FANDOM


Background

Agitprop
Propaganda may well be the most ancient and widely applied strategic tool in political history, serving to consolidate or shift influence through the manipulation of information and perception. The term itself was coined in the 16th century by the Catholic Church, and referred to the “propagation” of faith, but it has since broadened from this narrow base to incorporate virtually any deliberate manipulation of public perception, especially by political actors. [1] Though propaganda has existed in countless incarnations and guises throughout history, particularly as actors attempted to disassociate their efforts from the negative connotations of World War II propaganda, the strategic manipulation of information and perception remains one of the most consistently powerful and controversial tools in the political and ideological realm.

Defining Propaganda

Though the many definitions and categorization of propaganda offer a wide spectrum of conceptual approaches to the issue, most agree on a base definition of the term, set out in the Encyclopedia Britannica as the following:

Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions…Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. The propagandist has a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these he deliberately selects facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and presents them in ways he thinks will have the most effect. To maximize effect, he may omit pertinent facts or distort them, and he may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people whom he is trying to sway) from everything but his own propaganda. [2]

Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnel offer a more concise definition in their work Propaganda and Persuasion, defining propaganda simply as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." [3]

Types of Propaganda

Moving beyond the broadest definition of propaganda, analysis of the concept becomes far more diversified and complex, with multiple categorizations and distinctions between types of propaganda offering a wide range of theoretical approaches to the subject. The following are just a few of the distinctions that have been made between propaganda types:

Communist Propaganda

According to academic Communism, the term propaganda is associated with agitation, and has a fairly distinct connotation from the more popular understanding of the term. As introduced by Marxist Georgy Plekhanov and later expanded upon by Lenin, propaganda was conceived as the “reasoned use of historical and scientific arguments to indoctrinate the educated and enlightened,” while “agitation” referred to “the use of slogans, parables, and half-truths to exploit the grievances of the uneducated and the unreasonable.” [4]Both propaganda and agitation, the combination of which was termed “agitprop,” were seen as vital to political success, and today an agitprop section is required in every unit of a communist party. In marked contrast to the largely negative connotations of propaganda in the usual sense of the word, Communist propaganda is seen by Leninist adherents as “commendable and honest.” [5]

Propaganda of the Deed

Aid

Propaganda of the Deed may include actions like the donation of foreign aid, which has wide propagandist effects as well as its stated purpose.

Propaganda of the Deed refers to the use of “nonsymbolic action (such as economic or coercive action), not for its direct effects but for its possible propagandistic effects.” For example, a nation may choose to supply foreign aid to a country more to leverage its influence and less out of a genuine intention of supporting the recipient’s economy. Staged nuclear tests, public executions or pardons, and similar acts may also serve primarily propagandistic purposes.[6]

Overt and Covert Propaganda

One approach to propaganda distinguishes between “overt” and “covert” types, identifying each according to it level of transparency. Overt propaganda describes conditions in which the propagandist’s identity and interests are known the reactor, or target audience. In contrast, covert propaganda is in play when the propagandist is unknown or disguised, as in instances of unsigned political advertisements, clandestine radio stations using false names, or statements by officials who have been secretly bribed. [7]

White, Grey and Black Propaganda

Similar to the distinction of overt and covert propaganda, the “shading” of propaganda also reflects the degree concealment involved. White propaganda is the conceptual equivalent of overt propaganda, referring to the truthful and accurate attribution of material to its sponsor. It follows then that Grey propaganda is unattributed, with a concealed source and the objective of “[advancing] viewpoints that are in the interest of the originator but that would be more acceptable to target audiences…[if] presented by seemingly neutral outlets” rather than official statements. Black propaganda goes a step further, falsely attributing material to a different originator with the aim of “causing the [false] source embarrassment, damaging its prestige, undermining its credibility, or getting it to take action that it might not otherwise.” [8] Tools and strategies include forged documents, planted rumors, visual symbols, and underground newspapers. According to the Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, such propaganda is “usually prepared by secret agents or an intelligence service because it would be damaging to the originating government if it were discovered.”[9]

