sign in sign up
<<
Home , Propaganda model

Beware: Contents have gone through processing . . .

This class, using commercial as our canvas, essentially deals with two two questions: first, how do those working in , or with influence over it, seek to manipulate the masses? Second, why is the media consuming public (for the most part) so vulnerable to manipulation? The first gets at large, political pressures and economic structures--the model is a good example of how news is filtered, and the kinds of pressures that lead to in mainstream, commercial media. The second gets at the psychology of --what is it about the human mind that it is susceptible to techniques of deception that essentially bypass logic and rational reasoning?

First, we should try to distinguish between persuasion and propaganda. We all try to persuade in one way or another, consciously and otherwise. In a society of 300 million, with the largest economy in the world, persuasion becomes central for a lot of people's livelihoods. Politicians seeking office, companies seeking to increase sales, lawyers seeking to represent clients, media outlets seeking to increase audience and market share.

German sociologist Max Weber (pronounced 'vay-brrr') identified well over a century ago a social process he referred to as 'rationalization.' Rationalization was an inevitable product of 'modernization' and the industrial revolution. As societies become larger and more complex, new forms of social organization develop to maintain social order. For instance, without some sort of bureaucracy, a of rules, people with distinct job responsibilities, registration at the beginning of the term here at EOU would be a nightmare. Imagine how it would be at a university like Penn State, with 40,000 + students. Or another example. Forty to fifty million people live below the poverty line. Imagine trying to manage welfare and public assistance services without many bureaucracies in place to figure out who is eligible, how to deliver services, how to ensure they're reaching eligible recipients, etc.

A few things happened in the 21st century that caught the attention of powerful organizations, individuals and public officials. First, the US entered WWI, and many Americans were ambivalent about our involvement. The government enlisted a group of influential people to serve on the Committee on Public , or CPI, designed to help sell the war domestically. George Creel and (the latter considered the founder of the industry) were enlisted in the effort. Bernays was the newphew of Sigmund Freud, one of the founders of the modern discipline of psychology, and was quite interested in Freud's theories of personality and psychotherapy. Except Bernays interest was in understanding how to move masses, how to use Freud's theory of the unconscious to persuade, not individuals, but populations. He would later become quite wealthy, using what he had learned and Freud's theories to sell a variety of ideas and products and presidents and candidates. Bernays is considered the most important figure in making it socially acceptable for women to smoke--quite a feat, when you think abou it. Smoking was, in Freudian terms, tied up with masculinity and male sexual prowess, and hence even though one might say smoking was in a sense the height of conformity to a certain set of institutions, Bernays made it seem rebellious, referring to the cigarettes women were smoking as 'torches of freedom' (refer to the video clip from this week). How rebellious, and what more rebellious entity than the tobacco industry to encourage them? But that was almost 100 years ago, right?? Other historical processes were well underway besides the war effort, and the realization that the masses could be persuaded. Bernays understood he could sell much more than war, and make money in the process. Back to that process of rationalization, the production of goods in society was becoming complex as well. A socioeconomic class was developing that purchased 'luxury' goods. Those with means were satisfying wants instead of just needs. And being encouraged to do so through the media (thanks in no small part to Bernays and his contemporaries). Henry Ford figured out he could sell many more cars, at lower prices to boot, if he could mass produce them. We got the assembly line, which revolutionized production, but which requires pretty sophisticated mechanisms and organization to pull off. The agribusiness industry figured out how to produce higher levels of agricultural crops, using fossil fuels and machinery. Every industry in a society of 100 + million, if it is to survive as a nation-wide entity, must mass produce. This requires lots of political mobilization--lawyers and lobbyists, influencing legislators and regulators, funding political campaigns, etc., with the intent of making sure that no laws or regulations get passed that would hurt sales or profits, or whose costs could not be passed on to consumers. But mass production implies that what industries are producing has a market. How to get consumers to buy the stuff being mass-produced? Mass production without mass consumption would lead to overproduction--the fear of manufacturers and industrialists of the time.

