The New Propaganda

In the days when kings were kings, Louis XIV made his modest remark, “L’Etat c’est moi.” He was nearly right.

Back when kings truly ruled, Louis XIV made his modest remark, “I am the state.” He was almost right.

But times have changed. The steam engine, the multiple press, and the public school, that trio of the industrial revolution, have taken the power away from kings and given it to the people. The people actually gained power which the king lost. For economic power tends to draw after it political power; and the history of the industrial revolution shows how that power passed from the king and the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie. Universal suffrage and universal schooling reënforced this tendency, and at last even the bourgeoisie stood in fear of the common people. For the masses promised to become king.

But times have changed. The steam engine, the high-speed printing press, and public schools were the three forces of the industrial revolution. They took power from kings and gave it to the people. The people actually gained the power the king lost. Economic power tends to bring political power with it. And the history of the industrial revolution shows how power passed from kings and aristocrats to the middle class. Universal voting rights and universal schooling strengthened this trend. Eventually, even the middle class feared the common people. For the masses seemed poised to become king.

To-day, however, a reaction has set in. The minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing majorities. It has been found possible so to mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction. In the present structure of society, this practice is inevitable. Whatever of social importance is done to-day, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda. Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.

Today, however, a reaction has begun. The minority has discovered a powerful tool for influencing majorities. The masses’ thinking can be shaped so that they use their newly gained power in the desired direction. Given society’s current structure, this practice is inevitable. Everything of social importance done today must be done with the help of propaganda. This applies to politics, finance, manufacturing, agriculture, charity, education, and other fields. Propaganda is the arm of the invisible government that carries out its work.

Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.

Teaching everyone to read and write was supposed to prepare the ordinary person to control his environment. Once he could read and write, he would have a mind fit to govern. That was the democratic belief. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps. These stamps are inked with advertising slogans, editorials, published scientific data, tabloid trivia, and the clichés of history. But they contain no original thought. Each person’s rubber stamps are copies of those held by millions of others. So when those millions encounter the same influences, all receive identical impressions. Saying that the American public gets most of its ideas in this mass-produced way may seem like an exaggeration. Ideas are spread on a large scale through propaganda. In its broad sense, propaganda means an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.

I am aware that the word “propaganda” carries to many minds an unpleasant connotation. Yet whether, in any instance, propaganda is good or bad depends upon the merit of the cause urged, and the correctness of the information published.

I know that the word “propaganda” has negative associations for many people. But whether propaganda is good or bad in any given case depends on the cause being promoted. It also depends on the accuracy of the information published.

In itself, the word “propaganda” has certain technical meanings which, like most things in this world, are “neither good nor bad but custom makes them so.” I find the word defined in Funk and Wagnalls’ Dictionary in four ways:

On its own, the word “propaganda” has specific technical meanings. Like most things in this world, these meanings are “neither good nor bad but custom makes them so.” I find four definitions of the word in Funk and Wagnalls’ Dictionary:

“1. A society of cardinals, the overseers of foreign missions; also the College of the Propaganda at Rome founded by Pope Urban VIII in 1627 for the education of missionary priests; Sacred College de Propaganda Fide.

“1. A group of cardinals who oversee foreign missions. Also the College of the Propaganda at Rome. Pope Urban VIII founded the college in 1627 to train missionary priests. Sacred College de Propaganda Fide.

“2. Hence, any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.

“2. By extension, any institution or plan for spreading a doctrine or system.

“3. Effort directed systematically toward the gaining of public support for an opinion or a course of action.

“3. Organized effort to gain public support for an opinion or a course of action.

“4. The principles advanced by a propaganda.”

“4. The principles promoted by a propaganda campaign.”

The Scientific American, in a recent issue, pleads for the restoration to respectable usage of that “fine old word ‘propaganda.’”

In a recent issue, the Scientific American urges a return to respectable use of that “fine old word ‘propaganda.’”

“There is no word in the English language,” it says, “whose meaning has been so sadly distorted as the word ‘propaganda.’ The change took place mainly during the late war when the term took on a decidedly sinister complexion.

“No word in English,” it says, “has had its meaning so sadly distorted as ‘propaganda.’ The change happened mainly during the recent war, when the word took on a distinctly sinister meaning.

“If you turn to the Standard Dictionary, you will find that the word was applied to a congregation or society of cardinals for the care and oversight of foreign missions which was instituted at Rome in the year 1627. It was applied also to the College of the Propaganda at Rome that was founded by Pope Urban VIII, for the education of the missionary priests. Hence, in later years the word came to be applied to any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.

