While talking about international campaigns and how they work, Thomas Nash talked about there being three key things to consider; who we want to influence, how we want to influence and what we can use to influence.
This short phrase really got my mental gears turning on exactly what is justified in the landscape of global conflict and more specifically in war. Is manipulation a tool that is completely justified when it comes to conflict? 
When we think about propaganda, we here in New Zealand tend to think of it as a rather negative tool. Especially with regards to war, it most often glorifies and falsifies horrific situations in order to use people to further the political aims of the government or body who is creating that propaganda. Still though we create celebrities of the characters used to do this act. Rosie the Riveter, The classic Uncle Sam “I want you” image, even Donald Duck had a hand in this manipulation of the human perspective.
Was this mass manipulation
justified because it was used to fight a war against a horrific body? We never mention or make celebrities of the Hitler youth characters or of the anti-semitic posters used in Nazi Germany in WWII in the same way, so do we perhaps feel that propaganda is justified if it is the “Good guys” using it.
Even in post war times, there is still propaganda. It seems to be in waves we get war settings in movies, from movies like the Hurt Locker, Inglorious Bastards and Fury being feel good films released while there was only a little concern in the US of any home front wars to Dunkirk, Hacksaw Ridge and 1917 that aim to show the harsher realities of war being released more recently around times of uncertainty and murmurs of potential impending war.
Is this kind of propaganda, being more covert, more acceptable than the blatant “the enemy looks like this” posters during the war? How do television representations fit into this model? Are the M.AS.H and Hogan’s Heroes versions of war acceptable because of the comedic aspect or is that an even more clever use of media to lighten people’s perceptions of war so that the decision to join a war was less criticized?
Propaganda and manipulation on wide scales are frowned upon, but they can be used to create good. Thomas Nash was talking about how in his context it was used to change the world’s perception on catastrophically deadly weapons but as we all are very familiar with it was also used on all sides of war and in all areas of conflict. It is used even down to political campaigns for election, pro/anti-abortion, the rights of people in many demographics and even which University you should choose.
Propaganda and manipulation are everywhere, the only question is do the ends in fact justify the means?
Propaganda and advertising are so ubiquitous that we seem to have lost sight of whether or not they are ethical. Curating and controlling one’s public image seems unavoidable if you need popular support, so rarely do we consider it important to analyse the morality of an tactic we intend to employ anyway.
However, that’s not to say, that it is wrong to do use it: perhaps propaganda is manipulative, and maybe manipulation is not such a crime. I would draw the line not at propaganda, but at misleading or untruthful propaganda.
Really interesting post Dale! Propaganda has been something that I’ve researched a lot this year, particularly how women are depicted. There are so many examples of women being relegated to a domestic and innocent or overtly sexual role (to warn soldiers about STDs), that we never discuss. As you mentioned, we have glorified propagandic images, manipulating them to mean something that they never did. Rosie the Riveter has become a feminist icon but conveyed a rather sexist message.
I also found your exploration of movie and television super interesting. Google states that propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view”. Even media that doesn’t depict warfare has some form of agenda, so where do we draw the line? What is the difference between propaganda and ‘misleading’ propaganda and when does it become harmful?