Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Reconsidering propaganda in U.S. public relations history: An

analysis of propaganda in the popular press 1810–1918
Cayce Myers ∗
Virginia Tech, Department of Communication, 181 Turner Street NW, 121 Shanks Hall (Mail Code 0311), Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Analysis of U.S. press coverage of propaganda indicates that the term propaganda had a
Received 28 December 2014 largely negative connotation in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Propaganda’s
Received in revised form 23 March 2015 association with religious, political, and grassroots organizations is identified and discussed.
Accepted 18 May 2015
This analysis concludes that Edward Bernays’s assertion that propaganda was a neutral term
for PR practice prior to 1918 is inaccurate. Implications for PR historiography are discussed.
Keywords:
PR history
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Propaganda
Edward Bernays
Media history

1. Introduction

Public relations history is subject to many misperceptions. One of the biggest misperceptions in U.S. PR history is the
nature of early public relations’ relationship with propaganda. The connection between this term is found in the early writings
of Edward Bernays (1928, 1952), the self-styled father of PR, who argued his invention of “counsel on public relations” was
a direct result of propaganda becoming associated with German communication practices in World War I (p. 78). Prior to
World War I, Bernays (1952) argued propaganda had a neutral meaning and was used to refer to public relations practice.
He even said that during his early career he referred to himself professionally as a propagandist. This history of Bernays is
illustrative of a larger problematic narrative in public relations history. Many of the early writings of Bernays (1952, 1965)
have been accepted as the consensus history of early American public relations. This study attempts to reevaluate Bernays’s
history of early PR by examining the usage and meaning of the term propaganda in the United States popular press from
1770 to 1918.
Creating a more complete, accurate, and inclusive history of PR requires a reexamination of these old, inaccurate historical
narratives. This study seeks to examine the true meaning of the term propaganda in the United States popular press prior
to 1918. While promotions based on truth or falsehoods will likely be criticized, propaganda as a term is important to
explore because of its role in the current professional identity of public relations. Setting aside a discussion of the efficacy
of persuasion writ large and what constitutes propagandistic communication, this study looks to the term propaganda as
explained and historically situated by Bernays. This study analyzes the popular press’ use of the term propaganda from 1810
to 1918 to evaluate the accuracy of Bernay’s assertion that propaganda was neutral term for promotion. This analysis shows
the term propaganda had a much more complex meaning than Bernays suggested and its relationship with public relations

∗ Tel.: +1 706 338 0568.

E-mail address: mcmyers@vt.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.010
0363-8111/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
552 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561

is more tangential than Bernays’s writings claim. These findings question Bernays’s history public relations and argues that
Bernaysian history of PR needs to be reevaluated.

2. Propaganda in current PR historiography

The received history of PR states that prior to World War I, a crude and unethical version of public relations known as press
agentry existed within entertainment. During the turn of the twentieth century, businesses began to practice a more ethical
form of public relations that was separate from press agentry. During World War I, the Committee for Public Informations
(CPI), better known as the Creel Committee, created a more sophisticated technique for public relations practice that used
psychological communication. After World War I, Edward Bernays (1952), a member of CPI, invented the term “counsel
on public relations” and formalized public relations practice as a stand-alone profession (p. 78). Bernays claimed that he
invented this term and new profession because he saw a need for publicity in post-war America and because terms like
propaganda had become exclusively associated with Germany during World War I. This neat history is commonly retold in
PR textbooks and has become an accepted fact even in some academic research (Hoy, Raaz, & Wehmeier, 2007; Lamme &
Russell, 2010; Miller, 2000).
In his book Propaganda, Bernays (1928) spoke about the history of the term, arguing propaganda’s meaning had become
corrupted by use during World War I. According to Bernays, propaganda as a term was related to general promotions, similar
to the proselytizing of the Catholic faith by the de Propaganda Fide. In Propaganda, Bernays (1928) provided an etymology
of the term, arguing that propaganda messaging was a necessary function of organizations that wanted to make themselves
known to the public. Looking at various dictionary definitions of propaganda, Bernays (1928) cited an article from Scientific
American that said propaganda was a “perfectly wholesome word, of honest parentage, and with an honorable history”
(p. 22). From this analysis, Bernays (1928) called for a “new propaganda” that would use Freudian based communication
practices, specifically targeted messaging, to influence American society for consumer products (p. 22).
Bernays (1928) thought that propaganda was the victim of public misperception, particularly by newspaper editors. He
argued the meaning of the term propaganda had been corrupted over the years and that propaganda actually played an
important role in shaping public opinion. He saw his “new propaganda” as providing the public service of informing society
about important products and issues that would improve their lives (Bernays, 1928, pp. 30, 158). Bernays’ goal was to create
a new understanding of propaganda in terms of public relations. He argued that propaganda as a tool could be used as a
social force to shape public opinion. In his work he was attempting to distance his “new propaganda” from the propaganda
associated with Germany in World War I (Bernays, 1928, pp. 30, 158). However, his attempt failed and in modern usage
propaganda is still largely associated with manipulative communication practices. Bernays (1952) even acknowledged this
by saying that the term had such a pejorative connotation after World War I that he had to invent a new term “counsel
on public relations” (pp. 79, 95). While Bernays (1928) was not trying to write a history of the term propaganda, his work
created a popular misconception within PR history that early public relations was called propaganda. This has created both
a historical and ethical problem for public relations. For instance, Bivins (2013) notes this attempt to use professionalized
public relations practice as well as introduce propaganda as a legitimate tool for PR practice created an ethical non sequitur.
The result of this work by Bernays (1928) is that the current study of public relations frequently mentions propaganda as
being the unethical genesis of PR practice. In response the field of public relations, both professionally and academically,
struggles with coming to terms with a history rooted in Bernays’s professional association with propaganda.
Bernays (1965) proudly self-identified as a “propagandist” to describe his pre-World War I public relations practice
(p. 285). Despite Bernays’s failure to introduce propaganda as a neutral term into the popular lexicon, his history of the
term did take root in public relations historiography. Cutlip and Center (1958) acknowledged propaganda’s role in public
relations, but never embraced the term to the extinct Bernays did. Cutlip and Center (1958) included propaganda’s history
in their well-known textbook Effective Public Relations, stating that early use of the term referred to religious promotion in
the Catholic Church. Cutlip (1995) also acknowledged the use of propaganda in his book Public Relations History citing the
communications used in the early American colonial period as a form of propaganda.
Other PR scholars note that Bernays’s depiction of early public relations history is largely self-serving. Karla Gower (2008)
argues that Bernays’s goal was to make himself the founder of modern public relations. To accomplish this, she argues Bernays
wrote many works denigrating early PR practice so he could elevate himself to prominence within PR history. Thomas Bivins
(2013) points out that Bernays (1952) continued to use propagandist tactics in his own campaigns, despite his identification
as a professional and ethical “counsel on public relations” (p. 78). Lamme and Russell (2010) also state in their study of public
relations history that the narratives created by Bernays are still prevalent in the field. Because of the inaccuracy of these
early PR histories, Lamme and Russell (2010) argue that “simply put, no area of public relations history has been adequately
researched” (p. 356). This criticism of public relations history has been reiterated by many PR scholars who argue early
PR history is largely inaccurate, ignores the contributions of non-corporate movements, and minimizes the role of women
and minorities (Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Lamme & Russell, 2010). However, despite this criticism within academic PR, the
dominance of Bernays’s history is maintained in undergraduate public relations textbooks. Meanwhile European PR scholars
such as Watson (2014), Bentele, Grazyna-Maria, & Chen, 1996, Bentele, Piwingerd, & Schöbon (2001), Bentele (2010), and
L’Etang (2004) have produced PR histories that argue public relations developed in European countries in a different way
than the American development described by Bernays. While these histories vary in their analysis, these studies show how
government and grassroots efforts created a distinct public relations practice in European nations.
 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561 553

