I have received a few e-mails from readers who took exception to my use of the word “propaganda” in a front-page story to refer to materials distributed by Citizens Against The Local Sale of Alcohol in the run-up to the May 8 localoption liquor election.

Bryant They claim I am biased and that “propaganda” should have been reserved for our opinion page. One reader demanded a retraction of the statement in which the word was used.

I was even told to make sure I know what propaganda means before I use it to describe anything. So, in the interest of clarification, I will share the meaning of the word.

Propaganda is “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.; the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.; the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.”

It is also “a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture.”

Any of those can be used to describe how Citizens encouraged voters to oppose the May 8 liquor election. For example, two sheets of paper mailed to residents showed a genericlooking image of several children huddled together, above them reasons to vote against legalizing the sale of beer, wine, and liquor in Brownsboro.

The materials said that people who “want” alcohol could buy it “20 minutes outside of our town ... a safe distance from our children.” A suburbanlooking building with a sign in front suggested the town was up for grabs in exchange for some alcohol. Below that, the author tried to refute claims that liquor sales would boost Brownsboro’s tax revenue.

And in step with oppo- nents’ arguments against selling alcohol in stores, the materials that contained misspelled words and bad grammar claimed families would be destroyed and crime would increase.

To be sure, that is propaganda. It included no information to support the opposition’s argument, no scientific data to back up its claims. Instead, the intent was to scare voters into believing alcohol sales in Brownsboro would lead only to adverse results - underage drinking, car accidents and substance abuse.

Nothing is wrong with opposing legalizing alcohol sales in Brownsboro, and nothing is wrong with advocating it. But once either side starts using baseless, exaggerated or far-reaching claims to advance its cause, that’s when it becomes propaganda.

If that wasn’t the opposition’s intent, it should have thought more carefully about how it was going to promote its message. Here’s why:

*Even though the nearest liquor store is 13 miles away, that won’t stop minors determined to drink to get access to alcohol. Citizens suggests those 13 miles is enough of a buffer to prevent underage drinking.

•Citizens says alcohol sales in Brownsboro would increase substance abuse. With wet areas north, east, west and south of town, those who abuse alcohol can do so without buying it here.

In other words, they can already buy it somewhere else and bring it back home. The fact Brownsboro remains dry won’t change people’s drinking habits — or their criminal tendencies, as Citizens suggests it would.

•Citizens hung on tightly to the city’s two-percent sales tax on alcohol as being too low an “offer.” But money spent at local businesses advances the local economy, providing a domino effect for existing companies or those looking to come here.

Paul Bryant is managing editor of The Chandler & Brownsboro Statesman. In a 16-year career, he has been recognized by state press associations for investigative and political journalism, features writing, and photojournalism.