I'm aware of how the expression is misused. The question being begged is whether "propaganda" is a bad thing in itself. The way I read your argument, you were

I'm aware of how the expression is misused. The question being begged is whether "propaganda" is a bad thing in itself. The way I read your argument, you were summoning Bernays to show that since PR and advertising come from propaganda, they're bad by association. The problem is that it's a mischaracterisation of the concept of propaganda as understood by Bernays, who saw it as what we see today as PR, which is much less controversial than what "propaganda" has come to mean through accidents of history. Essentially, that argument is akin to saying "PR (today) is bad, because PR (back then) is bad." Ergo, I see that as begging the question, due to equivocation on the term "propaganda."