Comparing regular fiction to propaganda is. Hmm.
Propaganda is a deliberate thing, where true facts are mixed with falsehoods or misleading information to force the audience to come to a specific conclusion. Sometimes this conclusion is obvious, like the "WAR IS GOOD AND RIGHT" propaganda that's been used for decades, but sometimes it's more subtle and is designed to make the audience question what they know or feel sympathetic for certain groups.
Take copaganda for example. In "progressive" cop shows, we get some very simple messages. 1) Individual police often do terrible things. 2) Some individual police are against those things. 3) The law enforcement system has a lot of diverse officers. These are all true facts.
Using that information, the conclusion that the show leads the audience to is, at best, "police are a necessary evil". At worst, the conclusion is "issues in the police force are individualistic and can be fixed if a couple cops just care hard enough". These are NOT true but copaganda shows are very deliberate in their message THAT police are necessary and helpful, and those shows purposely DO NOT show the issues in law enforcement as systematic.
This is propaganda because, again, it's mixing facts with lies and obscuration to lead the audience where the creator wants them.
This is NOT comparable to regular fiction because propaganda is specifically designed to manipulate the audience, which is not true for other forms of fiction. Propaganda depends on using real facts, established social beliefs, and ingrained biases to twist social perceptions of different issues.
