Autumn: Hey everyone, welcome back! Let's kick things off with a thought: Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why you believe what you believe? You know, why you’re drawn to certain brands, or why some public figures just grab your attention and loyalty, while others… well, not so much? Rachel: Woah, Autumn, hold on a sec. That's a pretty loaded question, isn’t it? Are you suggesting we’re all just… easily influenced? Autumn: well, funny you should say that, Rachel, because today we’re diving into Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays. This book, published way back in 1928. It's pretty much a blueprint for how those "strings" you mentioned actually work. It's a roadmap to how modern society navigates persuasion, from selling soap to steering democracy. Rachel: Right. And the thing about Bernays is, he doesn’t just acknowledge that propaganda exists – he pretty much calls it “an essential part of organizing society.” A controlled chaos, if you will. Autumn: Exactly, but don’t get too comfortable with that idea, Rachel! Bernays's metaphor of the invisible hand guiding society might just make you question who's really pulling the levers. Rachel: Ah, but then we hit the big ethical question, right? Just because you can influence people, should you? Autumn: Absolutely. So, here’s what we're planning to discuss today. First, we'll explore how propaganda works as society's sort of silent conductor, quietly turning potential chaos into something resembling order. Rachel: Then, we’re going to pull back the curtain on the "maestros" behind it all. The people, the industries, the forces shaping our shared choices and beliefs. And, spoiler alert, they definitely have their own agendas. Autumn: And finally, we’ll look ahead. What’s the future of propaganda? Are we heading for some kind of dystopian manipulation nightmare, or can this powerful tool actually be used for positive change? Rachel: So, is it fair to say we're talking about the essential social glue that holds everything together, or is it just smoke and mirrors to control the masses? Let's find out!

Autumn: Okay, let's jump right into it. Bernays argues that propaganda is unavoidable in today’s world. He starts off saying that without it, our democratic society would be just a jumbled mess of voices. Basically, he thinks we're bombarded with so much information that we can't possibly process it all ourselves. Propaganda, in his view, helps organize that chaos – it's like having a curator for our thoughts. Rachel: So, what you're saying is, without propaganda, we'd all be drowning in information overload? That's a fair point, actually. Think about what Bernays said about elections. Can you imagine trying to sift through thousands of candidates? Where would you even start? Autumn: Exactly! That's Bernays' example of how political parties step in to simplify things. They narrow down the choices, create narratives, and present candidates in an easy-to-understand way. According to Bernays, it's not just convenient but absolutely essential for a functioning democracy; otherwise, we'd end up with what he calls "electoral chaos." Rachel: But hold on, isn't there a risk involved? Simplification is great, sure, but what happens when the curators – these "invisible leaders" Bernays is so fond of – start twisting those narratives for their own benefit? What's stopping them from prioritizing their interests over those of society? Autumn: And that's where his concept of an "invisible government" comes into play. He argues that these leaders—whether they are business tycoons, media giants, or cultural influencers—aren't necessarily evil, right? They simply fill a need. Someone has to organize all this information, and it naturally falls to those with the resources, skills, and platforms. Rachel: “Necessary”, huh? It’s convenient to argue if you’re one of the people behind the scenes pulling the strings. I can already hear the CEOs saying, "Oh, I’m doing society a favor!" But Autumn, let’s get into the specifics. How exactly does propaganda operate in Bernays’ vision? Autumn: Great question. He thinks it's all about networks of influence. Let's use one of his terms: a "regimented society." He envisions people belonging to different groups; your place of worship, your workplace, or community groups, each with a leader. These leaders set the tone, guiding the group members, and spreading behavior and opinions outwards. Rachel: Okay, that makes sense, but I start to get skeptical here. Are we supposed to just trust that these local leaders have everyone's best interests at heart? Sure, maybe a pastor or community organizer starts with good intentions, but not all leaders can avoid the pitfalls of ego. Autumn: Good point. But Bernays isn't naive; he recognizes media and industry influences, which shape leaders' decisions, too. There's always a broader force at play. Propaganda isn't random; it's methodical, driven by technology and strategic communication advancements. Look at how enthusiastic