Propaganda

This weekend I took a guided tour (given by a holocaust survivor) of an exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum entitled State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda in which we were taken through four time periods of Nazi deception: 1918-1933, when the use of propaganda helped propel Nazism into the largest extremist organization in democratic Germany, 1933-1939, when the Nazi Party “sold” Nazism denouncing Jews, Gypsies, and all non-Aryans, 1939-1945, when propaganda helped to gain support for the war and alienation and indifference for undesirable groups in Germany, and 1945-present during efforts to cleanse Germany of Nazi propaganda. The Nuremburg Trials argued that words could kill, can they? Millions of solders’ commitment to Hitler committed the genocide of innocent people in numerous countries. Mass communication has the power to mobilize not only people, but minds, ideas, and ideology.

Propaganda is defined as biased information spread to shape public opinion and behavior. Its power depends on message, technique, and means of communication.

Last week we debated the factuality of The Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate, which poses the question in my mind, is this work simply a thorough work of scientific and political propaganda aiming to shape public opinion and behavior of public officials and others? There is no question that there is in fact climate change, but to what extent do we have the power to stop it, and are we (humans) really one of the central causes of the climate change? These are central questions that frame the debate around how policy should be enacted in the future. Furthermore, whatever policy is produced, many will be affected well and bad—company budgets will be affected, wildlife will be restored. These are all cost-benefit analyses to be considered based on the factuality of printed works.

History has shown us, albeit on a much larger scale, how propaganda can drastically change the lives of millions of people, which is why we should critically consider and also challenge any work that could influence the decisions of lawmakers.



A. Braden