Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Their Differences
Not long after 9/11, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, in a Washington Post article, “Get the Message Out” (October 28, 2001) asked a key question regarding the so-called “war on terror”:
How could a mass murderer who publicly praised the terrorists of Sept. 11 be winning the hearts and minds of anyone? How can a man in a cave outcommunicate the world's leading communications society?
What was needed to offset terrorists, Holbrooke wrote, was “public diplomacy, or public affairs, or psychological warfare, or -- if you really want to be blunt -- propaganda.”
Holbrooke is not the first person to equate public diplomacy[1] with propaganda[2]. Some public diplomacy supporters say it’s a no-nonsense tool of foreign policy that can win the struggle for hearts and minds (or propaganda, seen favorably, for example, by Mr. Holbrooke). Public diplomacy critics argue that it’s just a fancy term for prevarication and manipulation (again propaganda, but this time seen unfavorably).
Public diplomacy and propaganda, however, can’t be lumped together à la Holbrooke, either to support or criticize them. Think of two circles, one that contains public diplomacy and the other propaganda. These two circles do intersect, but neither circle is within the other. The observation[3] by the American ambassador who coined the term “public diplomacy” in the mid-1960s, Edmund Gullion, a dean at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, is useful in this regard:
Even beyond the organ of the Government set up to handle information about the United States and to explain our policies, what is important today is the interaction of groups, peoples, and cultures beyond national borders, influencing the way groups and peoples in other countries think about foreign affairs, react to our policies, and affect the policies of their respective governments.To connote this activity, we at the Fletcher School tried to find a name. I would have liked to call it “propaganda.” It seemed like the nearest thing in the pure interpretation of the word to what we were doing. But “propaganda” has always a pejorative connotation in this country. To describe the whole range of communications, information, and propaganda, we hit upon “public diplomacy” [my italics].
Gullion’s treatment of public diplomacy makes it clear that while public diplomacy does contain elements of propaganda, it is not identical to it. Interestingly, some compare propaganda to pornography: you can tell it when you see it, but you can’t define it. In contrast, public diplomacy, as a rule, does not evoke such a reaction, but it too doesn’t have a universally accepted definition.
Harping on definitions can be intriguing, but it often leads to an intellectual dead-end. So here, instead of trying to discover the essence of public diplomacy and propaganda, I want to examine their differences by focusing in a nutshell on what they do. And a way to make this distinction, I believe, is to examine public diplomacy at its best and propaganda at its worst.
So allow me to refine the circles I mentioned above. One circle is public diplomacy at its best; the other is propaganda at its worst[4]. In action, the better public diplomacy is, and the worst propaganda is (or a combination thereof), the intersection of the two circles diminishes proportionally.
I won't focus on the multitude of tools used by public diplomacy and propaganda, which are often identical -- e.g., the mass media. Rather, my focus is on what public diplomacy at its best, and propaganda at its worst, do.
To be sure, the intent of the practitioners of public diplomacy and propaganda may be the same. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of these two activities are meant to be those carrying them out (and the entity they represent, if they have one). Neither public diplomacy nor propaganda is altruistic. When public diplomacy and propaganda are used as state instruments, they serve a country’s interests. But at their best and at their worst, they do so in significantly different ways.
At its best, public diplomacy:
- Provides a truthful, factual exposition and explication of a nation’s foreign policy and way of life to overseas audiences;
- Encourages international understanding;
- Listens and engages in dialogue;
- Objectively displays national achievements overseas, including in the arts.
At its worst, propaganda:
- Forces its messages on an audience, often by repetition and slogans;
- Demonizes elements of the outside world;
- Simplifies complex issues and history;
- Misrepresents the truth or deliberately lies.
Both public diplomacy and propaganda, at their best or their worst, can achieve credibility with their audiences. However, the best public diplomacy achieves credibility through careful presentation of fact and thoughtful argumentation, while the worst propaganda achieves credibility by falsification and sensationalism. As a rule, public diplomacy at its best, which appeals to the intellect, is believed in the long run, while propaganda at its worst, which inflames atavistic emotions, is believed only for short periods. The best public diplomacy convinces audiences that its content and purpose mesh, and that therefore it is honest; the worst propaganda leads audiences to believe that its content do not reveal its true purpose, and that therefore it is dishonest.