Previous studies on propaganda revolve around the transition from propaganda to so-called modern public relations
practice and the growing professionalization of the PR field post-World War I (Bivins, 2013; Chang & Lin, 2014; Guth, 2008;
Salcedo, 2008; St. John, 2010). These studies either focus on countries outside of the United States, or focus on historical
eras after World War I. Recent studies of propaganda and persuasion examine the relationship between the two forms
of communication and focus on certain techniques as either propaganda or persuasion (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2015). Other
studies have examined the historical meaning of term publicity in the United States but do not address the meaning of the
term propaganda (Russell & Bishop, 2009; Stoker & Rawlins, 2005). Currently no PR study exists examining the meaning and
representation of the term propaganda in the American press prior to World War I. This study seeks to close this gap in PR
historiography by critically examining the meaning of the term propaganda prior to Bernays’ writing of the 1920s. From this
study, public relations history can gain a better sense of how accurate Bernays’ account of propaganda’s history and how
propaganda as a communication tactic were perceived in the pre-World War I era.

3. Research questions on propaganda in PR history

Based on this literature three research questions emerged:

• How was the term propaganda used in the United States popular press from 1770 to 1918?
• How did the term propaganda relate to public relations activities in the Unites States’ popular press from 1770 to 1918?
• Which sectors or institutions were most closely associated with propaganda from 1770 to 1918?

4. Methodology

This historical study keyword searched the term “propaganda” in American Periodical Series and ProQuest Historical
Newspapers Online from the year 1770 to 1918. The year 1770 is used as a starting point since it reflects the beginning of a
separate American identity that coincided with the Stamp Act Crisis. The year 1918 is an endpoint for this research because
it represents the beginning of public relations as a defined field since Bernays (1965) claims to have invented “counsel on
public relations” immediately after World War I (p. 287). The first article in this sample was published in 1810 and the last
was published in 1918. Given that an initial search of propaganda from 1770 to 1918 yielded over 50,000 articles; a sample
method was used to reduce the article count to a manageable sample. This sample looked at only one month for each year
between 1770 and 1918. The months were chronologically assigned to each year so all months would be represented. This
produced a month-year association as follows: 1770-January; 1771-Februrary; 1772-March; 1773-April; and so forth. To
further reduce the sample size; each month’s articles were organized chronologically and every fifth article was used for
the sample. For instance, if July 1800 had 14 articles; the fifth and tenth articles for that month would be included in the
sample. If a month had less than five articles; the article closest to the fifth was analyzed. This sampling method was used
for both American Periodical Series and ProQuest Historical Newspapers Online. This produced a sample of 450 articles that
were historically analyzed for reoccurring themes; depictions; and descriptions of propaganda. All articles had the term
“propaganda” either in the text of the article or in the article’s headline.
All 450 articles were read and categorized by the following themes: religious use of propaganda, political use of pro-
paganda, and non-profit/civic groups’ use of propaganda. This historical analysis shows propaganda was largely used in a
negative context prior to World War I and was associated with government dissidents, socialist movements, and foreign
communications. It is important to note the descriptions of non-U.S. propaganda are all from the American press. Because
of this analysis, only illustrates how the American press prior to 1918 viewed propaganda as a term.

5. The meaning of propaganda in U.S. popular press 1810–1918

5.1. Propaganda and religion

Bernays (1952) mentioned that Catholic use of propaganda showed that its origins and true meaning were respectable. He
also emphasized that Catholic propaganda was closely related to promotion of the religion. Unlike the history of propaganda
relayed by Bernays (1952) or Cutlip and Center (1958), propaganda in the Catholic context usually centered on enforcement
and power over individuals and groups. Thirty-two articles from 1812 to 1915 contained press coverage suggested that a
chain of command ensured obedience to the propaganda and strategic implementation of these rules on believers. This use
of propaganda took on the age-old meaning of Catholic rules and regulations put forth by the Pope and other high ranking
clergy in Rome. In fact, the earliest uses of the term propaganda in this sample are articles discussing Catholic doctrine in
religious magazines. Most of these articles represent news coverage of the Vatican or the Pope and their creation of new
“propaganda.”
Propaganda was designed to be directly implemented at the lower levels of the church, specifically in pastoral duties of
parish priests. Many of these articles focus on the powerful Propaganda Fide, a group focusing on the spreading of Catholic
faith throughout the world (“Current Foreign Topics,” 1884; “Intelligence from India,” 1810; “Pope Orders Reforms,” 1903).
This group consisted of men who created doctrinal interpretations and practices that were then implemented within Catholi-
cism by individuals such as priests, monks, bishops, and even Italian noblemen (“American Freer Under Old Rule,” 1908;
554 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561

“Literary and Philosophical Intelligence,” 1823; “Religious Intelligence,” 1865; “The Chaplet of Pearls,” 1869; “The Pope’s Brief
to the Jesuits,” 1886). In addition to training clerical leaders to promote “propaganda,” the Vatican also published books,
pamphlets, and encyclicals that detailed church doctrines (“Bishop Goodsell’s Attack,” 1900; “Rome,” 1830). Dissemination
of Catholic propaganda was powerful because the Church served as an enforcer of these principles. Many European countries
were directly affected by the Catholic propaganda. Even Jewish groups were the subject of the propaganda’s reach (“Fiction,”
1894). This influence of propaganda over European nations is exemplified by an article how in 1854 Irish Catholics paid
$45,000, over $1 million in 2014, per year to the Roman Propaganda (“Religious Summary,” 1854).
While Catholic use of the term propaganda meant doctrinal enforcement, the press described non-Catholic religious
propaganda as a type of proselytizing. Fourteen articles from 1887 to 1915 specifically discussed the propaganda of Pres-
byterians, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Evangelicals, and Muslims that was used to promote
their religious beliefs (“An Unhappy Controversy,” 1914; “Has 2,100 Colpoteirs,” 1915; “Some interesting facts,” 1887; “The
Methodist Episcopal Church in Italy,” 1910; “The Presbytery votes Against a Revision,” 1900). In this context, propaganda is
more like Bernays (1928) early analysis of the term because these groups used propaganda for religious recruitment. This
non-Catholic propaganda was not referring to the enforcement of doctrinal issues, but was linked to proselytizing Christ’s
message. This is particularly true in articles where Christian “propaganda” was related to educating the public about Christ’s
teachings, specifically through missionary activities (“An Eunuch,” 1819, p. 117; “The Forces Organized,” 1906, 726). Indi-
vidual preachers were linked to “propaganda” messaging that boosted not only their religion but also their own personal
profile. In fact, one article mentioned that Christianity used propaganda since Christ’s crucifixion (Eliot, 1914).
Other religious propaganda had a mixed religious–political message. Mormon propaganda was directly linked with
politics. Although this propaganda was linked to spreading religious doctrine and served as a basis for recruiting new
members, there were other political goals (“English Topics,” 1873). The New York Evangelist in 1901 commented on these
other goals by arguing that Mormon propaganda had ulterior political motives (“The Mormon Problem,” 1901). Religious
political power was linked to atheism which was part of an overall movement challenging religious authority. This use of
propaganda is not surprising since many Protestant groups, including Methodists, Baptists, and Mormons, embrace a concept
of Christianity that emphasizes the proselytizing Christianity.