The and public relations industries were built around the idea that mass production required means of increasing levels of consumption, and they've been wildly successful. They've taken advantage of research and theory from disparate social scientific fields, especially from psychology--from the work of Sigmund Freud and B.F. Skinner especially. Although as the authors of Age of Propaganda point out, the literature on the psychology of persuasion dates back a few thousand years to the times of the Sophists, Aristotle, Cicero, etc. But while the Greeks looked at persuasion as a means of elevating public debate and discourse, advertisers have used what they've learned about persuasion mainly to move products and services, and as an industry to present consumption as the highest expression of post-industrial society. At some point in the 20th century, a certain segment of the ruling class began viewing citizens less as citizens, less as workers, and more as consumers (of course consuming requires a job, and there have to be some democratic rituals to justify power relations).

In modern society, the techniques of persuasion require an extensive and sophisticated knowledge of how to use mass media. And to the extent that persuasion is designed not to illuminate and inform, but to sell, and to obscure alternative conceptions of society not so focused on material consumption (as an example), we can call it propaganda (meaning we can include advertising as one of its major contemporary forms). The authors refer to propaganda as mass influence through the manipulation of symbols and psychology of the individual.

However, propaganda is not the sole property of advertisers working for manufacturers. Hitler's rise in Nazi Germany was largely due to the expertise of his propagandists, such as Joseph Goebbels. Politicians have long seen the value of using techniques of persuasion and propaganda--they've just for the most part been pretty clumsy compared to the advertising industry. What makes the current generation of propagandists--distinguished among them was the Bush / Cheney White House--different is their systematic and disciplined approach to using every form of mass media and information technology, via print, radio, Internet, television, cinema, etc., to communicate and amplify a fairly narrow set of messages and . In fact, when the Bush/Cheney Administration sought to convince the public than at invasion of Iraq was necessary and urgent, they turned to the public relations industry, hiring first Charlotte Beers, to influence in predominantly Moslem countries, and later Victoria Clarke. It was Clarke who came up with the idea of 'embedding' reporters in infantry units--a brilliant strategy for controlling media's output. She also sought to influence public opinion at home through what the Pentgon (definitely not steeped in PR savvy ...) referred to as 'message force multipliers'--seemingly independent military analysts on TV actually coordinating closely with the Pentagon. This level of 'management' or influence over mass media requires a power base, and corporate consolidation of commercial media ownership--and the alignment of corporate media and the interests of the government--certainly hasn't hurt. In contrast groups without that kind of power can be excluded, even when they have the money (NBC refused to air this 'pro- life' Super Bowl ad, and CBS declined to air an anti-Bush ad, but no problem with this GoDaddy.com ad!).

Hence as business historically becomes more complex, mass production requires mass consumption requires . . . mass persuasion. And mass persuasion is every bit as well thought out as mass production is. As citizens this isn't one of the things we're taught in school--how to deal with propaganda for what it is. Most of us are in a sense media suckers, left to fend for ourselves and figure out on our own what's going on. Mass media is the vehicle for a propaganda system of this magnitude, and it's important to understand somewhat how it operates and who drives it.

What are the goals of propaganda?

 To move public opinion to 'voluntarily' accept views of others as one's own.  What separates it from the Greeks, others? There is no attempt to educate, inform, stimulate debate--the object is to persuade masses--the 'target'--that there is no debate, there are no alternatives--or at the very least to obscure undesirable alternatives (from the point of view of the 'communicators').  In many cases, at least in our society, there are three sorts of goals of propaganda. First, to sell products (and more generally, encourage consumption). Second, to sell wars (in other words, gain the public support needed to invade another country). Third, to sell politicians and .  Mass persuasion is easier to do with images and feelings than with text, although text and language is very important in the process. TV, film and radio have had a big impact on the rise of propaganda and its effectiveness. People don't process information from these media the same way we do printed words, for instance. Part has to do with the immediacy of modern media. We expect instant analysis (trust the media to do the analysis for you!). If you're reading a , or a book, you can actually pause, digest an idea, look at it skeptically, re-read, etc. TV on the other hand is for quick processors or zombies.  But . . . who's doing the analyzing? What credibility do they have? Whose interests might they be serving? For example, Armstrong Williams, a black and conservative (unusual combination--with what persuasive intent?) and media consultant, was paid $240,000 by the White House (that's taxpayer money, in case you were wondering ...), to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. Without disclosing he was paid, of course, and mainly to try to sell African Americans on the act and increase electoral support (see how this is spun by the conservative news watchdog, ). One extreme example of a common practice--using a '3rd party' to communicate a message that would seem blatantly self-serving otherwise.

