarily hard thing to write about, propaganda, when your audience is (a) global (b) not used to thinking of itself as having any [[systemic bias]] of [[English-speaking peoples]] and of [[Internet]] pre-requisites, and (c) possibly of all political stripes and all possible variations on the question of "what is truth". So taking an anti-imperial view may be just out the only thing one can really do in this article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User_talk:Propagator]] suggests a tension between this [[social capital]] focused definition, which can be said to have the effect of "defining everything as propaganda" and being overly broad, and the traditional and academic definitions that date from the 1950s and 1960s. A problem with the latter is that they deal poorly with [[information warfare]] and come from days before [[persuasion technology]] was so pervasive, which in combination have the effect of speeding up the rate at which so-called "[[spin]]" occurs. A more technical and abstract definition is required when one is trying to ''detect'' and ''expose'' this stuff in more or less real time. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But, the academic definitions come from a time when there was still luxury of time to ''study'' and ''classify'' propaganda. I think that time is over. Other opinions? - [[User:142.177.etc|A. Random Troll]] | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 9 October 2003
I suggest someone else more familiar with the Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman model tackle this next. As it stands it is influenced more by the Jane Jacobs and George Lakoff views, which are now covered better under secession and conceptual metaphor.
Although secession relies on conceptual metaphor, and moral politics relies on conceptual metaphor, and point of view relies somewhat on conceptual metaphor, I have tried to leave these concepts relate mostly through propaganda self, the core concept here. That propaganda and political economy have a necessary relationship is one way to characterize the theory of moral politics itself. If one rejects this, one might reject this present article defining propaganda, in favour of one more directly descended from Chomsky and Herman.
I look forward to edit wars on this, the more so now that there are three different propaganda detection strategies related. I don't see how one can separate these from point of view ultimately. This is very very complex.
As I said, someone who knows the Chomsky/Herman model to the point of dogma should try to challenge this. It's an extraordinarily hard thing to write about, propaganda, when your audience is (a) global (b) not used to thinking of itself as having any systemic bias of English-speaking peoples and of Internet pre-requisites, and (c) possibly of all political stripes and all possible variations on the question of "what is truth". So taking an anti-imperial view may be just out the only thing one can really do in this article.
User_talk:Propagator suggests a tension between this social capital focused definition, which can be said to have the effect of "defining everything as propaganda" and being overly broad, and the traditional and academic definitions that date from the 1950s and 1960s. A problem with the latter is that they deal poorly with information warfare and come from days before persuasion technology was so pervasive, which in combination have the effect of speeding up the rate at which so-called "spin" occurs. A more technical and abstract definition is required when one is trying to detect and expose this stuff in more or less real time.
But, the academic definitions come from a time when there was still luxury of time to study and classify propaganda. I think that time is over. Other opinions? - A. Random Troll
