Blurred Lines Between Propaganda and Public Diplomacy

When we think of propaganda our thoughts might turn to those of WWII filled with images of Nazi Germany or North Korea, yet is there any real distinction between propaganda and public diplomacy aside from one typically having a positive connotation than the other? In this technological age with the increasing ease of access to information, have the lines between propaganda and public diplomacy become blurred?

Black presents a myriad of views on the meanings of propaganda ranging from the immoral persuasion intending to control individual views to propaganda being sociologically embedded that propaganda is no longer distinguishable. Yet, all of these views bear striking similarities with the definition of public diplomacy. Black does not give a clear distinction, but rather promotes the grey area between two ideas.

Public diplomacy aims to “touch the general public and the elites of other countries in a way that generates more understanding and support for one’s own interests, ideas, and values.“ Qualter, on the other hand, defines propaganda as “the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of the instruments of communication with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.” There is no doubt that both propaganda and public diplomacy echo similar goals of self-interests in either conveying a cultural identity or promoting an ideology.

However, I believe that the key determining factors in the difference between public diplomacy and propaganda is first the intent of the persuader. A second distinguishing characteristic is if the persuader’s actions affect an individual’s mental freedom in which to keep an open mind and independently form an opinion. 

Nevertheless, I question my views on a distinction between the two as Black’s argument delves into the role of media and society. He further blurs the lines between propaganda and public diplomacy when he states “people need media to provide them with predigested views because they can’t experience all of life first hand…propaganda thus becomes inevitable.” Most of the information we receive is disseminated from the media, but in trying to simplify the multitude of information results in a sense of propaganda. Is public diplomacy a more optimistic viewpoint of propaganda? Has propaganda become so embedded in society that people are influenced without the indication of propaganda?