Integration Propaganda

Integration Propaganda is perhaps the most difficult to recognize because it encompasses ideals and perceptions that are already embedded in the popular social consciousness. In a 1987 article published in Political Psychology, Brett Silverstein identified Integration Propaganda as a distinct form because it “is promulgated not in pamphlets put out by small groups of subversives or in broadcasts made by foreign powers, but in the main channel of communication – newspapers, television, movies, textbooks, political speeches etc. – produced by some of the most influential, powerful, and respected people in a society.” Because of its pervasiveness and seamless incorporation into a society’s discourse, integration propaganda is a somewhat controversial term, as it may be understood to incorporate acts or communications that lack a decisive intention to manipulate the audience. Nevertheless, scholars like Silverstein argue that propaganda “is spread in a variety of ways, ranging from intentional disinformation promulgated by governments to much more subtle examples” like the self-censorship of journalists and the choice of language in the media. [10]

Related Terms

As a result of propaganda’s historical use and wide range of applications, the term is often associated with a number of concepts related to influencing on manipulating opinion. Some, such as psychological warfare and brainwashing, have direct links to wartime programs implemented by the U.S. and others, while others relate more to broader applications of strategic information manipulation. Encyclopedia Britannica lists the following terms as related, conceptually and/or practically, to propaganda:• [11]

  • Psychological warfare (or “pyschwar”)
    • “the prewar or wartime use of propaganda directed primarily at confusing or demoralizing enemy populations or troops” • [12]. The term and its practice became particularly relevant during the Cold War period when “the terms ‘psychological warfare’ and ‘political warfare’ were openly espoused by propaganda specialists and politicians alike. [In later decades] they increasingly turned to euphemisms like ‘international communication’ and ‘public communication’ to make the idea of propaganda more palatable to domestic audiences. [13]
  • Brainwashing
    • This term usually means intensive political indoctrination. It may involve long political lectures or discussions, long compulsory reading assignment, and so forth, sometimes in conjunction with efforts to reduce the reactor’s resistance by exhausting him either physically or psychologically.
Flora

Though advertising is conceptually distinct from propaganda, it shares many of the same techniques. This ad was ruled to be misleading by the British Advertising Standards Authority.

  • Advertising
    • Advertising “has mainly commercial connotations, though it need not be restricted to this; political candidates, party programs, and positions on political issue may be “packages” and “marketed” by advertising firms.
  • Public Relations and Promotion
    • These terms have wider, vaguer connotations and are often used to avoid the implications of “advertising” or “propaganda.” The Public Relations Society of America, for instance, explicitly sets out a code of ethics that emphasizes a commitment to honesty and and fairness:
We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media, and the general public. We respect all opinions and support the right of free expression. [14]

Propaganda Techniques

Although propaganda can take countless forms, a number of techniques have been identified that are useful in the general categorization of propaganda’s many manifestations. These are frequently used in combination with each other to maximize the propagandist’s influence on the reactor.

Assertion

The Assertion technique is based on the principle that the enthusiastic and confident presentation of information can circumvent the reactor’s need for proof. A statement, even if untrue, is presented as fact, often with the implication that it requires no proof and should merely be accepted without question. The intent is to encourage the audience to “simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning.” This strategy is clearly apparent in modern advertising, most of which claims its product is best without concrete proof. Although simple assertion is often fairly easy to recognize, it has a particular danger in its use of misleading statements and outright falsehoods. [15]

Bandwagon

Taking advantage of the idea of power in numbers, the Bandwagon strategy is essentially an argument that a particular case is true simply because more people accept it. Cast in terms of victory or defeat, the reactor is led to believe that victory is inevitable because so many people have amassed support for the promoted side, and he is therefore compelled to add his own approval. Another version of the technique plays on the idea that failure to join the “winning” side will leave the reactor isolated and marginalized, again with the result of encouraging his compliance. Also, using a celebrity's input would be an example \

Plain Folks

Guilianidiner

Politicians frequently use the Plain Folks appeal to try to win public support. Here Rudy Giuliani makes a strategic appearance at a diner during his 2007 presidential campaign.

