Early this year, the internet was flooded with powerful pictures and messages related to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. Millions fell for the propaganda, developed their own perceptions (albeit indiscreetly) and shared post that contained disturbing but seemingly legitimate pictures of the atrocities Myanmar Muslims endured at the hands of the majority Buddhist population. Emotions were aroused, demonstrations were organised and hate had a field day.

It was only after BBC reported the pictures as fake that the trend faded and emotions cooled. It turned out that most of those pictures were sourced from the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2002, and other disasters.

Similarly, news and pictures of national parties promoting their political interests, doctors mishandling cases, fashion designers mistreating customers and religious posters disseminating emotional messages that are being continuously re-posted and retweeted show just how persuasive and powerful propaganda messages are. People accept and share such emotional messages without even looking for evidence. What they don’t realise is that their opinions are a reflection of someone else’s thoughts; or should we say somebody’s ‘strategically positioned messages’, used to spread a certain ideology.

Once a message has been skilfully framed, propagandists use community influencers, celebrities, news agencies, political parties, businesses and corporations, etc. to spread it around.

The question here is: How are perceptions created and propaganda escalated through social media?

Wali Zahid, social media activist and trainer, says, “Perceptions are deliberately created to promote propaganda. Earlier, people would read newspapers and magazines to form opinions. Gradually, they started relying on electronic media for sound judgments. Today, social media has emerged as the fastest means of informfation, but one that is unaudited; therefore messages are written in such a way that they resonate with the reader’s conscience as well as moral, societal and cultural values.

“Since, people generally look up to others to form their opinions, the multiplier effect takes place and individuals begin to adopt and cascade an ideology they were originally subtly counselled towards. Rohingya crisis is one such example. Those who wanted to create unrest in the Muslim world generated distressing pictures with emotional messages involving religion, and positioned them in a way that it looked like an episode of barbarity against Muslims. This sensationalised the matter.

Also, people weren’t fully aware of what was happening in Myanmar and its history, therefore the pictures resulted in a mini social media revolution, where tens of thousands of people liked, shared and commented on the trend, making the stunt successful for a limited time.”

Commenting on how communicators play with the human mind, Dr Shahid Iqbal, a clinical psychologist, said, “Communicators write messages in different ways to sway their audience. For example, a common approach is that of the ‘band wagon’ that encourages people to have the same opinion as held by many. Words are laden with emotions. Since masses don’t have enough knowledge of the matter nor have time to investigate, they tend to side with the most popular belief. Political parties often use this technique to create certain perceptions. Myanmar event falls in this category.”

Contemporary forms of propaganda have seeped into our lives so sophisticatedly through print, electronic and social media that it gets hard to recognise and contest it. The only way to curb it is by investigating all angles of the story, instead of looking at one aspect only.

‘Glittering generalities’ is another such technique. Here positive messages about popular concepts are used to spread propaganda subliminally. Religious parties and social workers use such messages to gain support for their purposes. Realities are twisted with passionate messages to change the nature of the matter. People can’t deny universal truths, such as religious pictures and feminist one-liners, and hit the like icon, developing the intended perceptions.

Similarly, ‘card stacking’ technique presents the positive side of the matter only, totally omitting the damaging details. Advertisements use this quite often, where harmful details are left out purposely.

Once a message has been skilfully framed, propagandists use community influencers, celebrities, news agencies, political parties, businesses and corporations, etc. to spread it around.

But, the masses have a completely different approach towards social media. According to our survey, a whopping 60 per cent of respondents said they believed in the information available on social media because it is an open source of information that is easily verifiable. Contrary to what experts say, the respondents argued that wrong information would come into notice very quickly and someone would confront and rectify it.

Countering the reasons cited by the participants, M. Ali Soomro, a renowned anchorperson and International Broadcast Journalist says that “People think that information on social media has been vetted; however, this rarely happens — until someone comes forward to confront the false news or misinterpretations. For example, Reham Khan and Junaid Jamshed gave their explanations otherwise news is hardly verified. Besides, who will rectify it? Users simply don’t have enough time or inclination.

One can only report a certain post / tweet / update on social media and wait for the concerned authorities to respond. Unlike electronic and print media, social media doesn’t have any rules and regulations laid down by local authorities such as PEMRA.”

Propaganda has existed for centuries, but it has been typically reserved for historical regimes like Nazis and Stalinist Russia. Contemporary forms of propaganda have seeped into our lives so sophisticatedly through print, electronic and social media that it gets hard to recognise and contest it. The only way to curb it is by investigating all angles of the story, instead of looking at one aspect only.

“Sources’ reputation and users’ awareness matter a lot when it comes to trusting information available on social media. Users must verify the news themselves, before cascading it. For example, baby Aylan’s devastating pictures were first verified and then shared, compelling the world leaders to take some action. Had they been photo-shopped or fake, the stunt would’ve been long caught and refugees would have been left in the lurch,” Zahid rationalised.

Critically analysing the story by asking questions like ‘What’s the history behind this subject?’ ‘Who could it benefit?’ ‘What does the broader picture look like?’ will it help the readers develop appropriate perceptions and discern between propaganda and a genuine story?

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, October 4th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play