Chapter 6 Exercises: Propaganda and Democracy

Individual Exercises

Exercise 6.1 — Lippmann vs. Dewey Application (†) The Lippmann-Dewey debate is described in this chapter. Identify a current controversy about platform content moderation, media regulation, or disinformation policy (e.g., should social media platforms remove medical misinformation? Should the government fund public media? Should foreign-funded political advertising be banned?). Apply Lippmann's position and Dewey's position to the controversy. Which prescription follows from each? Write 400–500 words.

Exercise 6.2 — Habermas Audit Apply Habermas's public sphere criteria to a specific forum of current political discourse — a social media platform, a cable news program, a local city council meeting, or a college campus debate. Assess: Does this forum allow all affected parties to participate? Are arguments evaluated on their merits? Is the discourse free from commercial and state coercion? What conditions necessary for legitimate public sphere discourse are present or absent?

Exercise 6.3 — First Amendment Analysis The chapter describes the U.S. legal standard for restricting speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio: direct incitement to imminent lawless action). Look up one of the following and analyze: (a) Was the speech in question protected under this standard? (b) Should it be — i.e., do you find the U.S. standard appropriately protective or too permissive? Cases: Schenck v. United States (1919), Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992).

Exercise 6.4 — European vs. U.S. Comparison (†) Germany prohibits Holocaust denial and displays of Nazi symbols. France prohibits hate speech. Both countries are liberal democracies. Write a 400-word analysis comparing the German/French and American approaches to speech restrictions, using the arguments from the Debate Framework in this chapter. Do not argue for a position — map the strongest arguments on each side.

Exercise 6.5 — Mission Statement (Inoculation Campaign) Complete the Chapter 6 Inoculation Campaign component: a 150–200 word mission statement as specified in the chapter.

Group Exercises

Exercise 6.6 — Democratic Erosion Case Study In groups, research one case of democratic backsliding from the list: Hungary under Orbán (2010–present), Turkey under Erdoğan (2013–present), Venezuela under Chávez/Maduro (1999–present), Poland under PiS (2015–2023). Focus specifically on the role of media capture and propaganda in the erosion of democratic institutions. Report findings including: timeline of media changes, propaganda techniques used, outcome for democratic institutions.

Exercise 6.7 — Three-Position Debate Assign class members to three positions on the debate question "Should democracies restrict propaganda?": Position A (no restrictions), Position B (strong restrictions), Position C (structural remedies only). Run a structured three-way debate, then debrief: which position's arguments were hardest to rebut? Which position do class members find most persuasive after the debate?

Writing Prompts

Short Response (300–400 words): Ingrid Larsen asks: "Why does 'freedom' require allowing propaganda?" Tariq Hassan answers: "Because the alternative is worse." Evaluate Tariq's answer. Which alternative is he referring to? Is his argument convincing? What would Lippmann say? What would Dewey say?

Essay (800–1,000 words): The chapter presents three positions on whether democracies should restrict propaganda. Defend one of the three positions — including explicitly addressing the strongest objections to your position. Your essay should engage with at least two of the following: the Lippmann-Dewey debate, Habermas's public sphere, the Brandenburg standard, and the democratic backsliding research.

Capstone Reflection (400–500 words): Part 1 has given you definitions, psychological frameworks, rhetorical tools, cognitive bias vocabulary, an anatomical framework, and a democratic stakes analysis. Write a reflection on what has changed in how you think about the information you consume. Be specific: identify one thing you believed at the start of this course that you now evaluate differently, and explain how the frameworks from Part 1 changed your evaluation.