I've been accused several times of spreading propaganda. It's strange how so many people use a word without actually knowing the meaning of that word. I have already pointed out that fact when I explained the difference between mass graves and graveyards, the difference that majority fails to notice. Now I'm standing before the same problem, with a different term in question.
Propaganda is a Latin word that denotes activity whose purpose is to influence the broad audience and to spread ideas. It is a name of an association founded by Roman Pope Urban VIII in the year 1623 - Congregation de propaganda fide - in order to spread Catholic religion. Today the term is used for any association whose goal is to spread political or religious teaching, ideas and principles. The term is also frequently used to denote advertising.
Accusing me of spreading political (or religious) ideas and principles is, I daresay, quite preposterous. As I stated in the disclaimer which I abide by, this site is not about politics, it's about war. I have been successfully avoiding politics so far and I will try to do so.
Advertising, on the other hand, is something I also avoid. I do not have any products to sell and I certainly have no motive to advertise somebody else on my site. So I guess that this meaning of the term propaganda is out of question too.
Then why do people accuse me of spreading propaganda? There's a simple answer to that question. They heard the word in some context and formed their own definition of the word, based on that context, without looking for details. That's why they give the name of propaganda to any point of view that opposes war.
One of main characteristics of propaganda is intentional deceit in order to impose the given idea on a conscious and/or subconscious level. This deceit is achieved through various means, but all of those means are based on imperfections in the human forms of communications and the fact that we only become aware of the outer world through our own perception. This sounds rather complicated, but it's quite simple: the first part of the sentence means that there are many ways to say one thing, which is the cause of many misunderstandings between human beings; the second part of the sentence means that you cannot be 100% sure about anything you didn't witness yourself (see solipsism).
Based on such strong foundations many propaganda fortresses have been successfully built. Standard way of intentional deceit is a form of reporting that doesn't make a clear distinction between solid facts and their interpretations and assumptions that arise from them. This is especially common for US mainstream media such as CNN that intentionally mix facts with interpretation and erase all distinction between those two. That's why I have such a high regard for Stratford they have a diamond...