Here we'll begin addressing this second issue, and start with what the authors (Pratkanis and Aronson) refer to as the 'Four stratagems of persuasion.'

1. Pre-persuasion--this is the ability to frame the debate. All politically charged debates have groups competing to have their version prevail in the public arena. Immigration, for instance, can be 'framed' as a problem of 'illegal aliens' or 'undocumented workers,' with an emphasis on the illegality and the immigrants. Sympathy in this framing is usually reserved for hard-working Americans and 'legal' immigrants playing by the rules. Immigration could be framed, alternately, as an issue of 'cheap labor' that benefits workers and consumers, or as an economic and development problem, or a failure of free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 2005, after his re- election, President Bush continually said that Social Security was in an urgent state of crisis. It wasn't (but Medicare was and is), and wouldn't be for one or two generations, but it gives a sense of urgency that something must be done now. Campaign contributors from Wall Street and the financial industry may have felt a sense of urgency, though-- they had a business-friendly White House and Congress, which doesn't happen very often.

And if you can get people up front to agree there's a problem, then the battle's half over, and all that's left is to convince them that the only reasonable solution is yours (see #3). What they were selling was a system of private accounts, which would give people more control over their retirement, but also place the burden of risk on citizens to invest wisely, and provide billions in brokerage fees for Wall Street and the various investment vehicles it would promote to workers.

Or, to change subjects, it may not matter what brand of car you buy, as long as you buy one--and trade it in regularly for a new one (The alternative of keeping your old car is one the automotive industry would rather you didn't ponder for long stretches of time). Of course it matters to the dealer, but maybe the idea is to head off dangerous talk about people hanging on to their cars for 10 years or more. Another example: the fast food restaurant you frequent, as long as it's BK or McD's or Wendy's, and not some sit-down place. You won't see McD's going up against a sit- down restaurant--eating fast food is the given, and the competition is the other fast food chains. Or (another example) as long as you're purchasing medications to take care of health-related symptoms, rather than exploring alternative means of wellness. Got a health problem? We've got medicine for it!

Let's try another example. The National Rifle Association launched an aggressive campaign after the Sandy Hook School shooting, where a lone gunman killed 27 people and himself, and calls for more stringent gun control policies reached new heights. The NRA--an organization represented by gun owners, but with fundraising budgets exceeding $250 million/yr (suggesting the generous support of the arms industry) -- was successful on several fronts--first, making sure the politicians who it support its goals receive campaign donations, making sure that these politicians introduce bills either supported or drafted by NRA officials (via ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council [see the PRWatch page), and entering the public debate with a flurry of ads, news releases, and reports. This ad is a classic example--the NRA is heavily associated with the American flag (symbolism), with general concepts like 'freedom' and the Constitution, with hard working Americans, and against the so-called 'elites' who seek to 'take away' hard-working Americans' constitutional rights. To put it bluntly, they provide two choices- -one: support the NRA and its goals, and two: stand against the flag, against regular Americans, and for the elites seeking to do away with 'freedoms' (a more complex reading would include the fact that freedom to own guns is balanced in every society by freedom from gun-related violence). So, two choices, one leads to tyranny, the other to ..... freedom. Brilliant propaganda. And it was so successful, that at a certain point, the debates in the news were about the merits of arming schools (complete with 200+ page report)--presumably guards, teachers, and administrators--to keep them safe from shooters.

This is a powerful organization, with deep political ties, that has been able time after time to influence national debates concerning guns and their access. That requires money and media access--and the NRA's success in branding itself as an all-American organization puts pressure on news organizations who might fear offending segments of their audience, as the NRA also encourages its members to engage in political activism.

