Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:28:19.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Letters to the Editor as a Means of Measuring the Effectiveness of Propaganda1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

H. Schuyler Foster Jr.  and
Carl J. Friedrich
H. Schuyler Foster Jr.
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Carl J. Friedrich
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In spite of the enormous literature on propaganda recently surveyed by a committee of the Social Science Research Council, there has not as yet emerged a generally accepted definition of propaganda. Consequently, any discussion in this field requires at the outset some statement or general indication of what one is dealing with, in order to reduce misunderstanding. As political scientists, we are taking a strictly pragmatic view of propaganda, as completely removed as possible from the area of psychological controversies. We have, for the purposes of our studies, considered only such propaganda as is manifested in the organized activities involved in efforts to get people to take a particular step, such as to vote for Roosevelt, or to abstain from objecting to a particular step, such as the United States’ entry into the World War. These efforts, when promotional, may be denominated “a propaganda campaign.” Such a campaign proceeds by the organized dissemination of propaganda appeals. But these same appeals can, and do, operate without any organized promotion; and still they tend to influence those whom they reach. Many different kinds of individuals carry these appeals—teachers, writers, gossips, etc. From the viewpoint of propaganda analysis, they may be called “propagandizers.” In the course of a typical campaign, there appear propagandizers who indulge in various activities which are significant in spite of their unorganized nature. Different is the propagandist who participates in a propaganda campaign.

Type
Public Opinion
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 1937 , pp. 71 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See Lasswell, Casey, and Smith, , Propaganda and Promotional Activities (University of Minnesota Press, 1935)Google Scholar.

3 The psychological problems of propaganda, such as the “manipulation of attitudes,” are thus omitted. Likewise omitted are, of course, other types of organized activities which are involved in efforts to get people to take a particular step, without manifesting propaganda, such as corruption and physical coercion.

4 The distinction made by some writers between “intentional propaganda” and “unintentional propaganda” seems not to be helpful, for two reasons: (1) such a distinction suggests that either the stuff (appeals) of propaganda or the effect of propaganda is different, depending upon the presence or absence of intention; and (2) the practical difficulty of determining the presence or absence of intention in a specified case is well-nigh insuperable.

5 Indirect-action advertising is based on general appeals as contrasted with direct-action advertising, where the reader or radio listener is asked to write to the advertiser for a sample and the like.

6 Very interesting along this line are the activities of Dr. Gallup, recently sprung into national fame through his cleverly devised American Institute of Public Opinion, the findings of which are published in many newspapers throughout the country.

7 Boston Globe, Boston Herald (no answer), Boston Post, Boston Transcript, Boston Traveler, Christian Science Monitor, New York American (no answer), New York Herald-Tribune (no answer), New York Sun, New York Times, New York World-Telegram.

8 See Robinson, W. A., “Child Labor Amendment in Massachusetts,” in this Review, Vol. 19, pp. 69–73 (Feb., 1925)Google Scholar.

9 One editor said that he avoided issues likely to stir up race hatred, such as the Scottsboro case.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.