Edward Bernays and the Difference Between Propaganda and “Public Relations”

People tend to view the term “public relations” as a normal and even good thing, while “propaganda” is considered bad and almost synonymous with lying, the greatly feared “disinformation” we keep hearing about. But why? In truth, propaganda is not good or bad, it is the concept of public relations that is new, and insidious.

Propaganda is simply a message supporting a particular cause or viewpoint, usually with a call to action. “Join the navy to go on adventures” is an example of propaganda. “Buy my vacuum cleaner because it is cheaper and better than competing brands” is also propaganda. As you can see from these examples, propaganda is not good or bad, it simply exists. Hitler drank water, but we don’t say water is bad now do we?

Humans have understood the basic premise of propaganda for millennia, but the idea of public relations is new, and entwined with the modern capitalist system of supply side economics.

What limited early kings and merchants’ propaganda campaigns is that they actually had the premise backwards. They struggled to convince an audience that they could provide something that is needed. A merchant might sell a tea kettle because that is a thing people need. A king promises to provide food so people don’t starve. Both a king and a merchant had to pander to existing needs that people already felt.

I say they had the premise backwards because they were contorting themselves to fill an existing role. Modern supply side economics works on the reverse principle. Corporations invent a product that is useless, or actually hurts people, and then use propaganda to convince everyone that this product is actually good and they need it. This is the art of public relations.

Old fashioned propaganda is passive (Buy this thing from me that you already needed). Public relations is pro-active. (Buy this thing from me that you don’t need and hadn’t even thought of

Edward Bernays, legendary marketing consultant and nephew of Freud, is widely considered the father of modern public relations. He invented the idea of propaganda that fosters an irrational psychological need for a product, weaponizing crude human sentimentality in a way that can’t be argued against or reasoned with at all.

His most famous public relations stunt is paying American woman celebrities to light up cigarettes at the same time during a parade and photographing them. Bernays then marketed cigarettes as “torches of freedom” (that’s the actual phrase he used, I did not make this up) representing women’s emancipation. Of course this is totally idiotic and insane, but it convinced women that it is good to smoke, that they NEED to smoke, and opened up the other 50% of humans to the idea of buying cigarettes.

What is being sold is not a product, but a lifestyle. People no longer simply buy a phone or a refrigerator, they swear allegiance to a specific brand that sells a range of products, and wear the label as an identity, literally with the same pride as identifying in a certain ethnic group or religion.

So to recap, boring old fashioned propaganda tries to use logical arguments to convince someone to agree with certain viewpoints. Public relations triggers the most base and depraved human instincts to foster mindless loyalty. A public relations talking point being irrational and stupid is actually good, because that makes it impossible to argue with. Imagine arguing with a woman that smoking doesn’t make her more free and she’s an idiot for believing that. There is no point in even trying.

Just to be clear, these base desires for a sense of meaning and purpose in life are not new. Authorities just did not understand how to harness these feelings properly until recently.

So when NATO trolls cry out “Bucha Bucha Bucha!” it is tempting to argue with them about whether or not Bucha happened, but there is no point. Geopolitical justificatioons for a war are not validated or invalidated by the actions of the individual soldier.

And of course arguing restraint and diplomacy is pointless too. Because you cannot argue with someone who screams “Bucha!” you might as well try to argue with the woman who smokes torches of freedom, or the sheep who shout “Four legs good, two legs bad!”

Ian Kummer

Support my work by making a contribution through Boosty

All text in Reading Junkie posts are free to share or republish without permission, and I highly encourage my fellow bloggers to do so. Please be courteous and link back to the original.

I now have a new YouTube channel that I will use to upload videos from my travels around Russia. Expect new content there soon. Please give me a follow here.

Also feel free to connect with me on Quora (I sometimes share unique articles there).



4 thoughts on “Edward Bernays and the Difference Between Propaganda and “Public Relations””

  1. Consider how the COVID lockdowns, hygiene theater, masks, and injections were successfully sold the public. All on the basis of whether you “trusted the science” and were a good person who supported the community.

    Reply
    • I think NATO side already lost all their cledibility.

      Bucha aside, those shit said many nonsense those days and it made them lost their all cledibility to Zero.

      Remember,
      “Russia attacking Nuclear Plant, it almost explode” <= that was lie. and who attack Nuclear plant was very suspiciously Ukraine Nazi and smearing Campaign.

      Remeber,
      "Russian Generals dying and dying.They are losing more and more commanders and generals."  <= also lie. In the west, Kadyrov was said to have died at the beginning.
      I laughed Chechen leader Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov appear very normaly when Azovstal corrupt. "Isnt He dead ?"

      bedides Ghost of kiev(really ghost ,not exist), Serpent island garrison that died and left a name bla bla.

      Yea , I saw. these few years
      NATO relatives never can handle the truth.
      They should not say anything anymore.

      Reply
    • If I did not know how implausible it is I’d think that Ian Kummer himself wrote this message to prove the point of the blog post.
      It would be reassuring, actually, compared of actually accepting there is a human being that wrote that nonsense and believe so. Hopefully the author was a bot, though.

      Reply

Leave a Comment