Bernays was about the power of radio in the 1920s. It wasn’t just an info tool, but a way to shape culture. Rachel: Right, those "shared narratives" he mentions. Imagine a single message broadcast across the airwaves, instantly uniting regions. It’s awe-inspiring, yet also a bit terrifying. It can bring people together for good, like wartime solidarity or public-health initiatives, but it's also amplified some dark moments in history. Autumn: Propaganda's potential for good or bad depends on intent and execution. An example: Bernays also points out how affiliations boost effectiveness. If an idea lines up with a trusted group—your profession or even your favorite club—you're likelier to accept it yourself. Rachel: Ah, the classic "If my boss says it, it must be true" idea. But that takes us to the psychology side. It’s not just about methods; it's how propaganda affects our minds. Bernays was diving into group psychology before Twitter figured out how to make people go viral with outrage. Emotions matter—the more feeling you pack into a message, the faster it goes. Autumn: Exactly, he goes deep into emotional triggers—a shared purpose or shared fear brings people together. Think about political leaders raising awareness around certain issues to encourage unity when interests diverge. It's psychological fuel for creating consensus in a fragmented society. Rachel: But Autumn, isn’t there some irony here? Bernays says propaganda doesn’t take away our freedom; it helps us deal with complexity. Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? And yet we're here wondering if we’re free thinkers or just following what someone else suggests. Autumn: Bernays is pragmatic above all else. He totally gets the paradox and embraces it. His thinking is, "Look, you need propaganda, and we know it, to function in modern society. Complaining about it is as useless as wanting to live in a world that doesn't exist.” Even then, it makes democracy possible to point the way to a shared understanding, even though we might not know we’re following it. Rachel: But here’s the problem. If we don’t even know we're doing it, aren’t we just cogs in his "regimented society" machine? He’s basically saying, "Trust us; this is for your benefit," without being held accountable. Sure, I get it—we need propaganda to understand the world. But are we losing more than we’re gaining? Autumn: Okay, and that is the heart of this whole discussion, right? Bernays describes propaganda as some neutral tool which could be helpful guidance or manipulation that could hurt others. The real question isn't if we accept, as we know propaganda is an inescapable component of modern life—but how we manage it, and even more crucially, how mindfully engage with it.

Autumn: So, after grasping how fundamental propaganda is, we can now delve into its real-world applications. This leads us to, I think, one of the most captivating parts of Bernays’ book: “The Practitioners of Propaganda”. It gets into who these propagandists are, the tools they use, and the ethical minefields they navigate. It really sets the stage for understanding the broader impact of their work. Rachel: Exactly, Autumn. This is where we zero in on the real masterminds—the people who are actually designing and executing these campaigns to mold public opinion. And, let me tell you, they're not just average folks. We're talking PR gurus, CEOs, industry bigwigs—all crafting these intricate strategies to push ideas, kickstart trends, or, you know, get you to buy something you didn't even know you needed. Autumn: Right. Bernays really gives us an inside look at their methods. Let's start with the public relations, or PR, professionals—the rock stars of the propaganda world. He sees them as interpreters of ideas, acting as go-betweens between organizations and the public. Their job isn't just to push a product or a policy; it's about crafting a story that “really” connects, on an emotional level, with their audience. Rachel: Let's unpack that a little. Bernays even touches on the psychological skill of these PR people. It’s not enough to just say, "Here's this thing, buy it." They turn everyday stuff into cultural rituals or statements of who you are. Take, breakfast cereal, for example. Suddenly, it's not just about being hungry—it's about being part of a lifestyle or a trend, right? Autumn: Exactly. And one of my favorite examples in the book is about fashion. Bernays explains how a single, influential person—like a major fashion leader—can set off huge trends. When someone like that adopts a look, it takes off, spreading from the elite all the way down to the masses. Clothing becomes more than just functional—it's a symbol of fitting in, expressing yourself, and even aspiring to be something more. Rachel: Ah, the old "dress for the job you want, not the job you have" idea. Today, it's like when a celebrity posts a single tagged outfit on Instagram, and bam! Suddenly, everyone needs it. And, of course, the propagandists—our friendly PR experts—are