Culture and Propaganda

To the American public in the late 1930s, their experience of propaganda during 1917–19 had not, in retrospect, been a satisfying one. As Sarah Ellen Graham points out, the trajectory curved from enthusiastic public acceptance of government propaganda during 1917–19 to a strong public and intellectual critique in the years following the war, and back to a reluctant acceptance of the need for propaganda to support democracy in the late 1930s. Many US public officials felt regret at the wartime use of propaganda, and this regret had a far-reaching impact on how they approached a second wartime attempt to mould international opinions, and later culture, on behalf of American interests—which were usually seen as identical with those of the rest of the world. There was a conflict among American officials and legislators in weighing the moral imperatives of journalistic integrity and truthful reporting against the strategic imperatives of the fight against the USSR and communism. In short, should American efforts be devoted to convincing other countries to accept, support and adopt the ‘Superman’ ethos of Truth, Justice and the American Way by being honest in what was said in print and, especially, over the airwaves, or should they use straightforward propaganda to fight the Cold War? On the whole, the latter approach won

Communism · Democracy · Economic Justice · Ethos · Government (linguistics · Political science · Politics · Regret · Sociology · Catholicism and Religious Studies · Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics · Law · Media Studies and Communication