We have our first Zoom office hours coming up this week! Please mark your calendars to join your classmates from 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. EST this Thursday, December 8 to meet me and each other, continue up the class discussion, and generally chat and have a good time. The Zoom link will be sent to paid subscribers at 8 a.m. Thursday morning. (NOTE: I will try to change up the times as we go along to make the office hours accessible to people’s various schedules, so if you can’t make this one, there will be more!)
The question can't be answered until we agree on a definition of propaganda. Must there be deception? Must it benefit the speaker? Is it enough that it present only one point of view? Must there be emotional manipulation? Is a Burma Shave sign propaganda? What about Mrs. McKinnon's third-grade class in American history?
The speech was superbly written and skillfully read by an attractive man with a resonant voice to an audience already inclined to hear its message. The message itself was uplifting, and the speaker undoubtedly believed everything he said. But it played on emotions, promised a chicken in every pot, blamed the East for all woes, and took advantage of the deplorable human drive to divide into teams with different-colored jerseys.
When I watched this video I was it occurred to me how different my perception is today as opposed to 35 years ago. Then, I saw our president standing up to the oppressions of the soviets. Today, I see propaganda laced throughout this speech. Was I naive then? Probably. Reagan told the world that the freedoms enjoyed by the west were also desired by those in the east. After all everyone wants what we have don’t they? This speech was designed to show strength and to persuade the world to view us as the ones who are right and the soviets as the ones denying the East Germans. He gave ample examples of our good while being forceful. In the end the speech was persuasive propaganda.
Professor Asha, I have gone over this speech twice, I lived through the Reagan era, on the second viewing I decided to take notes, however prior to the second viewing I decided to consult Websters Dictionary for the term propaganda.. 2”any organization or movement working for the propagation of particular ideas, doctrines” with that in mind this speech is not black or white.. there are several elements of propaganda within this speech... American and German flags behind Reagan, the Brandenburg gate also behind those flags, small US flags for the invited guests to wave. Moving on to more substantive elements... such as Reagan’s continual use of the word “freedom” but no definition of the term, Reagan speaks of an economic miracle, which is the old capitalism vs communism argument. Citing the communist world as a “failure”, Reagan continues to cite if the Soviets do A, B, C then we will welcome them. Reagan speaks of Soviet expansion however he does not mention US actions during the same time period as the US involvement in Central America. Again Reagan uses the language of “freedom and democracy” without defining the terms. Reagan admonishes the Soviets to “change or self destruct”, again he’s not defining those terms. Reagan claims there are totalitarian elements surrounding Berlin, but again, no definition of what that term is and who are these totalitarian regimes. Finally Reagan cites a TV tower that, when the sun is shining it makes the image of the cross... big applause line, which I personally find rather offensive. I will enjoy speaking and reviewing the speech with other members of our class... thanks for the opportunity to present my ideas.
My sound kept cutting out and in so I found a transcript of the speech which also provided translations for the German phrases that his teleprompter (or equivalent from that era) provided him. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/reagan-berlin-wall
Every address by a national leader (or any politically elected official) is to some extent propaganda because it is intended to convince people of something that the speaker considers important enough to address. This one is given at a time when the influence of the USSR was in decline so it was aimed at touting the benefits of a capitalistic economy compared to the managed economy of the Soviet Union. Just look at the great things that have been done here and then look at what has been done on the other side of this wall! Think of the things that could be done if the wall (and the rest of the Iron Curtain) were demolished! That's the message which was tailored to the specific location at which it was presented and aimed at those on the other side of the wall.
I think the speech is, in part, a genuine statement of the Reagan administration’s policy to encourage the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union. It contains a lot of facts about differences in the political, economic and social conditions of western and eastern Europe. However, notwithstanding the higher living standards of the west, it also contains some simplistic idealisations about freedom, free market ‘miracles’, and religion.
My conclusion is that the speech employs some propaganda techniques, as well as rational, evidence-based argument, to increase pressure on the Soviet Union.
Asha – I would love to participate in the office hours zoom session, but it will be 2am here in Melbourne – please accept my apologies!
I was in Vienna on a semester abroad in the spring of '88. There were a number of students from West Berlin sharing our student housing and none of them believed at the time that the wall would ever come down. I still remember the elation and disbelief I felt at the events of '89-90.
I'm not sure about whether or not this is propaganda though. Probably every political speech could be labeled propaganda at some level. Certainly passages at the end about Christianity and worship seem propagandistic since Europe as a whole was already deeply post-Christian.