“If you look in the Standard Dictionary, you will find that the word referred to a congregation or society of cardinals. This group was established in Rome in 1627 to oversee and care for foreign missions. The word also referred to the College of the Propaganda at Rome. Pope Urban VIII founded the College to educate missionary priests. As a result, in later years the word came to describe any institution or plan for spreading a doctrine or system.

“Judged by this definition, we can see that in its true sense propaganda is a perfectly legitimate form of human activity. Any society, whether it be social, religious or political, which is possessed of certain beliefs, and sets out to make them known, either by the spoken or written words, is practicing propaganda.

“By this definition, propaganda in its true sense is a perfectly legitimate human activity. Any group, whether social, religious, or political, practices propaganda when it sets out to share its beliefs through speech or writing.

“Truth is mighty and must prevail, and if any body of men believe that they have discovered a valuable truth, it is not merely their privilege but their duty to disseminate that truth. If they realize, as they quickly must, that this spreading of the truth can be done upon a large scale and effectively only by organized effort, they will make use of the press and the platform as the best means to give it wide circulation. Propaganda becomes vicious and reprehensive only when its authors consciously and deliberately disseminate what they know to be lies, or when they aim at effects which they know to be prejudicial to the common good.

“Truth is powerful and must prevail. If a group of men believe they have discovered a valuable truth, spreading that truth is more than their right. It is their duty. They will soon have to recognize that spreading the truth widely and effectively requires organized effort. If they recognize this need, they will use the press and public speaking as the best ways to spread it. Propaganda becomes harmful and deserving of blame only when its creators knowingly and deliberately spread lies. The same applies when they aim for results they know will harm the common good.

“‘Propaganda’ in its proper meaning is a perfectly wholesome word, of honest parentage, and with an honorable history. The fact that it should to-day be carrying a sinister meaning merely shows how much of the child remains in the average adult. A group of citizens writes and talks in favor of a certain course of action in some debatable question, believing that it is promoting the best interest of the community. Propaganda? Not a bit of it. Just a plain forceful statement of truth. But let another group of citizens express opposing views, and they are promptly labeled with the sinister name of propaganda....

“‘Propaganda,’ in its proper sense, is a perfectly healthy word, with honest origins and an honorable history. The sinister meaning the word carries today merely shows how much childishness remains in the average adult. A group of citizens writes and speaks in favor of a particular course of action on a disputed issue. The group believes it is serving the community’s best interests. Propaganda? Not at all. Just a straightforward, forceful statement of the truth. But let another group of citizens express opposing views, and those views are promptly given the sinister label of propaganda....

“‘What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,’ says a wise old proverb. Let us make haste to put this fine old word back where it belongs, and restore its dignified significance for the use of our children and our children’s children.”

“‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,’ says a wise old proverb. Let’s quickly put this fine old word back where it belongs. Let’s restore the word’s dignified meaning for our children and grandchildren to use.”

The extent to which propaganda shapes the progress of affairs about us may surprise even well informed persons. Nevertheless, it is only necessary to look under the surface of the newspaper for a hint as to propaganda’s authority over public opinion. Page one of the New York Times on the day these paragraphs are written contains eight important news stories. Four of them, or one-half, are propaganda. The casual reader accepts them as accounts of spontaneous happenings. But are they? Here are the headlines which announce them: “TWELVE NATIONS WARN CHINA REAL REFORM MUST COME BEFORE THEY GIVE RELIEF,” “PRITCHETT REPORTS ZIONISM WILL FAIL,” “REALTY MEN DEMAND A TRANSIT INQUIRY,” and “OUR LIVING STANDARD HIGHEST IN HISTORY, SAYS HOOVER REPORT.”

How much propaganda shapes events around us may surprise even well-informed people. Still, a look beneath the surface of a newspaper reveals signs of propaganda’s power over public opinion. On the day I write these paragraphs, page one of the New York Times carries eight important news stories. Four of them, or half, are propaganda. The casual reader accepts these stories as accounts of events that happened spontaneously. But did those events happen spontaneously? Here are the headlines: “TWELVE NATIONS WARN CHINA REAL REFORM MUST COME BEFORE THEY GIVE RELIEF,” “PRITCHETT REPORTS ZIONISM WILL FAIL,” “REALTY MEN DEMAND A TRANSIT INQUIRY,” and “OUR LIVING STANDARD HIGHEST IN HISTORY, SAYS HOOVER REPORT.”

Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, presenting an exposition of the Powers’ Stand in the Chinese muddle. What it says is less important than what it is. It was “made public by the State Department to-day” with the purpose of presenting to the American public a picture of the State Department’s position. Its source gives it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the State Department view.

Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China. The article lays out the Powers’ position on the confused situation in China. What the article says matters less than what the article is. It was “made public by the State Department to-day” to show the American public the State Department’s position. The article’s source gives it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the State Department’s view.

The report of Dr. Pritchett, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, is an attempt to find the facts about this Jewish colony in the midst of a restless Arab world. When Dr. Pritchett’s survey convinced him that in the long run Zionism would “bring more bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab,” this point of view was broadcast with all the authority of the Carnegie Foundation, so that the public would hear and believe. The statement by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Secretary Hoover’s report, are similar attempts to influence the public toward an opinion.

Dr. Pritchett is a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. His report attempts to establish the facts about this Jewish colony amid a restless Arab world. His survey convinced him that Zionism would eventually “bring more bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab.” When he reached this conclusion, his view was widely publicized with all the authority of the Carnegie Foundation. The aim was for the public to hear and believe it. The statement by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York and Secretary Hoover’s report make similar attempts. Both seek to steer public opinion.

These examples are not given to create the impression that there is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to illustrate how conscious direction is given to events, and how the men behind these events influence public opinion. As such they are examples of modern propaganda. At this point we may attempt to define propaganda.

These examples are not meant to suggest that there is anything sinister about propaganda. Instead, they show how events are deliberately directed and how the men behind those events influence public opinion. In this sense, these are examples of modern propaganda. At this point, we may try to define propaganda.

Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group.

Modern propaganda is a steady, ongoing effort to create or shape events. The goal is to influence the public’s relationship with a business, idea, or group.

This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures in the minds of millions of persons is very common. Virtually no important undertaking is now carried on without it, whether that enterprise be building a cathedral, endowing a university, marketing a moving picture, floating a large bond issue, or electing a president. Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.

Creating circumstances and shaping images in the minds of millions of people is very common. Almost no important undertaking now happens without this practice. Examples include building a cathedral, funding a university, promoting a movie, issuing a large bond offering, or electing a president. Sometimes a professional propagandist creates the effect on the public. Sometimes an amateur assigned to the job does so. The important point is that this practice is universal and continuous. Taken together, these efforts regiment the public mind just as much as an army regiments its soldiers' bodies.

So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that a group at times offers an irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. The group will cling to its stereotype, as Walter Lippmann calls it, making of those supposedly powerful beings, the leaders of public opinion, mere bits of driftwood in the surf. When an Imperial Wizard, sensing what is perhaps hunger for an ideal, offers a picture of a nation all Nordic and nationalistic, the common man of the older American stock, feeling himself elbowed out of his rightful position and prosperity by the newer immigrant stocks, grasps the picture which fits in so neatly with his prejudices, and makes it his own. He buys the sheet and pillow-case costume, and bands with his fellows by the thousand into a huge group powerful enough to swing state elections and to throw a ponderous monkey wrench into a national convention.

Vast numbers of minds can be organized to think alike, and once organized, they hold firmly to their views. So a group sometimes exerts irresistible pressure, leaving legislators, editors, and teachers helpless. The group clings to its stereotype, as Walter Lippmann calls it. As a result, supposedly powerful leaders of public opinion become mere pieces of driftwood in the surf. An Imperial Wizard may sense what is perhaps a hunger for an ideal. In response, he offers a picture of a nation that is entirely Nordic and nationalistic. The ordinary man of older American ancestry feels newer immigrants are pushing him out of his rightful position and prosperity. So he seizes on the picture, which fits his prejudices so neatly, and makes the picture his own. He buys the sheet-and-pillowcase costume and joins thousands of others in a huge group. The group is powerful enough to sway state elections and throw a massive monkey wrench into a national convention.

In our present social organization approval of the public is essential to any large undertaking. Hence a laudable movement may be lost unless it impresses itself on the public mind. Charity, as well as business, and politics and literature, for that matter, have had to adopt propaganda, for the public must be regimented into giving money just as it must be regimented into tuberculosis prophylaxis. The Near East Relief, the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor of New York, and all the rest, have to work on public opinion just as though they had tubes of tooth paste to sell. We are proud of our diminishing infant death rate—and that too is the work of propaganda.

