Talk:United States Information Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cold War  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Yeesh! This reads as if it were written by the Ministry of Propaganda—which, of course, is what the USIA was, Edward R. Murrow or no Edward R. Murrow.

"Public diplomacy..." what gobbledegook. "To understand, inform and influence foreign publics in promotion of the national interest." Drop the word "understand" and you have a definition of the word "propaganda."

OK, I added a first paragraph which acknowledge's the relative truthfulness of the USIA's material while making sure that the word "propaganda" is not missing from the article. Dpbsmith 04:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P. S. The dictionary defines propaganda as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

P. P. S. I can't say I had actually encountered the euphemism "public diplomacy" before. I ran across this page because I mentioned the USIA in a note in an article on MIT and was checking the link. But further investigation confirms my impressions. According to an article at [1]

As U.S.-Soviet tensions eased, America's anti-propaganda attitude quickly resurfaced, and a new term was used to describe the USIA's mission: "public diplomacy." This term was first coined in the mid-1960s by Dean Edmund A. Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Explaining the origin of the term, Gullion wrote (1967) that:
"Even beyond the organ of the Government set up to handle information about the United States and to explain our policies, what is important today is the interaction of groups, peoples, and cultures beyond national borders, influencing the way groups and peoples in other countries think about foreign affairs, react to our policies, and affect the policies of their respective governments.
"To connote this activity, we at the Fletcher School tried to find a name. I would have liked to call it 'propaganda.' It seemed like the nearest thing in the pure interpretation of the word to what we were doing. But 'propaganda' has always a pejorative connotation in this country. To describe the whole range of communications, information, and propaganda, we hit upon 'public diplomacy'."

So, indeed, "public diplomacy" was coined as a euphemism for "propaganda." Dpbsmith 04:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

2008 discussion[edit]

Regardless of whatever historical connotations it once had or how the word came about, public diplomacy is NOT the same as propaganda or public relations. The military is practicing propaganda with satellite channels and truth bomb flyers. Planting a military experts on CNN is propaganda. Public diplomacy is opening up English language libraries in the embassy or putting up free concerts. French efforts at promoting its language is a kind of public diplomacy. Japan's efforts at sending teachers overseas and bringing American/Western students to Japan to teach is another. So unless you think every free concert/culture event on Dupont Circle constitutes propaganda intended to brainwash unsuspecting and hungry interns, you need to think again on presenting "public diplomacy" as the same as propaganda, however technically correct, is misleading.

Under subheading "Public diplomacy and propaganda":

"In the years following these earlier views, some U.S. Government officials and others contended that U.S. public diplomacy programs are not propaganda. Others still contend, however, that since propaganda can be based on fact, public diplomacy can be equated with propaganda i.e. ideas, information, or other material disseminated to win people over to a given doctrine. If based on falsehoods and untruths, while still propaganda, it is best described as "disinformation." [2]

However technical one may get about the term propaganda; it is undeniable that the word itself has a hugely negative connotation in the mind of an average person. The word itself implies dishonesty, of which is not relevant in defining the USIA. It is anyone's prerogative to question the USIA's intent, effectiveness, or morality, but under a subheading like "Role of USIA", "Ethics of (American) Public Diplomacy,", and etc. It is dishonest to sneak in judgment of a reasonable and ethically sound aspect of any diplomat's effort, American or foreign, in advancing his or her nation's interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It is POV to claim outright that the agency produced propaganda, I will admit. But it is also POV to claim that it did not. Coverage of the debate is what is needed. I'm also not convinced that we should shy away from the term propaganda simply because people mis-understand it: propaganda can provide useful, factual advice, and it is better to explain that. Providing examples will allow readers to make up their own minds.
To start throwing examples in, I came on this article through Ed Murrow's broadcast "The Challenge of Ideas"; note its description of the US Navy's purpose and the use of John Wayne to make an appeal to notoriety in particular. You'll also find the USIA name-checked at Propaganda#Cold_War_propaganda --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is another example of propaganda with a factually-accurate message. The caricature is obviously grotesque and a racial slur, but there is no dishonesty or trickery in the idea that working less benefits the enemy. --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, “propaganda can provide useful, factual advice”. And, “Here is another example of propaganda with a factually-accurate message”. Some first-rate examples of propaganda - with a misleading/inaccurate message. Is it not sad that, even in 2014, Big Brother style mis-information is still with us? (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Clinton as Fulbrighter[edit]

I think that the menion of Bill Clinton as a Fulbright recipient is incorrect. Clinton received a Fulbright Prize from the Fulbright alumni association in 2005, but this is not the same as receiving a Fulbright scholarship from USIA. I'm going to delte this line--which, besides, strikes me as oddly defnesive and non-NPOV. -Hickoryhillster 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Information Agency Time Plus - Information Referral Service[edit]

I removed Information Agency Time Plus - Information Referral Service, is the trusted source for business information, international market research, service from across the world. as I do not see the relevance, and it is copied verbatim from their website, and it is not neutral POV, and, it really makes no statement... whoever added this, was there some reason? I don't get what Information Agency Time Plus has to do with the US Ministry of Propaganda. User:Pedant 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How To Stop Worrying and Learn To Love Dis-information[edit]

“propaganda can provide useful, factual advice”.(Talk comment)

Is this another example of propaganda with a factually-inaccurate message? (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The late Brian Crozier describes in his memoirs "Free Agent" that he was not allowed to disseminate his writings of "Conflict Studies" in the US because it was not allowed to propagandize (his word) with US money to US people. He therefore confirmed that other countries' people were subjected to propaganda to influence them. It has become clear recently, that many networks select only news and articles that fit into their world view, which makes them propaganda. They can still contain valid facts, but it's usually facts which try to convince readers of their line, like advertorials. The trick is to know your friends and enemies then check out each side's networks to avoid being influenced towards a one-sided view.2001:8003:A0B9:EF00:7404:918E:6976:C3BA (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Try reading Bernays's Propaganda. Propaganda merely propagates information. The cynicism evident in your comment was constructed post-World War II.
Also, WP:NOTAFORUM. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering the ideas of Edward Bernays (and Walter Lippmann) was that "cynicism" really mis-placed? Now, as for "propaganda with a factually-accurate message"... (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Guy Sims Fitch[edit]

@Sandstein: I'm not going to argue the issue about pseudonyms and USIA. There's a similar story out there about the State Department and Joe Reap. The issue here is Gizmodo as a source. I say it's not reliable; it's a blog. The author doesn't qualify for the expert exception, either. Shall we take this to RSN? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want. My impression is that it is a professional news website, rather than a self-published blog; per it has an editor-in-chief, several editors, etc., as one would expect from a news organization, and per HuffPo and others it was bought together with other specialized websites by Univision for $135 million; that's not a price one pays for an amateur blog. If you have any specific reasons, rather than a general belief, for why Gizmodo does not meet WP:RS standards, I'd be interested to hear them.  Sandstein  17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That there's money to be made by buying these content creators does not (in my opinion) make them reliable. I generally oppose giving reliability to HuffPo, Gawker, Salon, or the like although I know many such websites are frequently used here. I see you've found a book to cite so we need not argue about Gizmodo. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Information Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)