Reagan's vision of freedom was almost entirely defined by opposition to communism and deregulation of markets. This is the time when the pressure to divest from South Africa is on the rise and the of course, Iran-Contra. So the support of anti-democratic regimes, as long as they played nice with U.S. business interests, is well-documented. It's also Reagan who launches fresh attacks on civil rights and the social safety net. But his deeply contradictory record on democracy, freedom, and economic justice doesn't necessarily make the speech propaganda; it just gives it a subtext that is easily exploited by skilled disinformation teams.
I've often thought that keeping pressure on the Soviet Union was the only positive thing Reagan really accomplished which is why it is flabbergasting to me that that so many of today's conservatives are so pro Russian. I also don't think Gorbachev gets enough credit in the U.S. for his role in bringing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Perhaps I am naive, but I don't see Reagan's Berlin speech as pure propaganda. There are certainly elements of the speech that the Russians would argue are propaganda, but I believe that the purpose of this speech is to send a very public message to Gorbachev letting the rest of the world know of the United States' intentions. The Great Communicator could deliver a speech better than just about any modern politician and this speech is the perfect example. Political speeches are intended to be persuasive, and this speech rallies the western democracies using imagery of the benefits of a free society.
IMHO all political speech is propaganda. I compare propaganda to hard- and soft-core pornography. There are gradations, but the intention is to persuade an individual to believe or act as the propagandist desires. Propaganda doesn't tell the truth, or not the entire truth, about it's subject. It uses images and language to stimulate dopamine and adrenaline so the listener/viewer has a physical and limbic response that reinforces mental activity.
Listening to the cheers of the people of Berlin when Reagan pops in a line or two in German, you can sense the physicality of their response. His English words could be considered soft to medium-core propaganda and his German words hard-core propaganda, in terms of intention and effect, on this audience.
As I watched this speech and remembered the period of time contextually it reminded me of Regan's ability to market political ideas. His talent was to focus on positive aspects of western political thought as opposed to the restrictive climate of the iron curtain. I see his speech as both a statement of American policy and hopes for a new kind of arrangement. I do see it as being at the same time a subtle propaganda piece focus on the benefits of freedom and openness and the downfalls of repression of East Berlin.
I feel much more enlightened and educated after reading the comments here. My answer will be comparatively simple. My frame of reference is the professional life of a mathematical based civil engineer.
QUESTION- "Do you consider President Reagan’s speech “propaganda”? Why or why not"
I do not consider Pres. Regan's speech propaganda. The speech is biased, of course, misleading perhaps. I do not believe the speech propaganda because the statements made are generally factual and accepted popular opinion of the audience he was addressing. The opposition would disagree. i argue disagreement of opinion does not constitute propaganda.
Yes, President Reagan's Berlin Wall Speech was propaganda. I think too often people use the term "propaganda" to refer to nefarious intentions, such as deception, or attempts to mislead or defraud when it is really a neutral term that can be used for any reason.
Propaganda can more easily be understood as simply the intentional dissemination of information (often factual) and other ideas that are aimed at furthering an agenda. That agenda may be to further a cause of action (E.g. get a ballot measure passed, win an election, increase or decrease police budgets), or to damage one (E.g. tearing down walls by extolling the virtues of freedom, ban certain practices).
I understand propaganda to often be filled entirely with truthful and accurate information, with a liberal amount of cherry-picking. More specifically on this example, Reagan was not wrong to highlight the resilience of the people in Berlin (they were), or the economic strength that came with economic freedom (there is), that the Berlin Wall made Europe weaker (debatable, but likely not wrong), that the wall was inconsistent with the virtues of freedom and liberty (it is). He uses loaded words that can't really be seen as true/false, but are meant to instill a specific narrative; that the wall was a "scar." For those that agree that it is an evil structure, and antithetical to a united Berlin people, it was absolutely an eye soar of a scar.
Edward R. Murrow once said that "truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that." Reagan was upfront about his intentions, direct about his thoughts on the Berlin Wall, and explained why Europe would be better off without the wall. Reagan was selling an idea, the idea of freedom, not just to the people in Berlin, but to the Soviets.
In my mind, the word “propaganda” has been associated with anti-democratic or anti-western statements such as from the despots of the old USSR, and Russia or North Korea today. But after reading the definition of propaganda, Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall indeed fits that description, but his propaganda uses facts and emotion to influence the leaders and oppressed people of East Berlin and behind the Iron Curtain to open up their society as Reagan “dangles” the benefits of doing so like a carrot on a stick. I believe Reagan’s anti-Soviet and anti-communist “propaganda” throughout his presidency resulted in Gorbachev’s glasnost or “openness” policy that likely began the movement that brought down the old USSR and Eastern European communist dictatorships like dominoes, including the Berlin Wall!