5.2. Political use of propaganda

During the late nineteenth century, propaganda also referred to communication in a purely political context. One article
dated the use of political propaganda as far back as ancient Judea while another said political propaganda emerged in the
Florentine Renaissance (“Public Life of St. Catharine of Siena,” 1866; Whittaker, 1902). Bernays (1952) and Cutlip (1995)
acknowledged this use of political propaganda within the twentieth century. In these articles, propaganda emerged as a
form of persuasion in a variety of forms such as poster advertising, plays, music, movies, and picketing (Boeringer, 1896;
“On Picket Duty,” 1897; “The New Plays,” 1917).
The use of the term propaganda in connection with American politics first emerged in the 1890s. This use of propaganda
in a political context referred to communication by a political party or political campaign. “Propaganda” was used to describe
the campaigns of a nativist political party, a third party, senatorial campaigns, liberal election initiatives, the Progressive
Movement, the Republican Party, William Howard Taft, William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson (“A Referendum for
Reform,” 1899, p. 454; “Aims of A.P.A. Denounced,” 1894, p. 1; “Croker Coming Home,” 1907, p. 3; “Rival Camp in Capitol
Halls,” 1915, p. 8; “Scent Wilson Boom,” 1913, p.11; “Uncle Tom in Germany,” 1852, p. 185).
Other specific initiatives were said to have propaganda that supported their implementation. These uses of propaganda
included promoting conservation, increasing rice production, promoting educational institutions, increasing the sense of
American pride, and increasing support for military intervention in Cuba. Bills were also promoted by “propaganda” of
individual lawmakers or agencies who lobbied the American people for support for their political positions. Politicians or
Congress engaged in “propaganda” for a variety of laws to create municipally owned theaters, tariffs, public sublimation of
private charities, farm loans, increasing food supplies, prohibition, the draft, metal conservation, road development, unions,
Philippine intervention, treaty ratification, an accidental shooting law, and even a law promoting the killing of buzzards
(“After Philippine Facts,” 1900, p. 6; “Banning the Buzzard,” 1915, p. 6; “Congress Votes on Draft Bill Today,” 1917, p. 1;
“Federal Farm Loan Activities,” 1918, p. 161; “Good Roads Propaganda is Gathering New Friends,” 1909, sec. ES8; “Musical
Ownership or Theater,” 1905, p. 6; “Sale of Firearms,” 1918, p. 68). This use of propaganda by the United States government
or political parties had the goal of changing public opinion.
Nowhere is the use of the term more prevalent than in U.S. war efforts, especially during World War I. During World War
I, the United States government initiated a “propaganda” effort in Argentina to increase trade with the United States instead
of Germany (“Trade Propaganda In Argentina Alleged,” 1918). In 1918, the New York Times described the Creel Committee,
a World War I institution designed garner public support the war effort, as engaging in “propaganda” when they released a
film about General “Blackjack” Pershing (“Written on the Screen,” 1918). However, propaganda was not always supported
even when it was pro-American. Former President Theodore Roosevelt disparaged the Creel Committee’s power, stating
they engaged in “partisan political propaganda of the very worst type” (“Roosevelt Flays Hearst in Reply,” 1918, 1).
Such comments are interesting because Bernays (1965) referred to his Creel Committee work as that of a proud “propa-
gandist” (p. 287). This suggests that Bernays’s description of the neutrality of the term was not present even before 1918. In
fact, many articles from the late nineteenth through the early twentieth centuries describe political propaganda as a type of
 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561 555

biased promotion that was used to undermine authority. Propaganda from American political groups, politicians, and even
politically involved citizens was said to promote views that were untruthful attacks and outright lies (“Democrats are Fond
of Anti-Imperialism,” 1902; “What Fools these Mortals Be,” 1914). In a eulogy, the Secretary of War even commented that
“propaganda” done by the United States Army was actually harmful for military strategy and readiness (“Gags Army Officers,”
1914, p. 3). Other articles argue that propaganda should not influence the United States government and its political process
(Brooks, 1906; “Hears Borland Today,” 1916). Combatting propaganda was the subject of an article in Outlook from 1918.
Commenting on propaganda’s power and the necessity for its defeat, the article said, “Like the submarine, propaganda is a
weapon. . .. it can be defeated only by a weapon adapted to do combat with it. You can’t defeat propaganda with cannon and
soldiers any more than you can beat an airplane with poison gas.. . . The one weapon to make or break national spirit is the
written and the spoken word” (Browne, 1918, p. 67).