Similar to the Bandwagon technique, the Plain Folks approach relies on appealing to the masses to gain support and power for its argument. It is distinct, however, in its emphasis on targeting the average citizen and its presentation of the promoted argument as “working for the benefit of the common person.” Using this method, “the propagandist will often attempt to use the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes…to [generate] the impression of sincerity and spontaneity.”[16]

Selective Omission

Also known as card stacking, Selective Omission refers to the presentation of carefully edited information to skew perceptions in favor of the promoted subject. Information that is positive to the subject is used heavily, while any contradictory or negative facts are omitted entirely. Unlike Assertion, the information presented with selective omission is factually correct, but can be at least as misleading because of its exclusion of relevant facts.[17]

Glittering Generalities

Glittering generalities are “words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved.” The technique is particularly popular in political speeches and presentations, which use phrases such as “national security” and “defense of freedom” to elicit an instinctually supportive response from the audience regardless of the overarching argument they are actually promoting.[18]

Lesser of Two Evils

The Lesser of Two Evils approach works by presenting a situation as a choice in which one response is destructive, and the other (the promoted option) is more positive. It is frequently used during wartime to encourage sacrifice or justify potentially unpopular policies, and is often implemented in concurrence with the demonization of the opposing side. The Bush administration’s promotion of Homeland Security policies, including controversial wiretapping, applied this strategy by presenting victory for terrorist enemies as the only alternative to the program.[19]

Name Calling

Name calling, as its title suggests, involves the use of derogatory language and descriptions to discredit the opposition. The aim is to “arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes,” and is very common in the political realm. It may also be found in writings or cartoons that use humor to ridicule or humiliate the opponent.[20] ui

Testimonials

Oprahobama

Celebrity endorsements are a popular tactic in political campaigns. Media mogul Oprah Winfrey's public support for presidential candidate Barack Obama garnered signficant attention for the politician.

Testimonials may be considered related to the Bandwagon approach, as both rely on creating public pressure to approve the target message. Where the Bandwagon uses the influence of the masses, however, testimonials focus on quotations or endorsements by specific people, generally celebrities or other prominent figures. Such quotes may be taken in or out of context and attempt to associate the proposal to with an appealing person with a positive reputation. [21]

bull shit

Propaganda Analysis

In recognition of the proliferation and significance of propaganda in society and politics, the emergence of efforts to approach the subject analytically coincided with the development of propaganda itself, and aimed to identify and dissect potentially misleading information. Despite the increasing volume of research, however, as yet there lacks a standardized and extensive approach to the subject. In his article “Towards a Science of Propaganda,” Brett Silverstein comments on this dynamic, noting:

A great deal of work that might be termed propaganda analysis is being done under the auspices of many disciplines, including social psychology, political science, journalism, communications, education, semantics and sociology...as a result propaganda analysis lacks a basic body of literature, a shared set of techniques, rules for evaluating the quality of propaganda research, and a channel of communication between scholars doing such research. [22]

Institute for Propaganda Analysis

Among early efforts to approach the topic, the American-based Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) broke ground with its mission “to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda” through critical consideration of the issue. Founded in 1937, the IPA was comprised of social scientists and journalists who worked on a number of publications aimed at dissecting the dynamics and implications of propaganda. The organization’s most lasting legacy was its identification of seven propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon (discussed above), which became a foundation for much of the propaganda analysis that followed. Despite its efforts to appeal to the public’s reason and intellect, the IPA faced intense criticism, namely accusations that it oversimplified issues and provoked unreasonable cynicism, and ultimately shut down in 1942. Regardless of its mixed record, the IPA’s core mission remains a touchstone for the consideration of propaganda’s role and influence in society and politics:

It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together.[23]

Theoretical Approaches to Propaganda

Though there are countless interpretations and approaches to propaganda, there are certain consistencies in the way the subject tends to be analyzed. John Brown, a senior fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, offers one possible categorization of these approaches, defining each according to the underlying assumptions involved:

There are two basic ways of looking at propaganda: moralist and neutralist. The moralist school argues that propaganda is intrinsically misleading and therefore morally reprehensible… [while the neutralist approach] leads scholars to analyze propaganda in a clear-headed, stick-to-the facts way that avoids metaphysical or ethical anguish and seeks to ::provide concrete knowledge on how it developed historically and how it functions [24]

Brown cites Stanley B. Cunningham’s The Idea of Propaganda as an example of the moralist approach, referencing Cunningham’s scathing evaluation of the issue:

Because of propaganda’s systematic mistreatment of truth and information and their procedural safeguards, its virtually imperceptible erosion of individual capability and social freedom, and its unnerving magnitude – because of all these it is simply myopic to regard all this as an ethically neutral state of affairs.