In today’s society, public approval is essential to any major undertaking. So a worthy movement may fail unless it makes an impression on the public. Charity, like business, politics, and literature, has had to adopt propaganda. The public must be organized and directed to give money, just as it must be directed to prevent tuberculosis. The Near East Relief, the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor of New York, and all the others must shape public opinion. They must do so just as if they were selling tubes of toothpaste. We are proud of our falling infant death rate, and that decline, too, is the work of propaganda.

Propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our mental pictures of the world. Even if this be unduly pessimistic—and that remains to be proved—the opinion reflects a tendency that is undoubtedly real. In fact, its use is growing as its efficiency in gaining public support is recognized.

Propaganda is all around us, and it does change our view of the world. Whether this view is too pessimistic remains to be proved. Even if the view is too pessimistic, it reflects a trend that is undoubtedly real. In fact, propaganda is being used more as its effectiveness in gaining public support becomes recognized.

This then, evidently indicates the fact that any one with sufficient influence can lead sections of the public at least for a time and for a given purpose. Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid out the course of history, by the simple process of doing what they wanted. And if nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda is here to stay.

This clearly shows that anyone with enough influence can lead sections of the public, at least temporarily and for a specific purpose. In the past, rulers were the leaders. They shaped history simply by doing what they wanted. Today, their successors are people whose position or ability gives them power. And if these powerful people can no longer do what they want without public approval, propaganda offers a tool. That tool is increasingly powerful in gaining public approval. So propaganda is here to stay.

It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach—visual, graphic, and auditory—to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the coöperation of the key men in every group—persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace.

Of course, propaganda’s astonishing success during the war showed the intelligent few in all walks of life its possibilities. They saw how propaganda could be used to control public thinking. The American government and numerous patriotic organizations developed a technique new to most people accustomed to seeking public acceptance. They appealed to individuals through every means, including images, graphics, and sound, to support the national effort. But they also gained the cooperation of key leaders in every group. These leaders’ words alone carried authority with hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of followers. In this way, the government and patriotic organizations automatically gained support from fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social, and local groups. Members took their opinions from their usual leaders and spokespeople, or from publications they regularly read and trusted. At the same time, those manipulating patriotic opinion used the public’s fixed ideas and emotional habits to provoke mass reactions. These reactions targeted the enemy’s alleged atrocities, terror, and tyranny. After the war ended, intelligent people naturally wondered whether similar techniques could be applied to the problems of peace.

As a matter of fact, the practice of propaganda since the war has assumed very different forms from those prevalent twenty years ago. This new technique may fairly be called the new propaganda.

In fact, propaganda since the war has taken very different forms from those common twenty years ago. This new technique may reasonably be called the new propaganda.

It takes account not merely of the individual, nor even of the mass mind alone, but also and especially of the anatomy of society, with its interlocking group formations and loyalties. It sees the individual not only as a cell in the social organism but as a cell organized into the social unit. Touch a nerve at a sensitive spot and you get an automatic response from certain specific members of the organism.

It considers not just the individual, or even the group mind alone, but especially the structure of society. This structure includes overlapping groups and loyalties. It sees the individual not only as a cell in society’s body, but as a cell organized into a social unit. Touch a nerve at a sensitive point, and certain specific parts of that body respond automatically.

Business offers graphic examples of the effect that may be produced upon the public by interested groups, such as textile manufacturers losing their markets. This problem arose, not long ago, when the velvet manufacturers were facing ruin because their product had long been out of fashion. Analysis showed that it was impossible to revive a velvet fashion within America. Anatomical hunt for the vital spot! Paris! Obviously! But yes and no. Paris is the home of fashion. Lyons is the home of silk. The attack had to be made at the source. It was determined to substitute purpose for chance and to utilize the regular sources for fashion distribution and to influence the public from these sources. A velvet fashion service, openly supported by the manufacturers, was organized. Its first function was to establish contact with the Lyons manufactories and the Paris couturiers to discover what they were doing, to encourage them to act on behalf of velvet, and to help in the proper exploitation of their wares. An intelligent Parisian was enlisted in the work. He visited Lanvin and Worth, Agnès and Patou, and others and induced them to use velvet in their gowns and hats. It was he who arranged for the distinguished Countess This or Duchess That to wear the hat or the gown. And as for the presentation of the idea to the public, the American buyer or the American woman of fashion was simply shown the velvet creations in the atelier of the dressmaker or the milliner. She bought the velvet because she liked it and because it was in fashion.

