According to Mr Bernays who wrote the book Propaganda. The best kind of propaganda is true. It’s not only propaganda when it’s nefarious or pernicious. Effective military cyber capability is an excellent example.

I have not read this book; based on the author’s definitions, what additional conditions are required for accurate reporting by media outlets of foreign cyber attacks against our nation to be considered propaganda?

It's interesting that you focused on this particular aspect of my message and replied with an assertion that rests on a whole stack of shaky assumptions. One, that I was talking about reporting of Russia's cyber activities. Two, that the reporting of such activities is generally accurate. Three, that accurate reporting cannot serve propaganda purposes. Such comments derail discussions, and it did exactly that here.

My point was that there is a logical discrepancy in how most people process statement about privacy. When presented with a specific example of an "outgroup" violating their privacy, there is quick condemnation and outrage. When presented with an example of an "ingroup" doing the same, people usually respond with some non sequitur like "I have nothing to hide". However, somehow, people mentally disconnect these two cases and see them as different. The reality is, they are profoundly connected. The simple fact is that after your private data has been collected and stored, you don't get to choose which group gets it.

I admit I honed in on a detail in your comment that is mostly unrelated to your actual argument - an argument I fullheartedly agree with would not typically want to distract or detract from. However, after spending probably an order of magnitude more time on work related to Russian cyber activity than time spent with friends or family lately, I sometimes have a kneejerk reaction to phrasing like this.

Regarding the assumptions you list:

1. Information regarding Russian activities in cyberspace is the most relevant category of "possible" anti-Russian propaganda related to the topic you bring up, and what I believe most people will imagine when reading the words "anti-Russian propaganda" in your comment, regardless of whether or not you had it in mind when writing them.

2. Do you have an example of reporting on this topic whose primary points have proven to be inaccurate, even if unintentionally? I would go as far to argue that the amount of realized and attempted damage caused by Russian cyber actors, and the audacity of some of the operations, would significantly reduce the need for entities pushing anti-Russian narratives to fabricate or twist facts.

3. There is a chance that, after arguing the semantics of the word propaganda, you could convince me that accurate reporting of facts regarding cyber attacks against our nation could be technically viewed as propaganda, based on some definition that doesn't include terms like "misleading" or a book on the topic that I have not read. However, I don't think that really matters here, because for the significant majority of people the term "propaganda" carries implications of incorrect or misleading information, and I believe the effects of these types of claim can do much more harm than a comment derailing a conversation, like mine.

Selective reporting of the truth is the best propaganda.

All reporting is selective

Exactly

If its done by the government or a government owned body it is by definition. That being said, Propublica is neither a government nor is it a government owned news agency. So its not propaganda.

Tho that's quite the overly specific, and dated, definition of "propaganda".

Public relations is a way more apt term for what's going on in modern times [0], and in the "cyber" manifestation of that field, private parties are recognized as the main contributors, and actors, for a number of nation states [1]

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/17/influencers-ukraini...

[1] https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cef7e8d9-27bf-4ea5-9fd6-85...

The creation of the term "Public Relations" is an example of skillful propaganda.

I am not "HN", just one human, one mind (more or less).

Communication is what we are doing here.

When you propagate a message to many people, then it's propaganda.

Once upon a time the word had no negative sense. Then it did, so they changed the job to PR.

Source?

Mainly because of Goebbels and co:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Ministry_of_Public_Enl...

"At the time the German word ‘Propaganda’ was value neutral."

English "propaganda" sounds the same .. and therefore got the negative connotation as well.

This

During WWI [0], and even WWII plenty of countries would openly run propaganda ministries distributing government news.

Which most people considered legitimate news, as new information from afar was not very easy to come by back then.

After WWII a lot of Nazi crimes were blamed on the efficiency of "Goebbels propaganda", so the term became stigmatized. Which put people like Edward Bernays [1], who had been working in the propaganda business for decades and literally wrote the book on it, in a bit of pickle.

So he came up with the rebranding of "Public Relations", which is basically privatized propaganda. Turning it from something strictly governments do, to a service that can be bought by anyone with enough money.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Thank you, this is thoughtful and considered. It took me a bit to understand exactly where it goes off kilter.

It's at "basically", namely "_basically_ privatized propaganda"

I see evidence someone did something that's defined as for the politics for the government during a war, then did similar work in private industry as not illuminating.

This is in fact expected. A quartermaster who now does logistics doesn't mean logistics is just a polite rebranding of supplying weapons

We also agree it is not evidence of a conscious rebranding of an entire field away from being named "propaganda" to "public relations"

If the government does it its propaganda. I don't see how that's dated. Unless you count misuse of the term as valid. People misuse propaganda to mean media describing a narrative they don't like all the time. But those people are wrong and shouldn't be encouraged.

Third parties working on behalf of a government to spread their message do count as Propaganda.

The difficult part is telling apart propaganda from organic content. People have this idea of propaganda being a bunch of communists making posters with slogans or something. But that is what's really dated. How do you know a group isn't being funded by a government or affiliated with them? Sometimes its easy to tell. Like with Russia Today. They have the veneer of a news outlet but they are state owned. But when a lot of people get their news from social media its impossible to know who is really on the other side.

Selective and misleading reporting of facts is probably both the most common and the most effective form of propaganda.

Most people would point out that “misleading” is the operative word here.