5.3. Propaganda in foreign politics and diplomacy

One aspect of propaganda’s use ignored by Bernays (1952, 1965) or Cutlip and Center (1958) is propaganda use within
foreign politics. This foreign use of propaganda shows that not only does propaganda have European origins in the Catholic
Church, but that European politics were commonly associated with the term. This may explain the negative connotations of
propaganda, since propaganda in the United States press was equated with foreign messages that were used to manipulate
political systems.
The American press reported that “propaganda” was part of many countries’ official press relations including India’s
political and religious independence, Siam’s treatment of women, Canada’s domestic sustainability, Germany discouraging
immigration to the United States, Filipino reform movement, China’s exclusion policies, a variety of political figures in
Central and South America, and among European royalty (“Air Immigration Scandal,” 1906; “Bad Prophecies,” 1879; Cerone,
1900; “Portuguese Revolt Wanes,” 1911; Proctor, 1898; Ruhl, 1914; “Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal,” 1908). However,
most coverage of political “propaganda” outside the United States focused on European counties. Some of the earliest use of
“propaganda” in European politics involved the propaganda of French politics (“Little Hope in the Hague,” 1907, sec. C4; “The
French Republic,” 1877, p. 5). This “propaganda” was employed by royalist political groups who argued for a restoration of the
Bonaparte monarchy (“French Want No King,” 1908, p. 15; “Notes From France,” 1875, p. 1; “The Fiasco of the Monarchists,”
1872, p. 4; Wilson, 1877, p. 600). French political party propaganda was viewed as extremely biased and containing many
false allegations against the Republic.
Similarly, English propaganda was said to have a long history beginning in the early nineteenth century. According to one
article from 1821, anti-monarchial “propaganda” threatened to bring down England’s king (“Domestic Politics of England,”
1821, p. 428). During the twentieth century, English “propaganda” was used in a variety of political contexts, specifically
during war. “Propaganda” was used by the English to support food rationing, combatting the Kaiser, increasing South Amer-
ican trade, and garnering support for the Boer War (“Bread Relations in England Next Step,” 1917; “Propaganda in South
America,” 1916; “The Kaiser,” 1918). Domestic use of “propaganda” in England also existed with the English government
using “propaganda” in their diplomatic relationships with the French, combatting wartime messages of Germany, encour-
aging Canadian self-governance, and maintaining an allied relationship with the United States (“Canadian Tribute to Lord
Beaverbrook,” 1918, p. 13; “Charge Germany Coerced Britons By Scandal Book,” 1918, p. 1; “Work of Press Is Commended,
1918,” p. 3). British trade unions were said to produce “propaganda” for socialist workers to encourage them to support
Great Britain against Germany in World War I (“British Workers National League,” 1917, p. 8).
While many uses of foreign propaganda involved government initiatives, other groups used propaganda to support
regional and ethnic independence. Bernays (1965) recognized that propaganda did exist to create independence for small
countries. In his description he does not acknowledge how propaganda was used as a term to refer to revolutions. His
description of the small-nation propaganda hinges on the amateur nature of their communications. However, in the nine-
teenth and early twentieth century the United States press used the term propaganda to mean something more subversive
and complex than Bernays (1928, 1965) description implies.
Discussion of anti-government propaganda is seen in articles about Ireland, the Balkans, and Russia. Wells (1912) said
Irish nationalists seeking an independent Ireland used “propaganda” in their poetry and literary works (p. 565). Other groups
within Ireland used “propaganda” to support maintenance of the Gaelic language, Sinn Fein, and Irish nationalism in the
United States (“Irish Here Call for American Help,” 1918, p. 3; “Irish, In War-See Hope For Freedom,” 1917, p. 13; Mahaffy,
1899, p. 110). Political propaganda included governments as well as ethnic-political groups who sought independence from
pre-World War I empires. Some of the most frequent use of political “propaganda” outside of the United States is found
in ethnic politics including Slavic and Balkan organizations who wanted independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire
(Pashitich, 1917). Their “propaganda” included education initiatives as well as a call for political activism. Slavic “propaganda”
was thought to contain not just deceptive information, but truth about their ethnic status (“To Free the Slavs,” 1918).
References to Russian propaganda was used by socialists, revolutionaries, and anti-Czarist nationalists to support regime
change. As early as the 1880s, Russian folk songs, novels, and a newspaper edited by famed author Leo Tolstoy were con-
sidered by the American press part of politically subversive “propaganda,” (“Liberty Loan Wins Russian Aid Here,” 1918, 4;
Popoff, 1893, p. 6; “Tolstoi’s New Novel,” 1891, p. 8). While socialist and anarchist groups created a large amount of anti-
Czarist “propaganda,” other issues were also the subject of propaganda, including the free Poland movement, support for an
independent Palestine, and clerical “propaganda” at odds with Russian law (“Russia,” 1887, p. 407). Political “propaganda”
556 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561

was said to be feared by the Czarist Russian government as early as the 1880s (“Russian Despotism,” 1886, p. 36). Beginning in
the 1880s, articles report that the Russian government began criminalizing “propaganda” that advocated for governmental
change, and some people caught disseminating “propaganda” in Russia were executed (“94 Are Accused of High Treason,”
1913, 4; “No Order in Russia,” 1880, p. 1). In 1917, when Bolsheviks gained political power in Russia a New York Times article
reported that thousands of prisoners accused of producing “revolutionary propaganda” were released form Siberian prisons
(“Siberian Prisons Give Up 100,000,” 1917, p. 8). The danger of Russian propaganda was even recognized and feared in other
countries. A Bonaparte prince refused to have his picture taken with Czar Alexander III for fear that socialist “revolutionary
propaganda” would use it to spread political unrest to France (“French Pretenders in the Light of the Great Strike,” 1906, sec.
SM7).
No other country’s political propaganda was discussed more in the American press than Imperial Germany’s. Of all
the historical accounts of propaganda by Bernays (1965), this description of German propaganda is the most accurate. Press
description of German “propaganda” always had a negative connotation. German propaganda was associated with espionage
conducted by agents within in the United States government (“German View of the War ” 1915; Nathan, 1915). Germany’s
use of “propaganda” was first described as lobbying the American Congress to stay out of World War I (Jones, 1918, p. 6).
German agents used “propaganda” on various politicians to secure U.S. support for the Kaiser or, at the very least, neutrality
(Vaka, 1917, p. 702). After the United States entered into World War I, many articles discussed German “propaganda” that
attempted to influence American public opinion that the war was unwinnable (Bigelow, 1916, p. 18; Grasty, 1918, p. 1;
“The Constitution’s Markets, Business and Financial News and reviews” 1918, p. 12). The United States was not alone. The
United States press described a worldwide German propaganda strategy in which propaganda was used in Italy, Russia, Spain,
France, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, African colonies, Slavic communities, and South America (“Columbia Bars Plots,” 1917;
“Doubt in Germany on Monarchs’ Deal,” 1918; “German Press Speaks Out ” 1917; “Germanizing the Flemings,” 1918; “Hun
Propaganda Deceives Italians,” 1918; “La Maison De La Presse In Paris,” 1918; “Switzerland Used as Base By Germany,” 1918).
In addition to challenging American wartime morale, many articles mention that German “propaganda” targeted
niche groups who had historical difficulties with the United States government. The press noted that German “propa-
ganda” was being distributed in Mexico to encourage a Mexican invasion of the United States to reclaim land lost in the
Mexican–American War (“Asserts It Is Inspired,” 1916, p. 1; “Mexico and Germany,” 1917, p. 12). Other domestic groups, such
as African–Americans and German–Americans, were reported to be targeted by German “propaganda” and asked to revolt
against the government (“Propagandist at Work,” 1918, p. 12; “War Referenda Plans Part of Propaganda,” 1917, p. 5). The
German “propaganda” problem was so pervasive that the United States government establish committees to directly combat
the problem (“Watches German Propaganda,” 1918, p. 11). These groups were tasked with providing counter-information
against German propaganda and uncovering German propaganda networks. In addition The Atlanta Constitution reported
that a film called “The Kaiser” was shown as “nation-wide propaganda” against Germany (“Only Sixteen More Showing of
the Great “Kaiser” Picture,” 1918, p. 4). The United States Senate in 1918 passed a Sedition Bill to outlaw any form of “German
propaganda which. . .was being spread throughout the country” (“Senate Accepts Sedition Bill,” 1918, 7). The United States
State Department even created a counter-propaganda in Germany to directly advocate for a republican form of government.
Despite The Washington Post stating that German “propaganda” though widespread was ultimately ineffective in changing
public opinion about the war, these articles during World War I show that among newspapers German-style “propaganda”
was regularly described as a threat to American government and democracy.