Evaluating the effectiveness of both public diplomacy and propaganda is extremely difficult. I realize my “best-worst” distinction is incapable of fully measuring the impact of either. Indeed, my distinction, ultimately, is moral rather than functional.
To some such an approach has little practical value. They would say that morality, or respect for truth, has little to do with foreign policy. Others would argue that the term "propaganda at its worst” is just another name for black propaganda[5], psychological warfare that should not be judged according to “ordinary” morality, especially in times of global conflict when a nation’s security is at risk.
However, in the case of the U.S., morality has been part of our tradition since the very first days of the Republic. The moral dimension should therefore be a legitimate consideration in Americans’ discussion about the differences between public diplomacy and propaganda. Were it not, we Americans would overlook, at our own risk, the principles that define us as a nation.
References
- Regarding public diplomacy, see John Brown, “The Purposes and Cross-Purposes of American Public Diplomacy,” American Diplomacy (August 15, 2002).
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archiv es_roll/2002_07-09/b rown_pubdipl/brown_p ubdipl.html - The best short treatment of American propaganda is Kenneth Osgood, “Propaganda,” Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (2002).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402 300123.html - Robert F. Delaney and John S. Gibson, eds., American Public Diplomacy: The Perspective of Fifty Years (Medford Mass: The Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, The Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs, 1967), p. 31. Cited in John Brown, “The Anti-Propaganda Tradition in the United States,” Public Diplomacy Web Site Sponsored by Public Diplomacy Alumni Association (July 4, 2003; June 22, 2008).
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/19.htm - The reader no doubt is asking the valid question: Can the reverse exist, i.e., propaganda at its best and public diplomacy at its worst? There is no reason why it cannot (arguably, per se, propaganda is not necessarily “bad,” just as public diplomacy, per se, is not necessarily “good”). But I don't wish to elaborate on “what about the reverse” issue, as it could take us beyond the scope of this paper -- to provide a simple, non-academic way of differentiating public diplomacy and propaganda.
- “Black Propaganda,” Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propa ganda
Anonymous
Invite as author
All Pudlic Diplomacy is Propaganda
"propaganda - (DOD) Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly."
Doesn't this DoD definition lead us to conclude that all Public Diplomacy is, in fact, propaganda?
- Peter Gortner
Thanks for your excursion into the swamp of terminology that mires us so deeply in confusion.
In the course of a 35 year career in public diplomacy I came to despise propaganda and its practitioners. I see it somewhat differently than you have defined it.
I would characterize propaganda as a brand of advocacy. Propaganda for me is deliberately advancing a position in favor of one’s cause (country, party, product, religion) without regard for its accuracy or truthfulness. In the case of the oldest meaning of the term “the propagation of the faith,” propaganda was ethically justifiable consistent with morality. Its advocates could make the case that it was justified because it was linked to absolute truth. Countries have no such claim of a monopoly on absolute truth.
I have two problems with the advocacy as conducted by a government institution when it engages in propaganda: first the practitioners of that institution are quickly perceived of and branded as liars, not a reputation one wears with pride. When we accept the role of propagandists our adversaries and the rest of the world simply see us as individuals who will say anything to advance their cause. We are all familiar with the example of the BBC during WWII which earned its reputation for integrity by avoiding the temptation to lie. In so doing it earned a reputation for truth telling that served the Allied war effort well. That is why the Congress provided VOA with a charter.
The second reason is related to the first. Once the spokesperson or advocacy institution is caught in deliberate lies to advance their cause that institution or individual loses that precious quality we call credibility. Once lost, credibility is virtually impossible to regain. That is not to say that a country or its leader or its intelligence agency is not obliged to protect itself in times of national emergency by attempting to deceive the enemy. But an entity designed to tell its country’s story, to correct misinterpretations, to provide context and background should not be tasked with compromising itself by predictably saying anything to make itself look good regardless of objective reality.
Lawyers are paid to defend murderers regardless of their guilt. But that advocacy role is not propaganda. Diplomats should not denigrate their country’s reputation by engaging in deliberate falsehoods. That is a form of advocacy that we consider legitimate, although I know at least one ambassador who defined his job as “lying for his country”.
In an age of globalization, a relentless media is bound to expose deliberate falsehoods sooner or later. And when they do the reputation of that institution and of that government is deservedly debased.
Bob LaGamma
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window