Can You Believe Your Eyes? (by Julia Buckingham)
Propaganda is a dangerous word. Invoking it can raise images of totalitarian dictatorships under the likes of Hitler or Stalin, state-controlled media, and forced indoctrination. Why then is propaganda relevant today? Is it even relevant? Propaganda is merely persuasion that uses repetitive images, phrases, fear tactics, or other methods of advertising to sway public opinion for or against a given issue. In an age where we are bombarded daily with images and messages, how do we determine where our own thoughts end and where others being to tell us what to think? Do we even notice propaganda anymore? We base most of our knowledge of government on news accounts rather than personal experience. We are dependent on the media for what we know and how we relate to the world. What if it isn't all true?
Sometimes propaganda is painfully obvious, such as images of extreme patriotism and sacrifice during times of a national crisis. These can uplift the spirit, but they can also rally the populace behind its government's actions. During World War I, when propaganda was first widely used, images of barbaric ‘Huns' raping Marianne, the image of France, or Britannia, the image of Great Britain were used to sway the American immigrant population into supporting their government's actions. The use of images and phrases determines how people feel and what they think. Even in democratic societies, mainstream media uses poorly disguised methods of propaganda during times of war. Wartime propaganda is even more necessary because it keeps the public's support for killing, telling people that it is somehow justifiable.
Today's fights are not so black and white.
Of course, it is unfair to blanket all news sources. There isn't evidence that there is some mass media conspiracy to keep us all in the dark. Democratic societies propagandize differently. In fact, propaganda is much easier and more necessary in free societies because governments cannot use mere force of will and coercion to achieve their ends. They instead rely on very subtle methods of advanced advertising. Some argue that the media almost unconsciously censors information and adjusts it to reflect corporate sponsors and political leanings. It is therefore perceived as keeping the principles of free press while still covertly persuading the audience to agree to a one-sided bias. This has become so commonplace that we have come to think that this is the normal way the information flow works. Items may even be propagandist because they merely endorse the status quo, rather than encouraging debate. Moreover, many media outlets are critical, but sometimes only superficially so, reporting on government or corporate corruption in a play against the other side, while still maintaining their watch-dog identity.
Propaganda tries to skip rational thought by generalizing and name calling. It uses nice words to describe terrible things in an effort to make the public accept them. An example of this would be the renaming of the MX-Missile during the Reagan years to the "Peacekeeper". It plays on our deepest fears and prejudices, weaving an element of truth amidst the spun fiction. Labels are very important to PR specialists. Whereas in the forties, ‘Commies' and ‘Japs' were commonplace derogatory terms for the enemy, today's label of ‘terrorist' is rarely missing from news reports. Augie Feras contends that, "freedom of the press has come under attack, since debate equals dissent and dissent is perceived as tantamount to treason or terrorist sympathies".
Even after the information is discredited, propagandist ideas are so well ingrained in the minds of the populace that they still believe them. An example of this is the elusive weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or the misconception that there was an Iraqi hijacker on one of the ill-fated 9/11 flights. Is propaganda always wrong? Of course not, but it is undeniable that frightened citizens are more affected by it. Fear tactics are used most often, inventing one enemy after another to frighten people into obedience and compliance with the state that is said to protect them.
Pratkanis and Arronson say that there are four criteria for successful propaganda, which most governments and advertisers use. They are:
- Creating an atmosphere in which the message is believable
- Ensuring the source is likeable and credible
- Achieving a message of simple, achievable goals
- Arousing emotions and providing a targeted response
In theory, in the modern United States, private and not governmental interests control the information system. Many popular television shows feature characters that have either direct or indirect political affiliations. Clearly, not all writers and producers have a specific political agenda, yet all media content can be interpreted from a political viewpoint. Even apolitical programs can take a stance by simply not saying anything. Those who own the large media conglomerates have the potential to wield political power. Ownership of the media translates into political power because owners can use media outlets to promote a very specific political agenda.
Silvio Berlusconi, a media baron and dominant leader in Italian broadcasting, was elected Prime Minister in 1994. Eight months later, Berlusconi resigned, unable to fulfill his responsibilities. In 2001, however, Berlusconi ran again and won because his three major networks gave him quadruple the exposure of his opponent. The media holds an enormous amount of power that can be wielded by governments or corporations to play on our emotions. Berlusconi's success was undoubtedly due in part to his being a recognizable figure and his highly successful propaganda campaign, despite his proved inability to rule the split country in 1994.
Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Arronson claim:
Everyday we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another. These appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions. For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda. (1991)
Overwhelmed? Don't be! Be aware that there are messages everywhere, trying to get you to spend money, vote a certain way, and argue a specific opinion. In today's world where nothing is clear cut, propaganda seems to muddle the everything further; however, it is important to know that there is truth out there. Maybe it is behind layers of glossy images and slogans, but it is there.
Sources
Chomsky, Noam. "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance". New York: Metropolitan Books. 2003.
Croteau, David and William Hoynes. "Media Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences 3rd ed". Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. 2003.
Fleras, Augie. "Mass Media Communication in Canada". Waterloo: Thomson Nelson. 2003.
Kitty, Alexandra. "Don't Believe It! How Lies Become News". New York: The Disinformation Company. 2005.
McKay, Floyd J. "Propaganda: America's Psychological Warriors." The Seattle Times. Feb. 19. 2006.
"Common Dreams". Common Dreams. May. 18. 2006. http://www.commondreams.org.
Pratkanis, Anthony and Elliot Arronson. "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion". New York: W.H Freeman and Company. 1991.
Delviche, Aaron. "The Propaganda Critic". Sep. 29. 2002. May. 17. 2006. http://www.propagandacritic.com.
* * *
If you wish to respond to an article or contribute to a future issue, please contact Hannah Renglich at editor@fiveminutestomidnight.org.
[ issue contents ] [ fmm home ] [ send feedback ] [ tell a friend ]