5.4. Propaganda and subversive groups

Although Bernays (1952) claimed propaganda had positive connotations, 75 articles from this sample from 1849 to
1918 associate the term “propaganda” with subversive political groups. In this sample “propaganda” was closely tied to
political movements that were apart from any government. These political ideologies represented radical or subversive
groups that challenged the authority of the government and even called for a new political system. Among the first political
groups identified as using “propaganda” were pro- and anti-slavery organizations in the 1850s (“Free Soil Party,” 1859,
p. 1; “Kansas,” 1856, p. 3; “The Political Future,” 1852, p. 6). These early political groups’ “propaganda” was depicted as
disingenuous promotion for their point of view on slavery. In fact, pro-slavery propaganda was portrayed as a deceptive
tool of the South and secessionists, focusing on the inaccurate depictions of southern slavery and the South’s intention to
expand slavery into the Western territories.
According to the press, pro-silver political groups in the 1890s also used “propaganda” to publicize the issues with the gold
standard and the necessity of electing Progressive politicians to national office (“Scramble for Office,” 1895, p. 1 “The Silver
Question and the President’s Letter,” 1895, p. 356). However, unlike slavery, the progressive propaganda was depicted as a
form of political advocacy. No article discussed how silver propaganda was dishonest or deceptive. Rather it was described
more like political talking points of progressives. One example of this is found in 1891 article from New York Times. It said,
“The silver propaganda here [in the United States] has made known the method by which it has given the impression that
the whole country is for free coinage” (“Cleveland and his Party,” 1891, p. 5).
The press also described early twentieth century temperance and suffrage movements as using “propaganda” to pro-
mote their causes, frequently associated with public education and as a means of creating issue awareness. Temperance
propaganda was associated with a public awareness campaign of the dangers of alcohol and calling for laws criminalizing
liquor production and consumption (“Hailed as Dry Defeat,” 1909; “Valiant For Temperance,” 1896). Other temperance “pro-
 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561 557

paganda” opposed these new laws by directly addressing many of the criticisms pro-temperance groups espoused about
alcohols and warned against the groups extreme position (“Figures Answer Prohibition Foes,” 1918, p. 5; Powick, 1904, p.
468).
Women’s suffrage distributed “propaganda” by pro and anti-suffrage groups (“Anti-Suffrage in the United States,” 1914,
p. 20). Pro-suffrage “propaganda” ranged from distributing literature to producing staged events, specifically staged arrests
(Hooker, 1913, p. 426; “Women in Convention,” 1897, p. 6). While press coverage of the suffragists did contain explicit
sexism, the coverage was not implicitly or explicitly negative. Suffrage propaganda was depicted as a political recruitment
mechanism that also served to educate the public on women’s issues and competence as voting citizens. Bernays (1928,
1965) failure to mention this type of propaganda in his history of PR is a great oversight since it represents an area of
propagandizing that exemplified grassroots communication and the inclusion of women.
Pacifist propaganda also began to be discussed in the early twentieth century. However, unlike temperance or suffrage,
pacifism’s propaganda was portrayed as a more legitimate political movement, perhaps because it was more organized and
had a foreign policy dimension. Pacifist “propaganda” first emerged at the turn of the twentieth century and encouraged
isolationism and the elimination of a standing army (Lynch, 1910, p. 629; “Woman’s Field In Life,” 1905, p. 2). This “propa-
ganda” was targeted to elected officials who influenced policy in Congress and was therefore described more in terms of
lobbying than direct public appeals. Pacifist or peace “propaganda” primarily used print literature and was quite vocal in
its criticism of war, foreign alliances, and the draft. However, this propaganda was not without major criticism. One article
from Life said that pacifist groups had a “lavish propaganda” budget that was financed by foreign groups (“Pacifists,” 1917,
p. 718). Articles depicted pacifist “propaganda” as unpatriotic and a danger to government authority (“Disloyalty Pledge,”
1917, p. 9).
By contrast articles depicted socialist and anarchist propaganda as a major subversive movement that targeted specific
disillusioned groups, particularly workers (Craig, 1878; “Current Foreign Topics,” 1886; Grabayedoff, 1892; Lawrence, 1905).
Socialist and anarchist propaganda was depicted as an issue not only for the United States but also in Russia, Germany,
France, and England. Socialist propaganda was frequently said to be distributed by agents of the socialist or anarchist groups
or parties. Press coverage of this form of “propaganda” focused on the effectiveness and the salience of false messages that
were printed or promoted in speeches (“Disorders in Russia,” 1905, p. 865; “The French Anarchists,” 1909, p. 865). One
frequently mentioned characteristic of socialist propaganda was its deceptiveness. Several articles focused on governmental
crackdowns on socialist or anarchist propaganda agents or printing presses that were widely distributing subversive material
(“German Home Interests,” 1899; “Internal Control of Anarchists,” 1901; “Why it Was Rejected,” 1895).
Unlike other social movement “propaganda,” socialism and anarchism was almost exclusively associated with danger
and violence, such as a New York Times article from 1905, which stated that bombings were a preferred method of promoting
anarchist “propaganda” (“The Paris Anarchist,” 1905, sec. BR276). Such propaganda was described as a threat to security and
to stability of the United States government. Socialist and anarchist propaganda was associated with deception and lying to
attract uneducated and disadvantaged groups who did not understand the true philosophy of the movement.

5.5. Social and financial groups and propaganda

While most propaganda use in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries referred to religious or political groups,
a handful of articles used propaganda to mean publicizing social causes and financial groups. Of the 450 articles used in
this analysis, only 21 articles fell into this category. This use of propaganda for clubs or financial institutions served to
persuade the public and change behavior and attitudes. In this context propaganda had a neutral connotation of raising
public awareness.
Most propaganda used outside a political or religious context was in the financial sector (“America and the Business World
Discussed in Recent Books,” 1917; “Dealing with Delusion,” 1896). One group that heavily used “propaganda” to promote
business interests was the Chamber of Commerce (“The Call of Self Interest,” 1913). Business promotion was not the only
goal of financial propaganda. Wall Street banks were said to use “propaganda” to influence the stock market (“Speculative
Fever Again Reached High Pitch in Stocks Last Week,” 1918, sec. A15 “What’s in a Name,” 1916, p. 22).
Social movements outside the political sphere also used “propaganda” to promoted their cause. These groups promoted
a wide range of philosophical views such as transcendentalism, racial equality, scientific research, a universal language,
Zionism, and conservation (“Backs Hetch Hetchy Plan,” 1913, p. 18; “Booker Washington in Florida,” 1903, p. 6; “Nathaniel
Hawthorne, Man and Author,” 1906, p. 458; Schinz, 1906, 23; Worden, 1910, sec. BR2; “Zionism to be Discussed,” 1916, p. 12).
In addition to these general social interests, stand-alone organizations also used propaganda for recruitment and promoting
club events. These groups included the Sunshine Club, a merchants association, a Jewish society, a safety exposition, an
educational alliance, an economic exposition in Paris, a cow protection society, the American Bar Association, the Audubon
Society, and a New York philanthropy for the theater (“An Expert’s Certificate,” 1901; “Bird Preservation Means Money
Preservation in America,” 1913; “Her Charity Scheme,” 1903; “Jewish Young Men Seek Farm Life,” 1912; “New Yorkers
All Astir,” 1912; “Religious Ferment in India,” 1904; “Revision of the Federal Equity Rules—A Report of Progress to Date,
1911”). Other large social interest groups also used “propaganda” especially to promote health consciousness. This health
propaganda not only focused on informing people about taking precautions with disease but also created awareness that
would result in financial contributions to research. Individuals such as John D. Rockefeller, an actress, and debutantes were
558 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561