right there, fueling the fire, placing the right articles, creating the hype. But here’s the thing, Autumn: if they’re playing on our emotions, doesn’t that feel… a bit manipulative? Autumn: It can be, sure, but it’s also about understanding how people work and using that knowledge effectively. Which brings us to one of Bernays’ key points: group psychology. He emphasizes that people don’t think or act alone. In a group, emotions often win out over logic. PR professionals tap into this, digging into shared habits, fears, and hopes to shape opinions or behavior. And it’s not random—it’s carefully planned. Rachel: Speaking of which, aren't endorsements a great example of this? Bernays understood that the right figure could be a magnet for public opinion. A trusted celebrity or public figure gives a product credibility—it’s like borrowing their reputation to sell your idea. Whether it’s an artist promoting a perfume or athletes on cereal boxes, it works because people already feel something for these figures. Autumn: And the genius of it is that it doesn’t feel forced. It feels natural—“If they use it, why shouldn’t I?” It connects to Bernays’ idea of building emotional trust. People link these figures or leaders with credibility, and that feeling transfers to whatever they’re promoting. Rachel: Okay, but here’s a thought—has anything “really” changed since Bernays wrote this back in the late 1920s? We still have our charismatic leaders and influencers. The platforms might be different—we've swapped radio for TikTok—but the psychology behind it all feels timeless. People still flock to authority figures and trends. It’s like we're wired for this stuff. Autumn: Absolutely, Rachel. And talking about evolving platforms, Bernays was “really” ahead of his time in seeing the strategic role of media. He viewed the media as the propagandist's megaphone, capable of amplifying messages to huge audiences. Just think about the rise of radio back then. Suddenly, leaders could speak directly to millions of people at once. It blurred the lines between personal connection and mass messaging. Rachel: Wait a minute—radio wasn’t just a way to communicate; it was a cultural game changer. It turned public speaking into something more personal. For the first time, you had political leaders or business people talking directly to people in their homes. It gave propaganda an unprecedented reach. But doesn’t that feel a bit… intrusive? Like we lost some of the space between our private lives and public influence? Autumn: Which is why Bernays thought it was so great—it broke down barriers and made it easier to shape public opinion. And I think it’s fascinating how propagandists combined radio with other tactics. It wasn’t just about what was on the air. Public appearances, newspaper campaigns, and radio broadcasts became a coordinated package, making sure the message “really” stuck. Rachel: A full-on multimedia blitz, you might say. That kind of consistency isn’t just impressive—it’s overwhelming. It’s tough for the average person to resist when they’re getting the same message from every direction. But let’s shift gears a little—Bernays also looks at the business world to show how propaganda works in consumerism. And this is where things get interesting. Autumn: Definitely. One great example he gives is how executives turned something as simple as silk fabric into a symbol of high society. By working with artists, they linked the product to high art, elevating its status. Consumers weren’t just buying something functional; they were buying into a lifestyle, a museum-worthy aesthetic. Rachel: So, buying silk became… buying a little piece of prestige? Smart, but also slightly evil—because suddenly, “want” takes over from “need”. And it makes you wonder, Autumn, how much are modern industries still using Bernays’ playbook? Autumn: More than we realize, I think, Rachel. The big takeaway here is that propaganda isn’t just about getting us to buy or believe something—it’s about weaving emotional connections into our everyday lives. At its best, it sparks creativity and progress. At its worst, it messes with us on a deep level. Rachel: And that’s the bigger point Bernays makes, too. Propaganda might be a neutral tool, as he says, but the ethical responsibility falls on those who use it. Are they being honest? Responsible? Or are they deliberately limiting our choices, pushing us toward certain goals without us even realizing we had other options? Autumn: Exactly. That’s the ethical tightrope Bernays is walking. He argues that honesty and intention are key—propaganda itself isn’t inherently good or bad; it all depends on how it’s used. But when you have that much influence, the temptation to cross that line has got to be huge. Rachel: I get the idea—propaganda makes modern life easier, sure. But knowing how it can limit our freedom if it goes wrong? That’s a tough balance to ignore. We need these people to be responsible, but, well, the skeptic in me wonders: who’s keeping them in check?