Offering a contrasting viewpoint to Cunningham’s interpretation, Brown points to scholars such as Philip Taylor, a historian who described propaganda as “a practical process of persuasion, [that], as a practical process, is an inherently neutral concept.” Neutralists adhering to this understanding of the issue emphasize the techniques and practical limitations of propaganda rather than the moral or philosophical implications of it use. The debate between the moralist and neutralist perceptions of propaganda continues to rage, serving as the foundation for propaganda’s controversial role in society. In addition to Brown’s theoretical dichotomy, scholars offer a range of alternate categorizations. Alfred McLung Lee, for instance, identified five approaches to propaganda analysis in his article “The Analysis of Propaganda: A Clinical Summary,” each relating to the type of appeal used in propagandist material:

Five interrelated approaches to propaganda analysis are described. These are the (I) societal, (2) social-psychological, (3) communicatory, (4) psychological, and (5)technical. Each also may be viewed as a group of propaganda techniques...Knowledge of the propagandists’ techniques in each of the five areas aids the analysis to determine the relationship of the propagandist’s goal to those of the groups to which the analyst is ::committed [25] (For Lee’s detailed analysis see The Analysis of Propaganda)

Negative Connotations

Shadow

WWII propaganda poster

Today the term “propaganda” has an overwhelmingly negative connotation, due in large part to it use in times of war. The manipulation of public perception has always played a part in political efforts, especially in times of political and military conflict, but the emergence of the two World Wars saw the first large-scale official campaigns of propaganda:
During World War I, national governments employed propaganda on an unprecedented scale. The arrival of the modern mass media together with the requirements of total war made propaganda an indispensable element of wartime mobilization. All of the major belligerents turned to propaganda to woo neutrals, demoralize enemies, boost the morale of their troops, and mobilize the support of civilians. [26]

It was during this time that the Committee on Public Information, the first government agency with a mandate to shape public opinion in the U.S. and abroad, was established, setting a precedent for an official government group for information control (later incarnations include the Office of War Information (1942–1945) to the U.S. Information Agency (1953–1999) and its successor, the Office of International Information Programs in the Department of State.) The propaganda of the World Wars reached unparalleled scope, and was marked by its tendency to deliberately mislead the public and demonize the enemy in the extreme. The heavy, and in many cases indiscriminate, use of propaganda during this period backfired, however, as the public ultimately grew cynical of its implications:

The years that followed nurtured a popular fascination with, and revulsion toward, the practice of propaganda. A series of investigations in the 1920s exposed the nature and scope of Britain's propaganda campaign in the United States, including revelations that the British had fabricated numerous stories about German atrocities. Many Americans came to blame British propaganda for bringing the United States into a wasteful and ruinous war, and the practice of propaganda became associated with deceit and trickery. It was thus in the aftermath of World War I that propaganda acquired its negative connotations—a development that stemmed from the employment of propaganda by a democracy, not, as is generally supposed, from that of a dictatorship...Many observers took from the war a legendary belief in the power of propaganda….These propaganda campaigns affected the United States in other ways as well. The belief that Americans had been tricked into participating in the First World War delayed U.S. intervention in the second. Moreover, news of Nazi atrocities connected to the Holocaust were greeted incredulously by the American public in part because of the exaggerated and fabricated atrocity propaganda released by the British two decades earlier [27]
Murder

Propaganda during the World Wars often demonized the enemy

Since then the term has retained its negative associations, strengthened in part by the “psychological warfare” and subversive programs implemented during the Cold War. Public resistance to the concept of propaganda, however, has simply led governments and other actors to disguise their efforts without any real reduction of propagandist initiatives:
The days of brazenly propagandistic posters and radio broadcasts may have faded into history, but the science of propaganda has simply evolved into less overt forms of image making and media manipulation. Paralleling a broader development in international politics, where symbols and images loom large as critical components of political power, the phenomenon of posturing for public opinion has become increasingly sophisticated, involving such techniques as staged media events, generated news, orchestrated public appearances,and carefully scripted sound bites. The communication techniques that camouflage modern propaganda have obscured the basic fact that the end of the Cold War has brought about more propaganda, not less [28].

