Propoganda v. Legitimate Exercise of Free Speech (blog 4)

While it may feel that most forms of political information presented to us are overly biased and have specific agendas, there are actually many sources of good information available to us. However, much of what we hear and see on television, radio and the internet could be considered political propaganda. Propaganda is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” This information is oftentimes falsified or exaggerated in order to persuade people to believe a certain thing or act in a certain way. Propaganda usually employs the use of fallacies and emotive language to strike a chord with people without having to prove an actual point. On the opposite end there is legitimate free speech which presents fact along with sources to verify them, the language used is straight forward and neutral and no specific agenda is being set forth.


Currently in Arizona Senator John McCain is running advertisements for his re-election to the Senate and using some very interesting tactics to gain votes. His ads state that “John McCain is Arizona's last line of defense.” As if the state is being invaded by some enemy force. They use terms like “A battle to save America,” “leading the charge,” and “Standing up to titans,” evoking images of war and glorifying his role as a strong political leader. They call government run health care “ridiculously unaffordable” and John McCain himself states that “President Obama is leading an extreme left wing crusade to bankrupt America. I stand in his way every day.”
The ideas being presented are obviously heated, biased and intensely political. Using words like “ridiculous” and “extreme” evoke doubt in the listener then they hit home with the fear tactic of exposing a President who would purposefully bankrupt his own country. The ads use money (a hot topic of conversation and worry these days) to scare the listener into believing that John McCain can change the problems that are causing financial hardship to Arizonans.


An example of the use of political free speech would be an article from the World Net Daily by Art Moore discussing a federal court case declaring a National Day of Prayer in public schools unconstitutional. First and foremost, merely being able to discuss a topic of such political heatedness is an exercise in constitutional freedoms of speech. In this article the author recounts the decision of the Wisconsin federal district court in which Judge Barbara B. Crabb “determined the statute [allowing the President to declare “the first Thursday in May a National Day of Prayer”] violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’"


This article not only presents the viewpoint of Judge Crabb but also the opposing viewpoint of “Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, the ACLJ [who] called the decision flawed and expressed confidence it will be overturned.” The author does not present any personal opinions but merely presents facts and the opinions of those involved. Moore simply reports on what is happening and leaves opinion up to the reader and those involved. It is a refreshing piece of news reporting that allows the reader to make decisions for themselves rather than having an opinion shoved down their throat.


resources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda, accessed 17 April 2010.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/07/2168050.aspx, accessed 17 April 2010.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=141325, accessed 17 April 2010.