Autumn: Okay, so now that we’ve looked at who’s doing this, let’s dive into the ethical and societal challenges that propaganda brings up. This is where it gets “really” interesting, right? Bernays touches on the ethics and even hints at issues we're still grappling with today, especially with all the tech we have now. Basically, we’re going to talk about the moral responsibilities of people using propaganda, and how things like radio, film… and, well, the internet… make those responsibilities even bigger. And then we can talk about how transparency and accountability could change the future of propaganda, what do you think? Rachel: Sounds good. Straight into the ethical swamp, then! Bernays, ever the pragmatist, basically says propaganda is just a tool, like a hammer or something. It's neutral. But someone's always swinging that hammer, aren't they? So Autumn, what would Bernays say about the morality of the person holding the hammer, so to speak? Autumn: Right, Bernays would probably say it boils down to the intent and honesty of the person using propaganda. He's pretty clear in Propaganda that with the power to shape what people think comes a big responsibility. For him, the ethical line is drawn at manipulation versus education. If propaganda is used openly to inform and educate – like that Hudson Motor Company example – it’s a good thing. But if it's used to trick or exploit people, that's where the danger lies. Rachel: That Hudson Motor story is wild, seriously. Just one rumor about dividend cuts, and their stock tanks. Prime panic mode. And what do they do? No crazy stunts, no lies. They just, come out and tell the truth. Straightforward, honest communication, and boom – trust restored. It's almost too good to be true, for a company. Autumn: It is, isn't it? But what's really interesting is that Bernays uses that example to show how important transparency is, ethically. By getting all the facts out there quickly, Hudson not only saved themselves financially, but it reinforced the idea that propaganda can actually help society, not hurt it. It's a great example of propaganda working as a public service. Rachel: Yeah, but for every Hudson Motor, you've got a dozen times where that trust gets abused, right? Let’s not forget Bernays worked with Big Tobacco, encouraging women to smoke by packaging it as some kind of liberation. Was that transparency? Or was that twisting feminism to sell cigarettes? Autumn: Exactly, that’s the core of the issue Bernays is dealing with – the fact that propaganda can be used for both good and bad. He thought PR people should follow ethical standards, like doctors or lawyers. But with money and influence in the mix, how many people are “really” going to stick to those ideals? It’s “really” about self-discipline, I guess. Rachel: And what about the rise of technology? Bernays was around during the heyday of radio and cinema. Both of those things totally changed how propaganda could reach people. Take FDR's fireside chats, for instance. Those radio broadcasts didn’t just inform, they comforted, reassured, even charmed Americans during the Great Depression. It's propaganda, for sure, but it's also masterful storytelling. Autumn: Absolutely. Roosevelt turned the radio into a lifeline, building a “really” close relationship with his listeners. Bernays admired radio because it felt immediate and built trust. And with movies, he saw something “really” powerful: information, emotion, and mass appeal all rolled into one. Film wasn't just entertainment; it was shaping culture, setting norms, and creating shared stories across society. Rachel: I see the "shared narrative" thing, but, you know, films also reinforce biases. They tend to reflect the status quo, they don't “really” challenge it. Bernays himself said that visual storytelling could subtly shape what people think without them realizing it. It's powerful, but should entertainers also be moral role models? Or should we just assume audiences can figure things out for themselves? Autumn: That's the question, isn't it? Bernays seems to suggest that the job of someone using propaganda isn’t to challenge the norms but to reflect and amplify what people already believe. But the problem is, even just reflecting things can reinforce stereotypes. And if that’s not checked, it can hold back progress by just repeating the same old narratives instead of pushing people to think differently. Rachel: And hasn’t that just gotten worse with today’s media? Like, take those old movies and swap them for algorithm-driven Netflix playlists or TikTok trends. The methods are the same, but the reach is just massive. Bernays never saw deepfakes or microtargeted ads coming, but they’re basically the next level of old-school propaganda. I mean this is where the ethical stuff gets “really” intense, right? Autumn: Definitely. New tech has made propaganda way more precise – and riskier. Now, algorithms let people tailor messages to “really” specific groups, playing on certain fears or desires. Bernays