Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Somewhat unusually for an academic, I prefer to use real words with their real meanings rather than rely on euphemisms . All a euphemism does is substitute one term for another while hoping and praying that the negative emotional connotations of the real term don't shift over to the new one. This is, in many ways, a silly exercise as can be witnessed through the vast variety of euphemisms developed over the past 50 years that seem to change every week.

Let's agree to disagree on this one.
While you may choose to use "real words;" the choice is limited by your paradigm. To paint US (or any entities' communications) simply as propaganda, thus adhering a label for what you, or others, perceive as negative attempt to influence, uses too broad a stroke. By labeling all communications (ours and our enemies') as propaganda, then we equally risk substituting one term for another, albeit with a separate set of emotional responses.

There is no question that politicians & various political entities unleash propaganda to their domestic audiences, that was not what lies at the crux of the Smith-Mundt Act debate. Even information which is not part of a campaign designed to influence can fall subject to the SMA. Conversely, information such as the leaflets used in OIF/OEF were removed from the CENTCOM website, as their exposure to US citizens could be construed as a violation of the SMA - does this not limit our citizens ability to understand what actions our civilian led military takes? More directly, the broad stroke of the word propaganda has offered unique challenges to the use of the US Military's (& other Gov organizations) ability to communicate to populations - even domestically during times of disaster - due to the perceptions surrounding the SMA.

While the US government certainly conducts propaganda against foreign audiences, to me, one set of reactions is almost as dangerous as the other.

But then again, this is from a career propagandist -