May 26, 2002

Politicians want to win our hearts and minds, and businesses want to win our cash. Both use the media to try to gain mass support by manipulating public opinion through twisted information. The modern age is as much about propaganda as it is about information

MASSES are often scattered, loosely organized, and confused. On the other hand, there are in modern society various organized groups of individuals who know what they want, and are out to get it. They have ideas, products or services they wish to sell, and are in search of as large a market as possible. Some are already in a position of power, and are seeking to sustain or strengthen it; they have a ‘corner’ on some particular domain or market, and are called ‘vested interests’. Others are seeking to wrest power from the vested interests, and, if successful, to become, in turn, vested interests themselves. Both realize that to enjoy power, they must not be unfavourable towards them.

Special-interest groups and political leaders all try to shape public tastes and attitudes. Politicians want to win our hearts and minds, and businesses want to win our cash. Both use the media to try to gain mass support by manipulating public opinion. In other words, they generate propaganda, information presented with the intention of shaping public opinion.

NATURE OF PROPAGANDA: Because one is bombarded on all sides by propaganda in our day, it is desirable to understand what propaganda is, and how it operates. It consists of symbolic influences that are exerted upon us to make us think or act in a particular way. Propaganda operates on the principle of the ideo-motor suggestibility of persons, the inclination to follow out more or less automatically the suggestions that are given.

The propagandist has certain interests he wishes to promote; he can promote them if he secures our support. He knows this and very deliberately sets out to influence us. Propaganda is, thus, consciously directed. It may sometimes have unintended consequences, but it is always deliberate.

Propaganda differs fundamentally from scientific analysis. The propagandist tries to ‘put something across’, good or bad. The scientist does not try to put any thing across; he devotes his life to the discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is always prepared for, and wants, the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and ideas.

Although the term has negative connotations, propaganda is not necessarily false. A thin line separates information from propaganda; the difference depends mostly on the presenter’s intention. We offer information to enlighten others; we use propaganda to sway an audience towards some viewpoint.

Alfred and Elizabeth Lee (1979) have identified seven methods that are frequently used to sway public opinion:

* Name calling, or giving something a negative label. This method is designed to make the audience reject an idea, person, or product without analysis. If a candidate is ‘ultra conservative’, ‘ultra liberal’, ‘flaky’, or a ‘big spender’, why bother to consider his or her qualifications seriously? If abortion is ‘murder’, who can support its legalization?

* Glittering generality, the opposite of name calling. An idea or product is associated with a general, ambiguous, but extremely popular concept or belief. If a war represents the defence of democracy and freedom, who can oppose it?

* Transfer, or associating an idea or product with something else that is widely respected admired, or desired. Beautiful, scantily clad actresses sell cars and mattresses on television commercials. Presidents give television speeches with the national flag prominently displayed behind them.

* Testimonial or having a famous person endorse or oppose some idea or product. Top cricketers tell us to use a certain shampoo or shaving cream. Famous politicians travel to towns and villages they have never heard of to urge people to vote for obscure candidates.

* Plain folks, or identifying the propagandist with the average person. While in office, prime ministers and presidents make sure people saw them playing cricket and going hunting. IN other words, doing things that ordinary people do.

* Card stacking, in which one fact of falsehood supporting a point of view is piled on top of another. Commercials do not tell us both the strengths and the weaknesses of a product.

* Bandwagon, creating the impression that everyone is using a product or supporting an idea or person. Political candidates are usually quick to announce favourable poll results. Soft-drink companies use commercials to show a horde of young, happy people drinking their product and singing its praises. Thus, the propagandist creates pressure to conform to a real or illusory norm.

WARTIME PROPAGANDA: Propaganda is perhaps seen at its best in wartimes, when even democratic states make it a major function. One of the best-known examples of war propaganda occurred in Nazi Germany. They used allegedly documentary films, radio messages, posters and mass rallies to argue that the Jews were sub-human beings who were largely responsible for the economic and other problems confronting Germany. This was done so that the Jews would be regarded as vermin rather than as human beings, and led on to the mass killings of about six million Jews.

Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, believed in “the big lie”. He argued that if big lies were told often enough, people would come to believe them. The underlying logic was expressed in the 1920s by Hitler. He argued that propaganda “must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect — all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

Another example of propaganda was that used by the Americans during the war in Vietnam. An analysis of their propaganda leaflets revealed that 69 per cent of them emphasized differences based on ethnic groups or political groupings, as they were intended to increase inter-group conflict. About 30 of the leaflets focused on emotions, especially fear (Cardwell, 1996).

Changes in ideology affect the effectiveness of propaganda. In 1954, when war began between North and South Vietnam, the North was largely communist and the South was backed by money and armaments from America. There was already widespread anti-communist hysteria in America filled by senator Joseph McCarthy’s ‘witch-hunts’ of suspected Communist Party members in government and the arts.

Against this background, anti-communist propaganda led to a strong support for greater US involvement in Vietnam, leading to American troops becoming active there in the early 1960s. After Senator McCarthy’s death, it was found that evidence against people accused of being communists had been falsified, and in the more open social climate of the 1960s, public attitude towards an individual’s political affiliation began to change. Support for the US involvement in the Vietnam war waned, and anti-war propaganda began to appear until 1973 when the American troops began to withdraw.

The first systematic analysis of wartime propaganda was done by H.D Lasswell. He studied each side’s success in achieving four objectives: demoralizing the enemy; mobilizing hatred against the enemy; maintaining the friendship of neutrals; and possibly obtaining the cooperation of the neutrals.

PROPAGANDA IN MODERN TIMES: Propaganda has in modern times been lifted from its long established place as a minor factor in social life to a new position as a major social force. This growth has been made possible by the growth of the sciences of human relations, providing new knowledge of how to manipulate human s; by the amazing development of communication facilities in modern times; by the highly efficient control and organization of the propaganda machinery now possible; and by the proliferation of interest groups in our time.

The media has considerable power over the information available to the public. Television is probably the most effective technique being used to whip up passions and keep recalcitrant citizens in line, or otherwise promote nationalistic ideas.

But, like any revolutionary technology, television has its dark side. At its worst, television can foment and sustain the most violent of ethnic wars, as it did in the former Yugoslavia. Croatian and Serbian television routinely demonize each other’s populations as terrorists and fascists. Occasionally, Serbian and Croatian television would use the exactly same footage to document wartime atrocities, but with the identities of the victims and murderers reversed.

Despite the spread of satellite technology, many of the governments that now have a monopoly on the television message impose restrictions on the ownership of dishes. Expecting that dish technology could eventually outflank efforts to restrict ownership, many governments have tried to preempt the demand for private dishes altogether by building cable systems that will download and then distribute many satellite programmes, leaving the government firmly in control at the switch.

With the growth of communication tools like the internet, the flow of persuasive messages has been dramatically accelerated. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This is a wonderful development, but there is a cost.

The information revolution has led to information overload, and people are confronted with hundreds of messages each day. Although few studies have looked at this topic, it seems fair to suggest that many people respond to this pressure by processing messages more quickly and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts.

Propagandist love short-cuts — particularly those that short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful.

Propaganda analysis exposed the tricks that propagandists use, and suggested ways of resisting the short-cuts that they promote. It is an antidote to the excesses of the information age.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)