said to use “propaganda” that promoted their political and social views (“A Simple Matter,” 1914, p. 15; “Again Mistress of
Her Art ” 1915, sec. SM2; Boynton, 1905, p. 570; “Rockefeller’s Man Defends J.D. Fund,” 1915, p. 3).
What makes this type of propaganda different from its religious and political counterparts is the tone of the articles
describing it. While religious propaganda was associated with power and political propaganda was associated with manipu-
lative persuasion, propaganda use for financial organizations, clubs, and individuals was associated with publicity. Aside from
one article discussing the dangers of “propaganda” for colleges, no article presented this kind of propaganda in a negative
way (“Demands of the Professors’ Union for Protection and Academic Freedom,” 1916). This private sector use of propaganda
suggests a relationship more with promotional advertising or publicity events. In addition, deception is not mentioned as
a characteristic of propaganda. It is important that among all mentions of propaganda, private sector propaganda was the
least discussed. This may explain why the term propaganda had limited success in Bernays (1928) attempt to resurrect the
term in after World War I.

6. Conclusions

Public relations research shows that Bernays’s role in PR development is frequently over-inflated principally by Bernays’s
own writings. However, this study’s goal is not to question Bernays’s own role within public relations development or the
accuracy of his early PR work. Instead, this analysis of propaganda seeks to reevaluate an inaccurate historical narrative
crafted by Bernays that has been replicated by subsequent scholars. In re-evaluating Bernays’s claims about propaganda’s
meaning prior to World War I, this study attempts to correct an inaccurate historical periodization of PR and question a core
historical understanding of American public relations. In fairness to Bernays, he was not a trained historian; he was a PR
practitioner. Like many amateur historians, Bernays (1928, 1952, 1965) public relations history was written with a personal
and professional agenda, informed by his own experiences, and done without using standard historical methods. Because of
that the history is inaccurate and presents an untrue linear narrative of PR development. Debunking this older periodization
and understanding of PR is important for new histories because critical analysis of received historical truths represents an
initial step in crafting an accurate history of U.S. public relations. Once these older historical narratives are evaluated and
potentially replaced with accurate histories based on historical documentation, scholars will have greater opportunities to
write a more inclusive, accurate, and honest history of the field.
These articles from the popular press show that propaganda’s definition was largely associated with deception and
subversion well before World War I. Even the earliest uses of propaganda in a Catholic context implied a power structure
imposing its will on others. Unlike the term public relations, which has an implied sense of accountability, propaganda was
associated with pure advocacy. Outside of the religious context, propaganda also is largely associated with government
and politics. This too implies a power relationship between sender and receiver because politics is largely associated with
self-promotional advocacy.
It is important to note that Bernays (1928, 1952, 1965) did not recognize that grassroots movements used propaganda.
Social movements, political subversives, and even revolutionary advocates were associated with propaganda. Perhaps these
uses of propaganda were an inconvenient aspect of Bernays’s PR history. However, by excluding these uses of propaganda
Bernays created a historical narrative that excludes women, small organizations, and laypersons. Because these groups made
significant use of propaganda and were largely associated with the term in the popular press, their inclusion is essential to
fully understand propaganda’s use and meaning in context with public relations.
This more accurate history of propaganda may explain why Bernays (1928) attempt to re-introduce the term in the 1920s
failed. He was using a term that had a long history of association with subversive, revolutionary, and dishonest usage. The
term also was used largely to mean religious or political communication and had a limited use in the private sector. While
it is likely that any promotional communication would be denigrated by opponents Bernays’s use of the term propaganda
presents historical problems because it presents an inaccurate development of U.S. public relations development. Applying it
to business promotions practice appears ill conceived because the term had never connoted socially responsible, professional
communications practice. This is compounded by the fact that the use of propaganda automatically connoted subversive
persuasion. Using propaganda, which by 1918 was such an explicitly loaded term, would disallow any realization of these
Freudian goals. In fact, by associating public relations with propaganda Bernays (1928) associated the field of PR with a form
of communication known for its dishonesty and deception.
Because of Bernays (1928, 1952) focus on propaganda, PR’s own identity has been negatively affected because many early
PR histories begin by wrongly asserting that early public relations was synonymous with propaganda. This study serves only
as an initial step in crafting a new, more accurate public relations history. Future studies in public relations should use archival
research to delve deeper into the figures and events that helped shape PR history. However, without analyzing these larger
historical timeframes and creating a new understanding of core tenets within PR historiography new in-depth studies of
PR may overlook seminal events and figures. Currently public relations history is limited in part by the received histories of
Bernays (1928, 1952) and to a lesser extinct Cutlip (1995) who were writing histories without using a rigorous examination of
primary sources, repeating often heard historical accounts, and integrating their own personal experiences into the narrative.
These types of histories are valuable, but they do not represent the type of accurate and methodologically rigorous histories
needed to craft a encompassing history of a field. To meet the challenge set for in Lamme and Russell (2010) survey of PR
historiography, scholars must first re-evaluate earlier historical assertions, such as propaganda, then delve deeper into the
historical archives to delve deeper into currently known and unknown figures and events that shaped the field. From this
 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561 559

type of critical analysis of the field a public relations history can be produced that includes the contributions of people and
events, both known and unknown, that shaped modern public relations.

