Na temelju analize sadržaja dvaju najvećih hrvatskih dnevnih listova autori propituju razliku između informiranja i propagande u kontekstu referendumske inicijative “U ime obitelji” kojom je u Ustav Republike Hrvatske unesena definicija braka kao zajednica muškarca i žene. U sukusu istraživanja stoji pitanje: Kako to da je inicijativa uspjela unatoč činjenici što je golema većina medija, kao i vladajuća garnitura, bila protiv, odnosno kako da takva medijska kampanja nije uspjela, unatoč ne samo proponentskoj, već i financijskoj potpori vlasti? U medijskom smislu radilo se o borbi Davida (ZA) i Golijata (PROTIV). Na tragu mediologa Regisa Debraya koji razlikuje komunikaciju, kao prenošenje informacija u prostoru na sinkronijski način, te transmisiju (prijenos), kao prenošenje informacija u vremenu na dijakronijski način, autori ukazuju na granice medijskih kampanja i propagande (komunikacija) kada se suoče s “institucijama pamćenja” kao što su obitelj, Crkve te tradicija nekog kolektiviteta općenito (prijenos). Na tragu Erazma Roterdamskog (“teže je odučiti nego naučiti”) autori dolaze do zaključka da su mediji (sinkronijski princip koji tvori društvo) nemoćni bez zahvata u institucije pamćenja (prijenos, dijakronijski princip koji tvori kulturu, tradiciju), što se u mnogim državama Zapada, pa i u Hrvatskoj, (neo)jakobinskim principom preodgoja kroz sustav građanskog i zdravstvenog odgoja čini ili pokušava učiniti.Analyzing the contents of the two largest Croatian dailies the authors investigate the difference between information and propaganda in the context of the referendum initiative “On Behalf of the Family” by which the definition of marriage as a union of man and woman has been entered into the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. The essential question of the research is: How is it that the initiative was successful despite the fact that the vast majority of the media, as well as the establishment in power, was against, i.e. how is it that such a media campaign failed in spite of, not only propounding support, but also financial support of the authorities? In terms of the media it was a battle of David (FOR) and Goliath (AGAINST). Along the line of a mediologist Regis Debray who distinguishes communication as a transfer of information in space in synchronic manner and transmission (transport) as a transfer of information in time in diachronic manner, the authors point to the boundaries of media campaigns and propaganda (communication) when faced with the “institutions of memory” such as family, church, or tradition of a collectivity in general (transport). Along the lines of Erasmus of Rotterdam (“it is harder to unlearn than to learn”), the authors conclude that the media (synchronic principle which constitutes society) are powerless without the intervention in the institutions of memory (transmission, diachronic principle which constitutes culture, tradition), which is being done or attempted to be done in many Western countries, and in Croatia as well, by neo-Jacobin principle of re-education through the system of civic and health education