I believe all political communication is propaganda, even when the message is factual and/or truthful. The intent is always to influence. The typically pejorative use of propaganda as a descriptor colors perception of intent, regardless of the actual message delivered. And we buy it, in many forms.
Unfortunately I cannot attend Office Hours because it will be at 2.30am my time (I live in Adelaide, South Australia), but I wanted to respond to the question.
This is a tough question requiring much self-reflection - just because I agree with some of what Reagan said (in this speech anyway), doesn't mean that it is not propaganda.
So, defining propaganda as the attempt to persuade/influence populations (rather than the deliberate construction of information to manipulate populations), then indeed, this speech is propaganda.
The rhetoric of freedom makes it sound like pure triumphalism of capitalism over communism, rather than an argument for democracy over a lack of democracy. Situating the struggle in the ideological realm rather than in the civic action space of elections and advocacy (the latter being the real democratic space) leads to a defence of the economic system of capitalism, and even further, laissez faire capitalism. All in all, democratic principles get a back seat to laissez faire capitalism in this speech.
Reagan also appeals to all constituencies of the capitalist world here, from big business through to the church (Christian of course) through to people in the East as well as the West, which means that it is a loaded attempt to persuade as wide a population as possible.
It is also a speech that attempts to persuade "the world" that capitalism IS the only way for humans to thrive. Now, just because I happen to believe that capitalism is the best economic system (but certainly not the laissez faire version - look at the Scandinavian nations as great examples of successful and compassionate capitalist nations), I would rather focus on this precious thing we have - democracy (but it has to work properly - Switzerland is a great example of community-led democracy), and preserve and enhance this. Democracy doesn't necessarily have to go hand in hand with capitalism, it just happens to be the case that it often does.
The speech sounds like propaganda to me. but I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
I think it's both propaganda and policy. "The tear down this wall" speech, has buzz words, a catchy phrase and it's obviously memorable. It also happens to be quite obvious in its propaganda that happens to be sprinkled with some foreign policy. The policy section is in reference to US standing policy of promoting democracies, while firmly standing against totalitarianism. Reagan brought up freedom, prosperity and a glimpse of how democracy/capitalism fares better than any other system of governing.
The question can't be answered until we agree on a definition of propaganda. Must there be deception? Must it benefit the speaker? Is it enough that it present only one point of view? Must there be emotional manipulation? Is a Burma Shave sign propaganda? What about Mrs. McKinnon's third-grade class in American history?
The speech was superbly written and skillfully read by an attractive man with a resonant voice to an audience already inclined to hear its message. The message itself was uplifting, and the speaker undoubtedly believed everything he said. But it played on emotions, promised a chicken in every pot, blamed the East for all woes, and took advantage of the deplorable human drive to divide into teams with different-colored jerseys.
When I watched this video I was it occurred to me how different my perception is today as opposed to 35 years ago. Then, I saw our president standing up to the oppressions of the soviets. Today, I see propaganda laced throughout this speech. Was I naive then? Probably. Reagan told the world that the freedoms enjoyed by the west were also desired by those in the east. After all everyone wants what we have don’t they? This speech was designed to show strength and to persuade the world to view us as the ones who are right and the soviets as the ones denying the East Germans. He gave ample examples of our good while being forceful. In the end the speech was persuasive propaganda.
Professor Asha, I have gone over this speech twice, I lived through the Reagan era, on the second viewing I decided to take notes, however prior to the second viewing I decided to consult Websters Dictionary for the term propaganda.. 2”any organization or movement working for the propagation of particular ideas, doctrines” with that in mind this speech is not black or white.. there are several elements of propaganda within this speech... American and German flags behind Reagan, the Brandenburg gate also behind those flags, small US flags for the invited guests to wave. Moving on to more substantive elements... such as Reagan’s continual use of the word “freedom” but no definition of the term, Reagan speaks of an economic miracle, which is the old capitalism vs communism argument. Citing the communist world as a “failure”, Reagan continues to cite if the Soviets do A, B, C then we will welcome them. Reagan speaks of Soviet expansion however he does not mention US actions during the same time period as the US involvement in Central America. Again Reagan uses the language of “freedom and democracy” without defining the terms. Reagan admonishes the Soviets to “change or self destruct”, again he’s not defining those terms. Reagan claims there are totalitarian elements surrounding Berlin, but again, no definition of what that term is and who are these totalitarian regimes. Finally Reagan cites a TV tower that, when the sun is shining it makes the image of the cross... big applause line, which I personally find rather offensive. I will enjoy speaking and reviewing the speech with other members of our class... thanks for the opportunity to present my ideas.
