What is the difference between "leaks" and "propaganda"?

[kentuck]

I have always thought of "leaks" as being information that is classified or confidential but that is factual and true. With "propaganda", I have thought that it is mostly untrue, but meant to persuade the populace that it is true and factual. With all the "leaks" coming from this White House, we are now finding that they are mostly untrue. In other words, "propaganda". The latest example is the bio-trailers that Bush and Co "leaked" to the people before the invasion of Iraq. Are these leaks or are they propaganda? What is the real difference?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Up front, that's the difference

Propaganda is widely promulgated, in the hopes that more is better, and might makes right, so as to convince a large portion of the population (your target) that it is true.

"Smoking cigarettes is good for you, it relaxes you, try a Kent, with the micronite filter" was cigarette propaganda, disguised as "advertising", in the fifties and sixties.

Leaks, on the other hand, are whispered to one or two media sources, in the hope that they'll find their way into those sources' columns, articles, shows, etc., and will be reported without attribution.

Propaganda is always owned; leaks never are.

How's that?

[peacebird]

2. unless it's this administration which leaks propaganda.....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. You don't "leak" proganda

Read my post again.

[janx]

8. Exactly, OLL.

What this administration has done is far more insidious than the regular dispersal of propaganda.

[peacebird]

9. sure you do. Leak lies to the press, get it spoon fed to the masses.

it's propaganda at its finest.

Propaganda is at its heart disinformation, the desire to convince people to believe an absolute falsehood. Selling a lie as the truth.

What better way to get propaganda out to the masses than to "leak" "classified" lies to the willing media, who will puff-up their chest in pride at getting such an important story - and proceed to spread the lies willingly, with every re-telling reinforcing the desired reaction.

Propaganda. It was propaganda when they paid reporters to write stories slanted their way, and not report that it was an ad. It was propaganda when the govt released videos of "reporters" to local tv stations to air as "news" without disclosure.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Also the veracity of the story

Propaganda is tinged with misdirections and sometimes outright lies.

Leaks are usually official documents or information that really happened.

[kentuck]

10. If that is the case....

What we have received from this Administration has been propaganda, not leaks. They have meant to lie and to mislead, not to leak true or factual information.

[Canuckistanian]

11. You can leak tiny bits of info to bolster the overt propaganda

And withhold others... so I see the OP's dilemma...

[Jack Rabbit]

4. In this case, none whatsoever

That is especially true if one considers that what was leaked were parts of a National Intelligence Estimate that contained what Cheney and Libby told the analysts to write and what Doug Feith cherry picked and edited.

[Notoverit]

6. depends on who's telling the story.

I remember when W declassified Clinton's negotiations with Israel for ME poeace - just to try get him smeared with Pardongate. It was a futile attempt - there was nothing there - but government documents were published for discreditting purpose. Not unlike now.

[madeline_con]

7. The term "leak" implies it was a big secret.

I never got that impression with the bio-trailer story when it first came out.

Maybe my memory's shot, but I don't recall it ever being something the WH wanted to keep on the down low. :shrug: