Public diplomacy and propaganda: Rethinking diplomacy in the age of persuasion

Nancy Snow

2012-01-01

Abstract:On September 11, 2001, a reporter contacted me to put the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks into a propaganda context. He was familiar with a little book I had published, Propaganda, Inc.: Selling America’s Culture to the World, about my two-year federal government work at the US Information Agency, an independent foreign affairs propaganda agency that operated from 1953-1999. Needless to say, given the enormity of that day, I had no desire at that time to intellectualize the attacks in the context of a new information war. It was nevertheless clear that the propaganda war—in mind munitions—was the defining ingredient of international relations. Much of my research, speaking and writing since that time has involved the intersection of propaganda studies with public diplomacy. From that perch I look at diplomacy in a critical international communications perspective. Benghazi, Libya doesn’t signify just a place but also a persuasive, ideological battleground between the White House and Congress on Sunday morning talk shows, and on YouTube and Facebook. Events don’t just happen as points in history but instantly emerge as competing narratives where truth is not as important as believability. In the “greed is good” era of the 1980s the famous bumper sticker read:“He who dies with the most toys wins.” In the information and image wars of the 2000s, the bumper sticker reads:“He who dies with the most ‘likes’ wins.” So what’s the difference between propaganda and public diplomacy? Propaganda is source-based, cause-oriented, emotion-laden content that utilizes mass persuasion media to cultivate the mass mind in service to the …