The abstract of a paper titled "The Implications of Propaganda as a Social Influence Strategy":
"In contemporary society, propaganda has a major impact due to the new technologies in the media (satellite television, the Internet) that ensure the rapid and instant transmission of information, thus expanding the audience. The concept of propaganda acts systematically in support of a doctrine, in order to persuade a large mass of individuals. It is generally associated with a negative action, considered to be reprehensible, and this is the consequence of the attempts that various totalitarian regimes have manifested abusively. Basically, propaganda is a conscious communication act with a political and revolutionary character representing a strategy of social influence. The element of difference is misinformation. Thus, this concept can be one of integration and consolidation of the society or, on the contrary, it can be a factor of agitation."
The author quoted Călin Hentea to define the concept of propaganda as “planned persuasive communication actions, supported by a sponsor with the ultimate goal of influencing and even modifying the attitudes and behaviors of a target audience selected to satisfy sponsor’s political interests, using falsified information and arguments, partially true, distorted and exclusive, alongside true ones and accompanied by various forms of coercion and censorship”
The Implications of Propaganda as a Social Influence Strategy (Rusu, et al.)
The first two paragraphs of a book titled "Network Propaganda - Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics":
"The second decade of the twenty- first century has seen dramatic new strains on the democratic project. The 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s saw the demise of the last authoritarian regimes in Western Europe followed by Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and to a degree East and Southeast Asia and Africa. By 2018 trends appear to have reversed, and illiberal majoritarian parties or authoritarian regimes are asserting themselves across the globe. As governments, civil society organizations, academics, and media tried to understand what was driving this global change, many focused on technology and technological change. Processes of technological progress that were out of human control were overwhelming our capacity to make sense of the world and govern ourselves as reasonable democracies. The most optimistic feature of our work is that the culprit was not technology.
Technology allowed us to analyze millions of stories published over a three- year period. Technology allowed us to analyze millions of tweets and links, and hundreds of millions of Facebook shares and words to make sense of these stories. And yet, all this technology- enabled research has led us away from technology as the primary explanatory variable of our present epistemic crisis."
Network Propaganda - Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics (Benkler)
A book titled "The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness" provides an update of the Propaganda Model. A description of the Propaganda Model is as follows:
"The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to explain how propaganda and systemic biases function in corporate mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, and political policies, both foreign and domestic, is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda. The theory posits that the way in which corporate media is structured (e.g. through advertising, concentration of media ownership or government sourcing) creates an inherent conflict of interest and therefore acts as propaganda for anti-democratic elements.
First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views corporate media as businesses interested in the sale of a product—readers and audiences—to other businesses (advertisers) rather than the pursuit of quality journalism in service of the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature". The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are: ownership of the medium, the medium's funding sources, sourcing, flak, and anti-communism or "fear ideology".
The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. In versions published after the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Chomsky and Herman updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the "War on Terror" and "counter-terrorism", which they state operates in much the same manner.
Although the model was based mainly on the media of the United States, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles that the model postulates as the cause of media biases. Their assessment has been confirmed by a number of scholars and the propaganda role of the media has since been empirically assessed in Western Europe and Latin America."
(from Wikipedia)
The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness (Pedro-Carañana, et al.)
Abstract of a paper titled "The Effects of Participatory Propaganda: From Socialization to Internalization of Conflicts" by Gregory Asmolov:
"Propaganda is no longer just a tool for changing your opinion. Now, in our digitally mediated world, propaganda is a pathway to instantaneous participation in political conflicts from the safety and comfort of your living room chair. It is also, ironically, now a tool for instantaneously breaking connections between friends and relatives whose opinions differ. Participatory propaganda helps to socialize conflicts and make them part of everyday life. This increasing scope of engagement can also lead to an internalization of conflict, which means that instead of encouraging you to filter alternative sources of information, participatory propaganda aims to reshape your cognitive filters as well as the relationship between you and your environment."
[Bio: "Dr. Gregory Asmolov started his career as a journalist. He served as a visiting lecturer at Media and Communication department at the Higher School of Economics (Moscow) and worked as a research assistant at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society."]
Abstract of a paper titled "Overlooking the political economy in the research on propaganda":
"Historically, scholars studying propaganda have focused on its psychological and behavioral impacts on audiences. This tradition has roots in the unique historical trajectory of the United States through the 20th century. This article argues that this tradition is quite inadequate to tackle propaganda-related issues in the Global South, where a deep understanding of the political economy of propaganda and misinformation is urgently needed."
Overlooking the political economy in the research on propaganda (Abhishek)
Abstract of a paper titled "Propaganda, Presumed Influence, and Collective Protest":
"Political propaganda can reduce citizens’ inclinations to protest by directly influencing their preferences or beliefs about the government. However, given that protest is risky in authoritarian societies and requires collective participation, propaganda can also reduce citizens’ inclination to protest by making them think that other citizens, rather than themselves, may have been influenced by propaganda and are, as a result, unwilling to protest. We test this indirect mechanism of propaganda using a survey experiment with Chinese internet users from diverse backgrounds and find that they do believe propaganda affects other citizens’ support for and beliefs about the government more than their own support and beliefs. Moreover, they believe that propaganda reduces other citizens’ willingness to protest, which in turn reduces their own willingness to protest. Therefore, the power of propaganda may sometimes lie more in the social perceptions and uncertainty it creates than in its direct individual effects."
Propaganda, Presumed Influence, and Collective Protest (Huang, et al.)