Propaganda isn’t always fake news, it can also be true stuff presented in a biased way.
It can also be true stuff presented in an unbiased way. There’s a disconnect here between the proper definition of the word, which is perfectly neutral, and its connotations because the what secretary for tsunami safety doesn’t call their stuff “propaganda” but “public service announcement”. Still the same thing, though, the tsunami safety secretary is trying to persuade the audience to not be stupid and get to high ground as soon as the sea recedes. Very much pushing an agenda, they *gasp* want people to survive and *gasp* use communication to achieve it.
Can it? I searched a bit and all the definitions I’ve found seem to be about swaying public opinion, not simple objective announcements.
It does have a negative connotation even though it can be used for good, but I still don’t think purely objective messages like “a tsunami is coming, get to high ground” should count as propaganda.
What about things like this?
Which btw yes certainly has editorialising going on. The answer to “Useless projects are funded with EU money” starts with “National and regional authorities in the EU countries select projects which they think meet their needs best in line with the strategies and priorities agreed with the Commission.” Which isn’t saying that EU money doesn’t found useless projects, but implicitly blames regional authorities for it. I don’t even think they want to mislead, here, they simply want to stay diplomatic.
(This video about the canopy walk is brilliant. (enable subtitles)).
I think that qualifies as propaganda too: its intention is to improve the public opinion of the Cohesion policy by clearing misconceptions.
(About the “project” in the video… what the hell? I had to Google it because I wasn’t convinced it was a real thing. Just why?)