References

94 Are Accused of High Treason. (1913, December 29). New York Times, p. 4.
A Simple Matter. (1914, January 1). Life, p. 15.
After Philippine Facts. (1900, November). New York Times, p. 6.
Again Mistress of Her Art. (1915, February 28). The Washington Post, sec. SM2.
Aims of A.P.A. Denounced. (1894, May 24). New York Times, p. 1.
Air Immigration Scandal. (1906, May 29). The Washington Post, p. 1.
America and the Business World Discussed in Recent Books. (1917, April 1). New York Times, sec. BR5.
American Freer Under Old Rule. (1908, July 26). New York Times, p. 9.
An Eunuch. (1819, February). The Port-Folio, p. 117.
An Expert’s Certificate. (1901, December 10). New York Times, p. 8.
Anti-Suffrage in the United States. (1914, January 29). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 20.
Asserts It Is Inspired. (1916, March 26). New York Times, p. 1.
Backs Hetch Hetchy Plan. (1913, December 6). New York Times, p. 18.
Bad Prophecies. (1879, February). Shaker Manifesto, p. 39.
Banning the Buzzard. (1915, February 23). The Atlanta Constitution, p. 6.
Bentele, G., Grazyna-Maria, P., & Chen, L. (1996). Public relations in the German Democratic Republic and the New Federal German States. In H. Bulbertson
(Ed.), International public relations: a comparative analyses. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah.
Bentele, G., Piwingerd, M., & Schöbon, G. (2001). Handbuch Kommunikationsmanagement: Strategien, Wissen, Lösungen [Handbook of communication
management: strategies knowledge solutions]. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Bentele, G. (2010). Is a general (and Global) PR-historiography possible?: questions problems. In Presentation annual convention international history of
public relations. Bournemouth, UK: Bournemouth University. July.
Bernays, E. (1952). Public relations. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bernays, E. (1965). Biography of an idea: memoirs of public relations counsel Edward L. Bernays. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bernays, E. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright.
Bigelow, P. (1916). Navy league attack. New York Times. March 19.
Bird Preservation Means Money Preservation in America. (1913, December 14). The Atlanta Constitution, sec. E3.
Bishop Goodsell’s Attack. (1900, November 25). New York Times, p. 19.
Bivins, T. (2013). A golden opportunity? Edward Bernays and the dilemma of ethics. American Journalism, 30(4), 496–519.
Boeringer, P. (1896, July). The Advertiser and the Poster. Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, p. 41.
Booker Washington in Florida. (1903, February 7). The Washington Post, p. 6.
Bread Rations in England Next Step. (1917, April 25). The Washington Post, p. 3.
British Workers National League (1917, April 30). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 8.
Brooks, J. (1906, May 3). Still the Muck Rake. The Independent, p. 1030.
Browne, P. (1918, May 8). The Vigilantes. Outlook, p. 67.
Canadian Tribute to Lord Beaverbrook. (1918, May 10). The Christian Science Monitor, 13.
Cerone, F. (1900, November 10). Legalized Associations and Secret Societies in China. The Living Age, p. 337.
Chang, T., & Lin, F. (2014). From propaganda to public diplomacy: assessing China’s international practice and its image, 1950–2009. Public Relations
Review, 40, 450–458.
Charge Germany Coerced Britons By Scandal Book. (1918, May 31). New York Times, p. 1.
Cleveland and his Party. (1891, February 15). New York Times, p. 5.
Columbia Bars Plots. (1917, April 2). New York Times, p. 11.
Congress Votes on Draft Bill Today. (1917, April 28). New York Times, p. 1.
Coombs, W., & Holladay, S. (2012). Privileging an activist vs. a corporate view of public relations history in the U. S. Public Relations Review, 38, 347–353.
Craig, E. (1878, January 17). Socialism in England. The American Socialist, p. 18.
Croker Coming Homes. (1907, June 5). The Washington Post, p. 3.
Current Foreign Topics. (1884, July 4). New York Times, p. 1.
Current Foreign Topics. (1886, September 24). New York Times, p. 3.
Cutlip, S., & Center, A. (1958). Effective public relations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Cutlip, S. (1995). Public relations history from the 17th to the 20th century: The antecedents. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dealing with Delusion (1896). New York Times, p. 4.
Demands of the Professors’ Union for Protection and Academic Freedom (1916, March). Current Opinion, p. 192.
Democrats are Fond of Anti-Imperialism. (1902, January 24). New York Times, p. 2.
Disloyalty Pledge. (1917, April 3). The Washington Post, p. 9.
Disorders in Russia. (1905, April 20). The Independent, p. 865.
Domestic Politics of England. (1821, April 1). The Literary and Scientific Repository and Critical Review, p. 428.
Doubt in Germany on Monarchs’ Deal. (1918, May 16). New York Times, p. 1.
Dr. G.M. Boynton. (1905, April 29). Congregationalist and Christian World, p. 570.
Eliot, C. (1914, January 11). Twentieth Century Christianity. New York Times, sec. SM2.
English Topics. (1873, August 29). New York Times, p. 1.
Federal Farm Loan Activities. (1918, May 22). Outlook, p. 161.
Fiction. (1894, May 26). The Critic, p. 357.
Figures Answer Prohibition Foes. (1918, May 18). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 5.
French Pretenders in the Light of the Great Strike (1906, May 6). New York Times, sec. SM7.
French Want No King. (1908, July 5). The Washington Post, p. 15.
Gags Army Officers. (1914, January 9). The Washington Post, p. 3.
German Home Interests. (1899, December 22). New York Times, p. 16.
German Press Speaks Out. (1917, April 14). New York Times, p. 1.
German View of the War. (1915, February 7). The Washington Post, p. 14.
Germanizing the Flemings. (1918, May 13). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 18.
Good Roads Propaganda is Gathering New Friends. (1909, August 22). The Washington Post, sec. ES8.
Gower, K. (2008). U. S. corporate public relations in the progressive era. Journal of Communication Management, 12, 305–318.
Grasty, C. (1918, May 7). French Look to U.S. To Foil Peace Plot. New York Times, p. 1.
560 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561