My sound kept cutting out and in so I found a transcript of the speech which also provided translations for the German phrases that his teleprompter (or equivalent from that era) provided him. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/reagan-berlin-wall
Every address by a national leader (or any politically elected official) is to some extent propaganda because it is intended to convince people of something that the speaker considers important enough to address. This one is given at a time when the influence of the USSR was in decline so it was aimed at touting the benefits of a capitalistic economy compared to the managed economy of the Soviet Union. Just look at the great things that have been done here and then look at what has been done on the other side of this wall! Think of the things that could be done if the wall (and the rest of the Iron Curtain) were demolished! That's the message which was tailored to the specific location at which it was presented and aimed at those on the other side of the wall.
I think the speech is, in part, a genuine statement of the Reagan administration’s policy to encourage the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union. It contains a lot of facts about differences in the political, economic and social conditions of western and eastern Europe. However, notwithstanding the higher living standards of the west, it also contains some simplistic idealisations about freedom, free market ‘miracles’, and religion.
My conclusion is that the speech employs some propaganda techniques, as well as rational, evidence-based argument, to increase pressure on the Soviet Union.
Asha – I would love to participate in the office hours zoom session, but it will be 2am here in Melbourne – please accept my apologies!
Margaret
I was in Vienna on a semester abroad in the spring of '88. There were a number of students from West Berlin sharing our student housing and none of them believed at the time that the wall would ever come down. I still remember the elation and disbelief I felt at the events of '89-90.
I'm not sure about whether or not this is propaganda though. Probably every political speech could be labeled propaganda at some level. Certainly passages at the end about Christianity and worship seem propagandistic since Europe as a whole was already deeply post-Christian.
Reagan's vision of freedom was almost entirely defined by opposition to communism and deregulation of markets. This is the time when the pressure to divest from South Africa is on the rise and the of course, Iran-Contra. So the support of anti-democratic regimes, as long as they played nice with U.S. business interests, is well-documented. It's also Reagan who launches fresh attacks on civil rights and the social safety net. But his deeply contradictory record on democracy, freedom, and economic justice doesn't necessarily make the speech propaganda; it just gives it a subtext that is easily exploited by skilled disinformation teams.
I've often thought that keeping pressure on the Soviet Union was the only positive thing Reagan really accomplished which is why it is flabbergasting to me that that so many of today's conservatives are so pro Russian. I also don't think Gorbachev gets enough credit in the U.S. for his role in bringing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Perhaps I am naive, but I don't see Reagan's Berlin speech as pure propaganda. There are certainly elements of the speech that the Russians would argue are propaganda, but I believe that the purpose of this speech is to send a very public message to Gorbachev letting the rest of the world know of the United States' intentions. The Great Communicator could deliver a speech better than just about any modern politician and this speech is the perfect example. Political speeches are intended to be persuasive, and this speech rallies the western democracies using imagery of the benefits of a free society.
IMHO all political speech is propaganda. I compare propaganda to hard- and soft-core pornography. There are gradations, but the intention is to persuade an individual to believe or act as the propagandist desires. Propaganda doesn't tell the truth, or not the entire truth, about it's subject. It uses images and language to stimulate dopamine and adrenaline so the listener/viewer has a physical and limbic response that reinforces mental activity.
Listening to the cheers of the people of Berlin when Reagan pops in a line or two in German, you can sense the physicality of their response. His English words could be considered soft to medium-core propaganda and his German words hard-core propaganda, in terms of intention and effect, on this audience.
Absolutely, as it paints a rather one sided picture of the benefits of capitalism.
In the early 1980’s, a Dutch band wrote a song called “over de Muur” (over the Wall), which paints a contrast of East versus West. Here is the English translation: https://muzikum.eu/nl/klein-orkest/over-de-muur-songtekst-engelse-vertaling
As I watched this speech and remembered the period of time contextually it reminded me of Regan's ability to market political ideas. His talent was to focus on positive aspects of western political thought as opposed to the restrictive climate of the iron curtain. I see his speech as both a statement of American policy and hopes for a new kind of arrangement. I do see it as being at the same time a subtle propaganda piece focus on the benefits of freedom and openness and the downfalls of repression of East Berlin.
I feel much more enlightened and educated after reading the comments here. My answer will be comparatively simple. My frame of reference is the professional life of a mathematical based civil engineer.
