"Propaganda" is not a Naughty Word

All of this talk recently about propaganda and persuasion made me think back to my days in graduate school. During my second year of studies, I was offered a job analyzing the Mississippi State University catalog. This is the catalog sent out to potential students in an attempt to get them to apply to college there. My job was to look at the catalog and determine what message the university was sending to potential students and then make suggestions to refine that message to better meet the university's goals.

The first thing I did was contact the Media Director of MSU to find out some important information. For example, I wanted to know the demographics of potential students (gender, age, race, income, etc.). All of this data is important in determining "message" as it relates to "audience." I also wanted to know a little about the current student body, history of the university, and what image the university wanted to project.

What I expected to be a twenty minute phone call turned into an hour-and-a-half. Apparently, MSU was going through a transition of sorts. Let's call it an image identity crisis. Studies they had conducted the prior year showed that their image declined outside the state of Mississippi, and that many students from out of state were not considering it as a possible alternative.

I was given many reasons why the school had such a poor reputation, and I was told that they wanted to confront those issues in all literature and media. They were starting with their student catalog, and they wanted to ensure that everything in the catalog supported their new image.

I'm not going to take time to go through that project. It was an interesting experience, and for the first time, I was able to put my rhetorical training to work. Not only was I looking at the writing to determine the actual message, but I was looking at photographs and graphics as well. It didn't take long before I realized that rhetoric and propaganda are one in the same. In reality, what I was doing was verifying that the message conformed to the propaganda of the institution.

After writing about propaganda last week, and after thinking about this particular project, I began to think about the relationship of the speechwriter and propagandist. We don't use the word propagandist anymore since it has become a naughty word, but it dawned on me that speech writing and propaganda are joined at the hip. Furthermore, propagandists still exist, but we have replaced that job title with many different words depending upon what industry you work in. For corporate entities, propagandist is Marketing Director. For political campaigns, propagandist is Campaign Manager. In the government, Propagandist is many things, but I associate it mostly with Press Secretary than anything else.

Speech writing has become such a specialized field. Insofar as it applies to politics and government, this is a new phenomenon. Writers of speeches in the past used to be the people who ran propaganda for a party. Speeches were a component of the total propaganda message, albeit a very important component. Propagandists were the most powerful people of their given institution as they controlled and created information, developed the image, and ensured acceptance of the message by their audience.

The idea of such a powerful person eroded during the Cold War (in the United States) because there was fear that one person had so much power. The role was sliced into segments and given to multiple people to carry out. The result was that the "power" of propaganda was lost. Too many people with too many ideas could never synchronize correctly. As a result, it has become a lost art.

Motivating me, however, was the Obama campaign. This was the first time in quite a while where the United States has seen successful, coordinated propaganda in effect. Everything out of the propaganda playbook was used and used effectively. It was fresh and exciting.

But politics isn't the only place where old-school propaganda can be useful. Businesses struggle every day to achieve an identity, or at least the perceived identity of its customers. With so much competition, a stable, coordinated campaign is effective. Note, however, that I say "stable." The problem with businesses today is their constant re-defining of themselves and multiple image adjustments. GM and Ford, for example, prove this. Over the past thirty years, how many changes have they made to their image and message? Please understand, however, that I am not stating that businesses should not respond to the times and their environment. But change of that nature does not need to affect the message and direction. Alterations to how that message is conveyed can be changed, but not the message. That is, if the business wants a dedicated following. GM and Ford have changed their message multiple times, and as a result, have lost their direction and their following.

To me, the problem with business is simple to define. What I find disappointing is the fact that the people running the "propaganda" campaigns for businesses are MBAs who do not know one thing about message, persuasion, and rhetoric. They know numbers and advertising, but they don't understand how it works. Therefore, they're open to change anything and everything when the numbers don't work out like they want. This is a mistake.

I think that it is important to reintroduce "propaganda" as good and necessary. Of course, I'm speaking not to the public here, but to the people who benefit from organized persuasion. If I were on the public's side, of course, I would probably argue the opposite. No one wishes to be led down any path without their willing consent. But, in reality, what I am proposing adheres to "willing consent." The only way to succeed in propaganda is to do it unknowingly. Trying to force the issue won't work. It's a subtle art when done well, and doing it well is a rarity these days. In my opinion, though, if we don't start doing it well, we are going to lose those things we hold so dear -- our unity, our economic strength, and our national identity. Every day we fail to lead is another day that another country or company will lead. A fickle public is too susceptible to think for themselves, and we don't want the other "somebodies" doing it for them.

Over the next week, I will be looking at this in more depth. Tomorrow, I will look at history's greatest propagandist. On Wednesday, I want to look at the Obama campaign. Thursday, I will take a look at both the Democratic and Republican parties to see their general direction. Friday, I'll take a look at business practices. Of course, on Saturday, it will be mailbag day.

I know the tone of today's article is more mellow than some of last week's posts. However, I believe a serious look at propaganda is necessary to fully understand how to recognize it and use it for our own benefit.