Leaders in a liberal democracy must find a way to persuade the public to support measures it doesn’t and can’t know much about, without the means, time, and expertise to offer a full, rational explanation. In
order to get anything done, and to enlist public opinion on their side, they have to propagandize.
Somehow I have a problem with these two sentences. It's like an assertion or simplification. What parties do as PR-work or press conferences, you can equate with propaganda in probably a whole lot or most cases. But it's not like they have to use it. As pointed out later in this review there are other forms of "coverage" (the author mentions journalism). Maybe the circumstance that political coverage has on a broad basis turned into propaganda is taken as a premise here, but anyway I don't get the point of putting it this way.
What I'm concerned with additionally to political parties and politicians disseminating propaganda is that other coverage in the media can be hard to discern from it. Or more precise: Opposite views likewise (can) come accross as persuasion/ propaganda. For me - inspite of weighing up the different views that are involved in a given situation (/ story) - it's still like you're left with what you believe in the end. Especially when you're alone with the screen
This is where it kind of gets messy in my mind, as it links back to where the text says "[the citizens] couldn’t all devote the requisite time to understand how best to conduct all our affairs". So maybe then also Non-Leaders do/ have to propagandize? I guess relying only on media, at least non-dialogical, is somehow problematic.