(For a more detailed history of propaganda please see Propaganda)

Controlling Propaganda

Spurred by public aversion to propaganda, many governments have attempted to establish
Court

Dissident Huynh Nguyen Dao is led to Ho Chi Minh-City People's Court, 10 May 2007. Three dissidents went on trial in Vietnam for spreading propaganda against the state in the latest court case against activists who have challenged the communist government. (AFP/Getty Images)

safeguards against misleading or subversive propaganda. Democracies in particular, tend to emphasize the citizen’s right to be informed with access to legitimate and balanced information, and have a number of programs aimed at exposing propaganda:
In efforts to guard against “pernicious” propaganda by hidden persuaders, modern democracies sometimes require that such propagandists as lobbyists and publishers register with public authorities and that propaganda and advertising be clearly labeled as such. The success of such measures, however, is only partial… [as] the requirement is easily circumvented.• [29]

The limitations on democratic control of propaganda are further constrained by the conflict of interest when dealing with government propaganda. Additionally, authoritarian regimes often deliberately move propaganda control in the opposite direction, monopolizing communication forums in order to dominate public opinion with official propaganda while eliminating any potential counterpropaganda. Furthermore, regardless of a particular nation’s success in managing the issue, there is essentially no such control on the global level, leaving the international system open to virtually unlimited propaganda, a condition which is only intensified by continued globalization and increased international communication.

Public Diplomacy vs. Propaganda

051207 BI cartoon sc051206

Negative connotations have turned opinion strongly against the idea of propaganda. This cartoon illustrates the cynicism with which the public generally greets the concept(Slate.com).

Because of the historical application and misuse of propaganda, efforts at influencing public opinion are inextricably linked to deeply embedded associations of propagandist manipulation and deception. In response to these negative connotations, there has been an intensive effort within the field of Public Diplomacy to disassociate its efforts from propaganda.

Many scholars distinguish public diplomacy from propaganda based on the premise that propaganda is by definition deceptive and manipulative. Advocates of public diplomacy maintain that creating a bond of trust between governments and foreign nations is critical and is best achieved through honest and open communication about a country's foreign policy goals. A number of public diplomacy experts stress that dialogue is also a critical component of PD that separates it from propaganda. They emphasize that to be effective, public diplomacy must be seen as a two-way street. It involves not only shaping the message(s) that a country wishes to present abroad, but also analyzing and understanding the ways that the message is interpreted by diverse societies and developing the tools of listening and conversation as well as the tools of persuasion. Here are some examples of how some practitioners choose to separate PD from propaganda:

  • Christopher Ross, Former Ambassador
    • "I conceive of public diplomacy as being the public face of traditional diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy seeks to advance the interests of the United States through private exchanges with foreign governments. Public diplomacy seeks to support traditional diplomacy by addressing non-governmental audiences, in addition to governmental audiences, both mass and elite. It works very much in coordination with and in parallel to the traditional diplomatic effort. When I heard the word propaganda I imagine a much more manipulative kind of process than I would like to think that public diplomacy is." A Brookings/Harvard Forum Press Coverage and the War on Terrorism: The Propaganda War: Is America Effectively Telling Its Side of the Story in the Anti-Terrorism Campaign? [30]
  • Yoginder Sikand, Countercurrents.org
    • "In contrast to conventional forms of diplomacy that focus only on dialogue between governments, the 'public diplomacy' that American policy makers now seek to pursue in the Muslim world aims at communicating with non-state civil society actors, such as NGOs, the media and the general public. The underlying purpose is to influence influential non-state actors who can then play a vital role in protecting American interests and in countering anti-American elements and sentiments in their own societies. In other words, 'public diplomacy' is regarded as a crucial propaganda weapon to pursue American 'national interests'." [31]
  • John Mohammadi, TheIranian.com
    • “Today propaganda is a dirty word so we prefer more euphemistic terms such as public diplomacy, public relations, education, marketing, advertising, lobbying etc. However, regardless of what we call it, essentially the same propaganda tactics and techniques which are used to sell products such as shoes, washing machines and cigarettes can be employed to sell political candidates, policies and wars. [32]
  • Peter Van Ham
    • Contemporary "US public diplomacy should . . . be differentiated from the information warfare, since it is less focused on the domination of communication flows, than on creating a Habermasian practice of democratic discourse aimed at finding shared assumptions and values. This sets it apart from the old-style public diplomacy of past decades, where dialogue was practically impossible and communications had a one-way character." "Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism" p. 431.