QUESTION- "Do you consider President Reagan’s speech “propaganda”? Why or why not"
I do not consider Pres. Regan's speech propaganda. The speech is biased, of course, misleading perhaps. I do not believe the speech propaganda because the statements made are generally factual and accepted popular opinion of the audience he was addressing. The opposition would disagree. i argue disagreement of opinion does not constitute propaganda.
I look forward to meeting y'all Thursday
Yes, President Reagan's Berlin Wall Speech was propaganda. I think too often people use the term "propaganda" to refer to nefarious intentions, such as deception, or attempts to mislead or defraud when it is really a neutral term that can be used for any reason.
Propaganda can more easily be understood as simply the intentional dissemination of information (often factual) and other ideas that are aimed at furthering an agenda. That agenda may be to further a cause of action (E.g. get a ballot measure passed, win an election, increase or decrease police budgets), or to damage one (E.g. tearing down walls by extolling the virtues of freedom, ban certain practices).
I understand propaganda to often be filled entirely with truthful and accurate information, with a liberal amount of cherry-picking. More specifically on this example, Reagan was not wrong to highlight the resilience of the people in Berlin (they were), or the economic strength that came with economic freedom (there is), that the Berlin Wall made Europe weaker (debatable, but likely not wrong), that the wall was inconsistent with the virtues of freedom and liberty (it is). He uses loaded words that can't really be seen as true/false, but are meant to instill a specific narrative; that the wall was a "scar." For those that agree that it is an evil structure, and antithetical to a united Berlin people, it was absolutely an eye soar of a scar.
Edward R. Murrow once said that "truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that." Reagan was upfront about his intentions, direct about his thoughts on the Berlin Wall, and explained why Europe would be better off without the wall. Reagan was selling an idea, the idea of freedom, not just to the people in Berlin, but to the Soviets.
In my mind, the word “propaganda” has been associated with anti-democratic or anti-western statements such as from the despots of the old USSR, and Russia or North Korea today. But after reading the definition of propaganda, Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall indeed fits that description, but his propaganda uses facts and emotion to influence the leaders and oppressed people of East Berlin and behind the Iron Curtain to open up their society as Reagan “dangles” the benefits of doing so like a carrot on a stick. I believe Reagan’s anti-Soviet and anti-communist “propaganda” throughout his presidency resulted in Gorbachev’s glasnost or “openness” policy that likely began the movement that brought down the old USSR and Eastern European communist dictatorships like dominoes, including the Berlin Wall!
I believe all political communication is propaganda, even when the message is factual and/or truthful. The intent is always to influence. The typically pejorative use of propaganda as a descriptor colors perception of intent, regardless of the actual message delivered. And we buy it, in many forms.
Unfortunately I cannot attend Office Hours because it will be at 2.30am my time (I live in Adelaide, South Australia), but I wanted to respond to the question.
This is a tough question requiring much self-reflection - just because I agree with some of what Reagan said (in this speech anyway), doesn't mean that it is not propaganda.
So, defining propaganda as the attempt to persuade/influence populations (rather than the deliberate construction of information to manipulate populations), then indeed, this speech is propaganda.
The rhetoric of freedom makes it sound like pure triumphalism of capitalism over communism, rather than an argument for democracy over a lack of democracy. Situating the struggle in the ideological realm rather than in the civic action space of elections and advocacy (the latter being the real democratic space) leads to a defence of the economic system of capitalism, and even further, laissez faire capitalism. All in all, democratic principles get a back seat to laissez faire capitalism in this speech.
Reagan also appeals to all constituencies of the capitalist world here, from big business through to the church (Christian of course) through to people in the East as well as the West, which means that it is a loaded attempt to persuade as wide a population as possible.
It is also a speech that attempts to persuade "the world" that capitalism IS the only way for humans to thrive. Now, just because I happen to believe that capitalism is the best economic system (but certainly not the laissez faire version - look at the Scandinavian nations as great examples of successful and compassionate capitalist nations), I would rather focus on this precious thing we have - democracy (but it has to work properly - Switzerland is a great example of community-led democracy), and preserve and enhance this. Democracy doesn't necessarily have to go hand in hand with capitalism, it just happens to be the case that it often does.
The speech sounds like propaganda to me. but I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
I think it's both propaganda and policy. "The tear down this wall" speech, has buzz words, a catchy phrase and it's obviously memorable. It also happens to be quite obvious in its propaganda that happens to be sprinkled with some foreign policy. The policy section is in reference to US standing policy of promoting democracies, while firmly standing against totalitarianism. Reagan brought up freedom, prosperity and a glimpse of how democracy/capitalism fares better than any other system of governing.