on, the analysis will seek to determine whether or not the presence of propaganda throughout the modern world is merely something that exists naturally or whether or not it is an purposeful and authored process.
Firstly, it should be understood that the nature and definition of propaganda itself lends the reader to assume that the process of information distribution and purposeful deception is not something that merely “happens”. 1 Of course there are many instances throughout the world in which incomplete information is transmitted to the media participant; however, these inadvertent instances do not accurately define the conventional definition of “propaganda”. Ultimately, the use of propaganda, by its very definition and nature, is to deceive or mislead the media participant to understand the world or a particular situation within a given construct or manner. As such, it is painfully obvious that the majority of propaganda that exists is most certainly a technique by which entities, individuals, or governments attempt sway the opinions of societal stakeholders. Therefore, the reader can adequately assume that the types of “propaganda” under discussion is more likely than not an authored process that is intended to be misleading, untrue, or inaccurate.2
As with a legal discussion of motive, the question that has thus far been represented ultimately reduces to the intention of the way the information is represented. In the event that a particular entity, government, or individual represents information in a willfully deceitful manner as a means of swaying individual opinions, then it is clear and apparent that the process is a technique which is engaged as a means of effecting a particular goal.3 Yet, in the event that incomplete, untrue, or inaccurate information is represented to a group or an audience with no intention to deceive or mislead, then it cannot be said that such a process is propaganda; rather, it is an inadvertent process that