Question

whats propaganda?

Answer 1

Propaganda is any kind of communication (writing, film, public display) that's intended to change people's minds about something. It's usually repeated and aggressively passed along in order to increase its influence.

The word is most often used, though, for government's communication to people in order to attach a belief to a population. For instance, in Nazi Germany there was a lot of propaganda from the government to try to convince people to hate Jewish people. Some of this was very simple literature—pamphlets and official writing—but it took other forms, like posters and art, and even movies made by or endorsed by the government that portrayed Jews negatively as the cause of all the German people's problems.

Today, we use the term negatively for any kind of information we think is coming from positions of authority in an attempt to manipulate people. So, for instance, you might see a statistic on a news channel about recent changes in health care that make the government look like it's doing a good job managing health insurance, and hear someone say, "That's not true; it's just a bunch of government propaganda."

There are a lot of good examples on the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Answer 2

Please, never use Wikipedia! It is not a credible source. Many teachers and professors will never except work sourced from Wikipedia. I'm just informing you in case you do not already know. :)

Answer 3

Just to clarify—and not to start a debate here: I'm not at all endorsing any kind of terminal use of Wikipedia as a source. Don't cite it and don't tell your teacher or professor that you found your answer there and nowhere else.

However, Day_2010, I have to disagree with you on principle about using Wikipedia to research topics ancillary to an assignment, to learn more about a general topic, or to locate potential sources for actual scholastic research. Wikipedia is in fact an excellent source for an outline of web-based resources on a topic, as well as for an introduction to a concept or outline of a problem. To use the topic at hand as an example, take a look at the Wiki page for propaganda, and scroll down to the Notes, Resources, Works Cited and External Links. I challenge you to find me a more comprehensive list of sources anywhere on the web anent the topic. The Wiki sources include pretty much everything a PhD-level researcher would want to read on propaganda, much of the material hyperlinked directly. Additionally, the first three paragraphs of the article are an extraordinarily accurate, concise, and comprehensive introduction to the definition of, major themes within, examples of, and problems relating to propaganda.

I have at hand the Encyclopedia Britannica article on propaganda. A quick word count shows that WIki has NINE times as many words on the topic. Study after study has demonstrated, moreover, that traditional printed sources have MORE, not fewer errors of fact than Wikipedia and other collectively assembled sources. Yes, teachers may have a—frankly, bigoted—prejudice against Wikipedia as a source. Students should be aware of that prejudice and work around it when compiling bibliographies. However, when it comes to learning—actually learning—about a topic like this one, I ask you to read both articles, the Wiki and the print Encyclopedia article, and tell me honestly that you learned more from the latter. You can't do so and maintain a sense of intellectual honesty.

Schools will ultimately evolve to the point that they accept and integrate a collective, democratic knowledge model. Teachers will concurrently drop their antiquated hostility to Wikipedia. I promise it. In the meantime, I encourage dre0706, and any other students who are struggling with a concept they need to understand for class—or who are just curious—to consult Wiki. Don't cite it, because—Day_2010 is right—professors won't accept it as a citation. But when beginning a research paper or similar assignment, read the entire Wiki article(s) at hand, and then cite the sources you find in the bibliographies at the bottom of the page. I promise you won't be sorry and, most importantly, you'll learn a whole lot. And that's the point.

Answer 4

I agree with you gregatwan slightly. I am not trying to discredit the fact it is great for research, sources, clarification, and topics. I am simply saying, be cautious of the information being presented. Most people rely solely on Wikipedia for their information. It is open source and therefore it can be manipulated to sway points of view or bend facts, even, with external links or works cited. There is no accreditation to the information except our reliance and trust on the person who published the work. It is a trustworthiness issue I have with that. Trust is my point. Like you said "not trying to start a debate." I respect that. :)

Answer 5

I should have not used "never" too. It is just an exaggeration 'I' use that does not come off in plain text. :)