Persuasion and propaganda are two powerful tools used by media to influence the ideas, ideals, and opinions of target audiences. Both of these concepts motivate people into action by influencing beliefs and desires. It is not enough just to change beliefs. It is important to form a new opinion and attitude towards a particular event or phenomenon. Media emphasizes that reaching the target audience and establishing visibility with them is a necessary condition for success. However, it is not a sufficient condition since much depends on the persuasiveness of what is conveyed. The main difference between persuasion and propaganda is that they use different approaches of influence and have a different impact on a person.
Persuasion is defined as “a conscious attempt by one individual to change the attitudes, beliefs, or behavior of another individual or group of individuals through the transmission of some message” (Bettinghaus & Cody 3). In persuasion, if message recipients perceive that they are free to reject the advocated position, then, they are free; and the influence attempt is regarded as “persuasive in nature” (Walton 117). On the other hand, if recipients feel that they have no choice but to comply, then the influence attempt is defined as propaganda. Propaganda is defined as the “management of collective attitudes by manipulation of significant symbols” (Carey 4).
The main difference between propaganda and persuasion is their impact on the receiver. In contrast to propaganda, persuasion is characterized by private acceptance of the position advocated in the message. By contrast, in the case of propaganda, people publicly comply with the behavior urged of them, but, privately, they reject the position advocated in the message (Baker 4). For instance, in advertising, every ad aims to make the target audience respond to it in the way intended. However, while every communication invites a certain understanding, this invitation can be refused. Following Herman (1999, 62) it may be refused because the target audience does not have the necessary perspective to be receptive to it. If this perspective is missing, persuasion has to be directed at inducing the ‘right’ perspective. Critics underline that all persuasion is self-persuasion in that people are unlikely to be persuaded unless they understand the meaning of the communication. In contrast to propaganda, persuasion is based on emotional messages that have an impact at every stage in life (Herman 23). For instance, people are influenced by emotional messages communicated through the TV screen. Emotion is a major factor in persuasive advertising that aims to change viewpoints and not simply to demonstrate the logical implications of data. Social scientists have emphasized that there are important differences between persuasion and these other concepts (Baker 32).
In contrast to persuasion, propaganda is based on mind control aimed to condemn the recipients of a particular persuasive message rather than to clarify or explain the persuasion process. The propaganda limited alternatives and choices either by outlawing their consideration or by rejecting them on specious grounds; new propaganda embraces alternatives and encourages choices. According to Jowett and O’Donnell (1999) propaganda can be seen as “the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (cited Kendrick and Fullerton 297). For instance, advertising, publicity, and public relations can also be characterized as propaganda. They become propaganda if each is purposive and one-sided. But their defenders pointed to them as commercial rather than political and said that because of this they are not propaganda. In contrast to persuasion, propaganda is controlled, controversial, emotional, and intentional. It involves masses of people and maintains power (Bernays 18). Usually, propaganda is nonscientific and not truthful, one-sided, and systematic. Advertising was considered to be propaganda because of its tendencies toward mass deception and exploitation, but it also provided information on behalf of socially important causes and helped satisfy personal needs, which deemed it not to be propaganda. Persuasion is characterized by the attempt of one person to change the mental or emotional state of another person. One way of differentiating persuasion from other forms of communication is that, in persuasion, a source intends to influence a receiver (Bernays and Miller 16).
The information mentioned above allows saying that persuasion and propaganda use different approaches to influence the person. Every communicative activity can legitimately be called persuasion. One of the main differences between propaganda and persuasion is that, in the case of propaganda, an individual publicly performs a behavior without private acceptance, employed only coercive techniques (for instance, brainwashing). Scholars (Carey 47) have noted that both persuasion and propaganda use the same social influence strategies (e.g., peer pressure, emotional manipulation, and conformity pressures). In contrast to propaganda, persuasion implies a free choice. The individual must be capable of accepting or rejecting the position that has been put of him or her. There is an opinion that persuasion is an activity or process in which a communicator attempts to induce a change in the belief, attitude, or behavior of another person or group of persons through the transmission of a message in a context in which the person has some degree of free choice (Carey 47).
Certain factors can enhance the impact of evidence of persuasion and propaganda. These factors can be either internal or external to the information contained in the message. Internal factors include the credibility of the source of the evidence, evidence quality, and novelty. Evidence is more persuasive when attributed to a highly credible communicator than to a low-credible source. Evidence is also more likely to change attitudes if it is of high quality “is plausible, and is novel rather than “old hat” (Bettinghaus and Cody 28). In both, propaganda and persuasion, evidence-based arguments are often pitted against vivid, graphic message appeals, and the two could not be more different. “When definitions are argumentative, as they often are, then according to the new dialectic they should be judged as arguments, in the way that other arguments are evaluated dialectically” (Walton 117). According to Kendrick and Fullerton (2004, 297), the evidence contains facts and numerical data, vivid messages use colorful pictures, concrete descriptions, jarring images, and personal anecdotes to make their points. In contrast to persuasion, propaganda can use fear appeals to induce individuals to accept the message recommendations.
In sum, propaganda and persuasion influence attitudes and opinions of the audience, form its ideals and views. The main difference is that propaganda uses one-sided arguments aimed to maintain power and control public opinion. Persuasion is aimed to inform the audience about a particular issue and give a piece of advice to the audience. It is important to note that persuasion similar to propaganda is a powerful instrument of social control.
Works Cited
Baker, Brent H., How to Identify, Expose, and Correct Liberal Media Bias Alexandria, VA: Media Research Center, 1994.
Bernays, Edward L., Miller, M.K. Propaganda Ig Publishing; New Ed edition., 2004.
Bernays, Edward L. Public Relations. Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004.
Bettinghaus, E.P., Cody, M. J. Persuasive communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1987.
Carey, Alex., Taking the risk out of Democracy. University of Illinois Press, 1996.
Herman, Edward S., The myth of the liberal media Peter Lang Publishing, 1999.
Herman, Edward, Chomsky, N. Manufacturing Consent, Pantheon, 2002.
Kendrick, A., Fullerton, J.A. Advertising as Public Diplomacy: Attitude Change among International Audiences. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (2004): 297.
Walton, D. Persuasive Definitions and Public Policy Arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 37 (2001): 117.