Propaganda in the News

Loading RSS data...

Further Reading

  • "propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  • Centre for the Study of Propaganda and War University of Kent, School of History
  • The Institute for Propaganda Studies
  • Phil Taylor's Website Part of the Institute of Communication Studies - This site contains many useful resources and links about propaganda studies.

References

  1. • Brown, John. "Two Ways of Looking at Propaganda." [Weblog Public Diplomacy Blog] 29 Jun 2007. USC Center on Public Diplomacy. 14 Jul 2008 <http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/060629_two_ways_of_looking_at_propaganda/>.
  2. • "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  3. "Propagandistic Reference." Glossary.com. 2008. 5 Aug 2008 <http://www.glossary.com/reference.php?q=propagandistic>.
  4. • "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  5. • "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  6. • "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  7. • "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  8. • Osgood, Kenneth A.. "Propaganda." Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. 2002. 22 Jul 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132468/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1>.
  9. • Osgood, Kenneth A.. "Propaganda." Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. 2002. 22 Jul 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132468/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1>.
  10. • Silverstein, Brett. "Toward a Science of Propaganda." Political Psychology Vol 8. No 1(1987) 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3790986?cookieSet=1>.
  11. "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  12. "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  13. • Osgood, Kenneth A.. "Propaganda." Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. 2002. 22 Jul 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132468/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1>.
  14. "Preamble." Public Relations Society of America. 5 Aug 2008 <http://www.prsa.org/aboutUs/ethics/preamble_en.html>.
  15. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  16. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  17. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  18. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  19. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  20. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  21. • "Propaganda Techniques." ThinkQuest. 2001. 22 Jul 2008 . <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm>.
  22. • Silverstein, Brett. "Toward a Science of Propaganda." Political Psychology Vol 8. No 1(1987) 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3790986?cookieSet=1>.
  23. • "Propaganda." 29 Sept 2002. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. 22 Jul 2008 < http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/intro.ipa.html>
  24. • Brown, John. "Two Ways of Looking at Propaganda." [Weblog Public Diplomacy Blog] 29 Jun 2007. USC Center on Public Diplomacy. 14 Jul 2008 <http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/060629_two_ways_of_looking_at_propaganda/>
  25. • McLung Lee, Alfred. "The Analysis of Propaganda: A Clinical Summary." The American Journal of Sociology Vol. 51, No. 2Sept 1945 126-135. 22 Jul 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2771415>.
  26. • Osgood, Kenneth A.. "Propaganda." Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. 2002. 22 Jul 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132468/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1>.
  27. • Osgood, Kenneth A.. "Propaganda." Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. 2002. 22 Jul 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132468/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1>.
  28. • Osgood, Kenneth A.. "Propaganda." Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. 2002. 22 Jul 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132468/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1>.
  29. "Propaganda." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478875/propaganda>.
  30. Kalb, Bernard. "Press Coverage and the War on Terror." Brookings. 5 Aug 2008 <http://www.brookings.edu/events/2002/0101media---journalism.aspx>.
  31. Sikand, Yoginder . "'Public Diplomacy' In The Islamic World: America's Propaganda Offensive." 15 Mar 2005. Countercurrents.org. 5 Aug 2008 <http://www.countercurrents.org/us-sikan150304.htm>.
  32. Mohammadi, John. "Bread & Circuses." 05 May 2004. The Iranian. 5 Aug 2008 <http://www.iranian.com/Mohammadi/2004/May/Bread/>.
Cunningham, Stanley B. The Idea of Propaganda: A Reconstruction. Westport, CT: Praeger. 2002.

Cunningham, Stanley B. "Reflections on the Interface Between Propaganda and Religion." In Paul Rennick, Stanley Cunningham, Raloh H. Johnson (eds.), The Future of Religion (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), pp. 83-96.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.