Wasburn and Burke (1997)

[anne mareck]

Well--I certainly appreciate the response below--especially the perspective
on the origin of 'propaganda.' I must, though, toward the sentiment in
general, say that it smacks  of sterotyping to say that "americans don't
expect propaganda from their media." In our current political climate, (can
you tell I live in the us? ; ) the mainstream media is extremely careful to
kow-tow to an aggressive presidential regieme run by a man borne of an
aggressive, multigenerational dynasty whose financial success dates back to
business deals with the Nazis--a regieme that politically centrist and
liberal ((please remember that the true 'left' was run out of the US by the
McCarthy witch trials in the 50s)) individuals fear and, I believe, abhor,
the news we get is very specifically focused. New of major events that might
lessen support for the current administration are suppressed ((not reported
on)) and events that hold the regieme in a good light are shown over and
over and over. Our 'propeganda' in the US may be different than in
Russia--but, I would argue, due to its hegemonic tenor amplified by
repetitive broadcases--in the absence of dissenting views--that propeganda
is alive and well in the US. And, further, that many people here feel quite
strongly that the mainstream media is bought and paid for. 

My .02, too.  ; ] 

-----Original Message-----
From: CDA-DISCUSS Discussion List
[mailto:CDA-DISCUSS at listserv.linguistlist.org] On Behalf Of Linnea Micciulla
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:31 PM
To: CDA-DISCUSS at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: Re: Wasburn and Burke (1997)

Hi everyone,

I received a response to the Wasburn and Burke posts from someone who wants
to remain anonymous - I thought it contained quite a bit of food for
thought, so I asked for permission to re-post it here:

********************
Incidentally I just saw the interesting question on the discourse list about
Russians expecting propaganda in their media while Americans don't. I'm
pretty shy about expressing opinions publicly so I'm not going to post, but
I'll privately offer what I think is a very likely answer. In Russia (as in
most of the Eastern Bloc), there is a long history of explicit propaganda
that existed during the communist regime. This mistrust of the media was
very well founded and is hard to completely overturn in the relatively short
period of time that communism has been absent. The scale of propaganda is
also completely different between Russia/the Eastern bloc and the US. I find
it extremely uncomfortable and misleading to use the word propaganda for
both. One emerged out of a regime which explicitly and deliberately set out
to deceive the public. The other emerged from a system which explicitly and
deliberately made efforts not to. Of course the best laid plans.and all
that. But I think that in practical terms, the historical difference has a
huge effect. In one case all media was government regulated and there were
severe penalties for deviating from the government agenda. In the other case
there are many media sources, some push some agendas, others push other
agendas, and we're free to choose, to read between the lines, to look
elsewhere for information . with no penalties. That's a huge difference to
me. I realize I'm describing a time that has passed, but again, I think this
historical relationship between media and society is very relevant and
changes slowly. 

Just my two cents. 

********************