liked how efficient propaganda tools could be, but even he might be surprised by how hidden and invasive today's methods are. That's why transparency is more important than ever. Rachel: Transparency is one thing, but trust is another. Once people suspect they're being manipulated, they're out, or, like, they become skeptical of everything. And you see that in the polarization we have today. People are media-savvy, but they’re also so distrustful that it's hard for the truth to even break through. It's like propaganda has turned on itself. Autumn: That's an interesting way to put it. Bernays knew it was important to keep the public's trust, but I don't think he expected such a strong pushback against institutions. The solution, at least according to him, is to focus propaganda on the good of society. Instead of playing on fears or division, the idea should be to create informed, engaged communities. Rachel: Which sounds great in theory, but it still depends on the people using propaganda to be responsible, and history's not exactly filled with examples of powerful people showing restraint. Whether it’s Coolidge dressing up in Native American clothing for a photo op or companies sneaking ads into classrooms disguised as lessons, these tactics aren’t new, they’re just sneakier. Autumn: You're spot on, Rachel. That Coolidge example is especially telling. There wasn’t necessarily bad intentioned, but it made an important cultural symbol seem trivial, which shows how easily propaganda can backfire. It proves Bernays' point that leaders have a huge responsibility to act carefully and respectfully, or they risk alienating their audience completely. Rachel: So, are we back to accountability, then? Seems like that's the common thread here. Whether it's a president, a corporation, or some algorithm designer in Silicon Valley, someone needs to own up to the influence they're wielding. Because once trust is gone, what’s left? Autumn: If Bernays were here, he’d probably say the way to rebuild trust is through real collaboration between the people using propaganda and the public. He thought transparency and ethical standards could evolve over time, like they have in professions like medicine. The big question is whether the people using propaganda today – the advertisers, influencers, politicians – are up for that.

Autumn: So, to wrap things up, we really covered a lot today. Bernays basically argues that propaganda isn't just some unavoidable part of modern life, but a crucial one. It sorts through the information overload and, you know, helps create common ground for action. And we looked at the people behind the scenes – the propagandists – who use their understanding of psychology to shape what we think and do with almost scary precision. Rachel: Right, Autumn, and beyond the examples, we really hit some tough ethical questions. Like, who “are” these "invisible leaders," and can we actually trust them to do the right thing? Bernays says propaganda itself is neutral—it's a tool that can be used for good or, you know, for manipulation. But with that kind of power...well, you know how it goes. Autumn: Exactly. And, as we were saying, the media landscape has just made everything even more intense. From old-school radio and silent films to today's algorithms and targeted ads, the tools have changed, sure, but the core principles of persuasion are the same. The real challenge now is figuring out how to navigate all this responsibly, making sure propaganda is used for the greater good instead of just, like, deepening divides or destroying trust. Rachel: Which leads us to the core takeaway here: propaganda isn't going away. It's built into how society works. So the real question is, how conscious are we of its influence? How can we tell when our opinions are being swayed, and, even more importantly, are we letting the right people steer? Because the choices we're making now are going to determine whether this "invisible government" Bernays talked about works for everyone or just a select few. Autumn: That's so true. I mean, understanding propaganda means understanding ourselves—how we think, how we're influenced, and how we can hold the people behind the curtain accountable. So, here’s a little challenge for everyone: the next time you see an ad, a political campaign, or even a trending hashtag, take a moment and ask yourself, "What's the real story here, and who benefits from me believing it?" Rachel: Yeah, it's not about shutting ourselves off from being persuaded completely, is it? It's about, you know, really sharpening our critical thinking skills. Because, like Bernays said, a democratic society needs not just informed propagandists but informed citizens who can hold them in check. And that, my friends, might just be the best defense against being played. Autumn: Couldn't have put it better myself, Rachel. Thanks for joining us for this deep dive into Edward L. Bernays' “Propaganda”. Until next time—stay curious, stay critical, and keep questioning everything!