Truthful Propaganda

The best propaganda is propaganda that is 100 percent truthful.

For example, if I was to get an e-mail from Joe that said "Obama is a space alien", because it obviously requires a suspension of belief, Joe can pass it along without an comment, knowing that we would get the joke.

It is quite a different matter if Joe were to send out an e-mail that said "Obama is a Moslem." If Joe were to caveat that e-mail with a preface: "I think this is rubbish, what do you think?" that is one thing. But lacking that caveat, I must conclude "Joe believes that Obama is a Moslem based on the evidence within that e-mail." If the evidence is dishonest, I then further conclude that "Joe is either dishonest or simple or too lazy to fact-check." The focus no longer is on Obama but on Joe, which was never Joe's intent.

In terms of personal credability and integrity, I think this is a huge issue, especially when we become complict in spreading viral lies. Look at the number of people on this thread to which this e-mail has gone. It cheapens the debate, makes the sender look bad, and it is unnecessary in that there is plenty of truth out there that can make exactly the same point.

I don't consider theological or political positions in themselves to be honest or dishonest-- although they can be right or wrong. How we arrive, for example, at a position concerning the death penalty or baptism for most people involves a lifetime of personal experience, reading, and reflection. However, how we promote such a position using either truth or lies can determine whether or not the conclusion that we are hoping to promote is undermined or even nullified.

I