Business provides vivid examples of how groups with a financial stake can influence the public. Textile manufacturers losing their markets are one example. Not long ago, velvet manufacturers faced ruin because velvet had long been out of fashion. Analysis showed that reviving the fashion for velvet within America was impossible. Where was the vital point to target? Paris! Obviously! But yes and no. Paris is the home of fashion. Lyons is the home of silk. The campaign had to start at the source. The decision was to replace chance with deliberate action. The campaign would use the usual channels for spreading fashion and influence the public through those channels. A velvet fashion service was set up with the manufacturers’ open support. Its first task was to contact the Lyons manufacturers and the Paris fashion designers to discover what they were doing. The service would encourage them to promote velvet and help them market their products effectively. An intelligent Parisian was recruited for the work. He visited Lanvin and Worth, Agnès and Patou, and others, and persuaded them to use velvet in gowns and hats. He arranged for the distinguished Countess This or Duchess That to wear the hat or gown. As for presenting the idea to the public, the approach was simple. The American buyer or fashionable American woman was simply shown the velvet creations in the dressmaker’s or hatmaker’s studio. She bought the velvet because she liked it and because velvet was in fashion.

The editors of the American magazines and fashion reporters of the American newspapers, likewise subjected to the actual (although created) circumstance, reflected it in their news, which, in turn, subjected the buyer and the consumer here to the same influences. The result was that what was at first a trickle of velvet became a flood. A demand was slowly, but deliberately, created in Paris and America. A big department store, aiming to be a style leader, advertised velvet gowns and hats on the authority of the French couturiers, and quoted original cables received from them. The echo of the new style note was heard from hundreds of department stores throughout the country which wanted to be style leaders too. Bulletins followed despatches. The mail followed the cables. And the American woman traveler appeared before the ship news photographers in velvet gown and hat.

American magazine editors and newspaper fashion reporters were likewise exposed to this real, though deliberately created, situation. They reflected the situation in their reporting, exposing American buyers and consumers to the same influences. As a result, what began as a trickle of velvet became a flood. Demand was slowly but deliberately created in Paris and America. A large department store, aiming to lead fashion, advertised velvet gowns and hats with endorsements from French fashion designers. The store quoted cable messages received directly from the designers. Hundreds of department stores across the country echoed the new fashion trend, wanting to be style leaders too. Bulletins followed news reports. Letters followed cable messages. And American women traveling by ship appeared before photographers covering ship arrivals, wearing velvet gowns and hats.

The created circumstances had their effect. “Fickle fashion has veered to velvet,” was one newspaper comment. And the industry in the United States again kept thousands busy.

The carefully created conditions had an effect. “Fickle fashion has turned to velvet,” one newspaper commented. And the industry in the United States once again kept thousands employed.

The new propaganda, having regard to the constitution of society as a whole, not infrequently serves to focus and realize the desires of the masses. A desire for a specific reform, however widespread, cannot be translated into action until it is made articulate, and until it has exerted sufficient pressure upon the proper law-making bodies. Millions of housewives may feel that manufactured foods deleterious to health should be prohibited. But there is little chance that their individual desires will be translated into effective legal form unless their half-expressed demand can be organized, made vocal, and concentrated upon the state legislature or upon the Federal Congress in some mode which will produce the results they desire. Whether they realize it or not, they call upon propaganda to organize and effectuate their demand.

The new propaganda takes society as a whole into account and often helps focus and fulfill the desires of the masses. A desire for a specific reform, however widespread, cannot lead to action until people express it clearly. That desire must also put enough pressure on the appropriate lawmakers. Millions of housewives may feel that manufactured foods harmful to health should be banned. But their individual wishes are unlikely to become effective laws unless their partly expressed demand is organized and voiced. That demand must then be directed at the state legislature or the Federal Congress in a way that achieves their goals. Whether these housewives realize it or not, they rely on propaganda to organize their demand and put it into effect.

But clearly it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically. In the active proselytizing minorities in whom selfish interests and public interests coincide lie the progress and development of America. Only through the active energy of the intelligent few can the public at large become aware of and act upon new ideas.

But clearly, intelligent minorities need to use propaganda continuously and systematically. America’s progress and development depend on minorities who actively spread their beliefs and whose selfish interests align with public interests. Only through the active efforts of the intelligent few can the wider public learn about and act on new ideas.

Small groups of persons can, and do, make the rest of us think what they please about a given subject. But there are usually proponents and opponents of every propaganda, both of whom are equally eager to convince the majority.

Small groups of people can, and do, make the rest of us think whatever they want about a particular subject. But any propaganda usually has both supporters and opponents. Both sides are equally eager to convince the majority.