What separates persuasion and propaganda?

The words persuasion and propaganda are separated by a fine line, and the difference is more than the few letters among the two. Persuasion refers to the interactive transparent attempt to influence the attitudes and behaviours of another party. On the other hand, propaganda refers to the one sided, forceful imposition of attitudes onto another party.  It is important to understand these terms through a journalistic perspective, since information sharing with a larger audience is a key aspect of the profession.

The similarity between the two, lies in their goal of influencing attitudes and behaviours, so they more closely align with the speaker’s views. However, the way either method pursues this common objective, differs in the following ways.

1. Transparency of objectives

The main difference is in how one lays out the points they would like to convince you of. Often those who want to persuade the other party, have it in their best interest to clearly demonstrate their perspective and objectives, before furthering the same. We see this with persuasive journalism, where facts are stated and viewpoints are shared between parties prior to any subjective intervention. Persuasion is rather transparent.

However, propaganda is largely opaque in nature, since it is easier to convince the audience of a without stating logical critics, facts or truths on the matter. Propaganda benefits from hiding its true intention from the party. It engages with emotionally provocative sentiments to mask this or downright assumes different objectives from its true ones. The media engaging in propaganda often heavily controls what to think and what to think about through these means. This forms the basis of the agenda setting theory.

2. Agency of receiving party

On the other end of communication, is the willingness of the receiving party to accept the message, or, in this case, adopt a different attitude. Persuasion assumes the audience as one of agency and engages in techniques to convince such as rhetoric, anecdotes, narrative and various engagement tactics. They rule out deception. Yet propaganda embrace it. Throw propaganda. The audience is forced to adopt the attitudes and behaviours and those in power stop at no end to achieve this. They engage in emotional manipulation, misuse of public services, even as going as far as inciting violence and creating harmful narratives. Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model effectively demonstrates how media carries out system supporting propaganda by obeying market forces and self-censorship.

3. Goals and motives

The reason someone wants you to agree with them must be carefully analysed. The intent behind the message, sets the method of achieving the goals. Persuasion answers this “why” as mutually beneficial or ethically aligned pursuits. Propaganda caters to manipulative, self-serving agendas. Transparency, facts and ethical emotional appeals help persuasion maintain boundaries with its audience. Propaganda evades these boundaries and engages in manipulation and aligns itself with the audience so as to gain their support. Propaganda has inbuilt malicious intent, and this intent is what separates the two. The “why” is what drives all other aspects into action. Media must carefully answer this question and align itself with public interest over malicious content.

Journalism follows ethical considerations, such as objectivity, credibility, independence and transparency. While some areas such as politics and conflict, don’t allow for complete objectivity, it is to be in the pursuit of the same. Persuasion as a tool is ethical to be used in public interest and should be utilised sparingly.

Propaganda is a common misuse of the media as ownership control, bias and profit motives influence journalists to stray away from the ethical values. Propaganda can easily be identified when any content appears to be catering to the interests of a particular group or manipulative in any capacity, and should be wholly avoided.