Guth, D. (2008). Black, white, and shades of gray: the sixty-year debate over propaganda versus public diplomacy. Journal of Promotion Management, 14,
309–325.
Hailed as Dry Defeat. (1909, August 16). The Washington Post, p. 3.
Hears Borland Today. (1916, March 14). The Washington Post, p. 4.
Her Charity Scheme (1903, February, 15). The Washington Post, p. 29.
Hooker, B. (1913, December). Mary Johnston’s “Hagar.” The Bookman, p. 426.
Hoy, R., Raaz, O., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). From facts to stories or from stories to facts? Analyzing public relations history in public relations textbooks.
Public Relations Review, 33, 191–200.
Hun Propaganda Deceives Italians. (1918, May 16). The Washington Post, p. 5.
Intelligence from India. (1810, May 1). The Massachusetts Baptist Missionary Magazine, p. 289.
Irish Here Call for American Help. (1918, May 20). New York Times, p. 3.
Irish, In War-See Hope For Freedom. (1917, August 9). New York Times, p. 13.
Jewish Young Men Seek Farm Life. (1912, November 20). New York Times, p. 17.
Jones, R. (1918, May 12). Opponents are Assailed By Congressman Howard In His Opening Address. The Atlanta Constitution, p. 6.
Jowett, G., & O’Donnell, V. (2015). Propaganda and persuasion. Washington, D.C: Sage.
Kansas. (1856, March 21). New York Times, p. 3.
La Maison De La Presse In Paris. (1918, May 20). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 9.
Lamme, M., & Russell, K. (2010). Removing the spin: toward a new theory of public relations history. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 11(4),
281–362.
Lawrence, A. (1905, April 16). Lovely Countess of Warwick Ardent Advocate of Socialism. The Atlanta Constitution, p. 2.
L’Etang, J. (2004). Public relations in Britain: A history of professional practice in the 20th century. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liberty Loan Wins Russian Aid Here. (1918, May 3). New York Times, p. 4.
Literary and Philosophical Intelligence (1823, June 20). The Pittsburgh Recorder, p. 352.
Little Hope in the Hague. (1907, June 9). New York Times, sec. C4.
Lynch, F. (1910, September 22). The Leaders of the New Peace Movement in America. The Independent, p. 629.
Mahaffy, J. (1899, October 14). The Recent Fuss About the Irish Language. The Living Age, p. 110.
Mexico and Germany. (1917, April 5). New York Times, p. 12.
Miller, K. (2000). U.S. Public Relations History: Knowledge and Limitations. Communication Yearbook 23, 381-420.
Nathan, M. (1915, February 3). Its falsehoods Only React Upon the Propagandists. New York Times, p. 10.
Nathaniel Hawthorne, Man and Author. (1906, May 26). The Living Age, p. 458.
New Yorkers All Astir. (1912, November 20). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 24.
No Order in Russia. (1880, March 17). The Washington Post, p. 1.
Notes From France. (1875, October 11). New York Times, p. 1.
On Picket Duty. (1897, August). Liberty, p. 1.
Only Sixteen More Showing of the Great “Kaiser” Picture. (1918, May 10). The Atlanta Constitution, p. 4.
Pacifists. (1917, April 26). Life, p. 718.
Popoff, P.J. (1893, April). Russian Folk Songs. Frank Leslie’s Popular Monthly, p. 6.
Portuguese Revolt Wanes. (1911, October 23). New York Times, p. 4.
Powick, W. (1904, March 25). That Troublesome Paragraph Two Forty-Eight. Christian Advocate, p. 468.
Proctor, J. (1898, September). Isolation or Imperialism? Forum, p. 14.
Propaganda in South America. (1916, March 8). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 2.
Propagandist at Work. (1918, May 11). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 12.
Public Life of St. Catharine of Siena. (1866, January). The Catholic World, p. 547.
Religious Ferment in India. (1904, March 9). Zion’s Herald, p. 291.
Religious Intelligence. (1865, December 7). Christian Advocate and Journal, p. 387.
Religious Summary. (1854, January 19). Christian Advocate and Journal, p. 10.
Revision of the Federal Equity Rules—A Report of Progress to Date. (1911, October 27). The Central Law Journal, p. 307.
Rockefeller’s Man Defends J.D. Fund. (1915, February 4). The Atlanta Constitution, p. 3.
Rome. (1830, December 25). United States Catholic Miscellany, p. 206.
Roosevelt Flays Hearst in Reply. (1918, May 26). The Atlanta Constitution, p. 1.
Ruhl, A. (1914, January 3). Campaigning in Costa Rica. Outlook, p. 35.
Russell, K., & Bishop, C. (2009). Understanding Ivy Lee’s declaration of principles: U. S. newspaper and magazine coverage of publicity and press agentry
1865– 1904. Public Relations Review, 35, 91–101.
Russia. (1887, October). Baptist Missionary Magazine, p. 407.
Russian Despotism. (1886, September 4). The Friend, p. 36.
Salcedo, N. (2008). Public relations before “public relations” in Spain: an early history (1881–1960). Journal of Communication Management, 12(4), 279–293.
Sale of Firearms. (1918, May 19). New York Times, p. 68.
Schinz, A. (1906, May). The New Language We May All Speak. The Ladies’ Home Journal, 23.
Scramble for office. (1895, June 7). The Washington Post, p. 1.
Scent Wilson Boom. (1913, December 18). The Washington Post, p. 11.
Senate Accepts Sedition Bill. (1918, May 5). New York Times, p. 7.
Siberian Prisons Give Up 100,000. (1917, April 4). New York Times, p. 8.
Some interesting facts. (1887, October 1). Christian Union, p. 3.
Speculative Fever Again Reached High Pitch in Stocks Last Week. (1918, May 19). The Atlanta Constitution, sec. A15.
St. John, B. (2010). Press professionalization and propaganda: The rise of journalistic double-mindedness, 1917–1941. Amherst: Cambia.
Stoker, K., & Rawlins, B. (2005). The ‘light’ of publicity in the progressive era: from searchlight to flashlight. Journalism History, 30, 177–188.
Switzerland Used as Base By Germany. (1918, May 30). New York Times, p. 3.
The Chaplet of Pearls. (1869, April 10). The Round Table, p. 234.
The Constitution’s Markets, Business and Financial News and reviews. (1918, May 7). The Atlanta Constitution, p. 12.
The Fiasco of the Monarchists. (1872, July 18). The Independent, p. 4.
The French Republic. (1877, December 3). New York Times, p. 5.
The Forces Organized. (1906, May 19). Congregationalist and Christian World, p. 726.
The French Anarchists. (1909, August 5). The Independent, p. 312.
The Methodist Episcopal Church in Italy. (1910, September 1). The North American Review, p. 403.
The Mormon Problem. (1901, December 12). New York Evangelist, p. 6.
The New Plays. (1917, April 14). The Independent, p. 95.
The Political Future. (1852, November 10). New York Daily News, p. 6.
The Pope’s Brief to the Jesuits. (1886, September 30). The Independent, p. 16.
The Paris Anarchist (1905, April 29). New York Times, sec. BR276.
 C. Myers / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 551–561 561

The Presbytery votes Against a Revision. (1900, November 13). New York Times, p. 5.
The Silver Question and the President’s Letter. (1895, June). The Chautauquan, p. 356.
To Free the Slavs. (1918, May 9). Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
Tolstoi’s New Novel. (1891, February 7). Liberty, p. 8.
Trade Propaganda In Argentina Alleged. (1918, May 29). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 1.
Uncle Tom in Germany. (1852, November 18). National Era, p. 185.
Vaka, D. (1917, April 18). England in Khaki. Outlook, p. 702.
Valiant For Temperance. (1896, July 19). The Washington Post, p. 7.
Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal. (1908, July 30). The Independent, p. 266.
War Referenda Plans Part of Propaganda. (1917, April 12). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 5.
Watches German Propaganda. (1918, May 12). The Washington Post, p. 11.
Watson, T. (2014). Let’s get dangerous: a review of current public relation history. Public Relations Review, 40, 874–877.
Wells, H. (1912, November). The New Machiavelli. Forum, p. 366.
What Fools these Mortals Be. (1914, January 24). Puck, p. 4.
What’s in a Name. (1916, March 11). Puck, p. 22.
Whittaker, T. (1902, January). Apollonius of Tyana. The Monist, p. 1.
Why it Was Rejected. (1895, June 6). The Youth’s Companion, p. 278.
Wilson, E. (1877, December 8). The Marshalate. Littell’s Living Age, p. 600.
Women in Convention. (1897, August 25). The Washington Post, p. 6.
Woman’s Field In Life. The Washington Post, August 10, 1905, 2.
Work of Press Is Commended. (1918, May 14). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 3.
Worden, P. (1910, September 17). The Farmer’s Wife. New York Times, sec. BR2.
Written on the Screen. (1918, May 5). New York Times, p. 57.
Zionism to be Discussed. (1916, March 9). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 1.