A broad reading of Lasswell’s (1927) theory of political propaganda complicates the line between what is objective information and what is propaganda. Propaganda is defined as “management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols. The word attitude is taken to mean tendency to act according to certain patterns of valuation.” On the other side is the ‘deliberative attitude’, which “[searches] for the solution of a besetting problem with no desire to prejudice a particular solution in advance.”
In the context of international broadcasting, does the ‘deliberative attitude’ exist?
Below is a list of each broadcaster’s missions and values:
In a quick discourse analysis, it can be seen the wording of these missions and visions direct the focus of the broadcaster's news coverage in a particular way. What are the historical and political elements that could be informing each one's goals? Do these purposes "conveniently [divide stories] according to the object toward which it is proposed to modify or crystallize an attitude", as Lasswell says propaganda does? Does the notion of objectivity in journalism automatically and blindly negate news from fitting into the definition of propaganda, even if, as seen in the missions of each IB, each is operating from a set of ideals and goals?
Posts
Excellent questions, this goes to the heart of our monitoring project. It seems to me that the line between "objective information" and "propaganda" is blurred in the best of times, and indistinguishable in the worst of times. Let's discuss tonight.
ReplyDelete