So, the idea is to guide people down an intellectual cattle chute, to make them think there are limited options--for instance, if you wanted peace and democracy in the Middle East, you were encouraged to support the White House plan and the Iraq war. Oops. Not that one (but if you're interested, here was the way PR firm Hill and Knowlton framed it)! Try this one. After the initial invasion came the phase 2 speech (and here was how it was produced). Otherwise you were against peace, for tyranny, or perhaps not supporting the troops Governments generally use such tactics to sell war to the public. The particular tactics from the Iraq War may seem almost nonsensical now, but these arguments dominated the commercial news at the time, and were reported uncritically by the (remember the ' filter' ...). And for those whose lives were changed forever because of it--soldiers, civilians, their families--it was obviously anything but a joke.

Another example--support of the troops. The White House worked hard to make it seem that anyone against the war was not supporting the troops. (here is on the rhetorical equation of 'supporting the troops' with supporting the invasion of Iraq). Tying to al-Qaeda, Iraq to 9/11. Obviously the case could be made that people were against the war precisely because they believed the troops were engaged in an open-ended mission with no exit strategy, no explicit goals or objectives, and a lack of support for those who serve, whose tours had been extended, the National Guard troops brought into the conflict (and the costs to their own states), those who have returned with physical and psychological disabilities, etc. Ultimately, if one can associate patriotism with the war effort, it is easier to brand critics and dissenters as unpatriotic and somehow 'unAmerican,' or 'America bashers,' 'Bush bashers,' etc.

It became easier for those in power, with constant access to a content-hungry commercial media, to influence these debates. Commercial media may air retractions--and this is important--after the fact (that is, after the decision to invade had been made and the consequences were playing out)--but they don't have to headline them, and it's easier to print retractions later on (NY Times included). However, it's important to realize that all governments going to war require the support of the population, and do what is necessary to secure it (check out WWII imagery).

Effective propaganda campaigns are multi-pronged and complex, and difficult to sort out. They often involve creation of various entities, for example the 'Office of Srategic Information' prior to the Iraq invasion. Or the coal industry's 'America's Power' site, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, that spent millions during the 2008 presidential campaign (and gave to both McCain and Obama). Ken Silverstein's piece in Harper's provides a glimpse of the multiple strategies employed by public relations firms to not only influence the news, but stage it..

2. Source credibility (ethos)--communicators need to appear authoritative, trustworthy. That 'trust' may be entirely manufactured through imagery (check out this page for multiple examples) or other means of manipulation. Colin Powell's speech in front of the UN Security Council, prior to the Iraq invasion, was crucial to the Administration's case for war, even if he later admitted much of it was based on flimsy evidence. But the next day after his presentation, most every major daily was talking of his 'masterful performance.' It was what the White House needed to sell invasion (and Powell has since admitted he didn't have the facts). Presidents get sold as well. John McCain ran in 2008 as a maverick, an independent (Daily Show clip). His opponents tried to tie him to George W. Bush's policies. Bush ran in 2000 as a cowboy and a Christian (see an earlier video of Bush debating in the Texas Governor's race--he's much more polished). Barack Obama was characterized by his opponents as an elitist (can't even bowl!), while trying to sell himself as a uniter (Daily Show 'bio' clip).

Now, the flip side of credibility involves discrediting. Here's a look at a video clip on youtube meant to make Al Gore look ridiculous as a spokesperson for global warming. This was after the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (which despite being a glorified Power Point presentation, won an Oscar a few years back). There's a pretty good chance this seemingly amateurish video was the product of PR firm DCI, one of whose clients is Exxon Mobil. But what makes it propaganda, as opposed to other forms of persuasion? Gore has been attacked from a variety of sources for his advocacy of activism related to global warming and . And here's a surprise: Fox News couldn't resist a smear after Gore received the 2007 Nobel Prize. More recently is the ridiculing in of the Tea Party movement, characterizing it by its fringe elements (here's a satiric look).

3. (message control)--You need a message (logos, or an appeal to logic). Communicators must deliver a message that focuses attention on what the 'consumer' is supposed to think about. Bad breath is bad, leads to the dreaded halitosis, and will cause you no end of social ostracism, but it can be easily remedied with the purchase of the right gum, breath freshener, or mouthwash! It's easy! Your friendships, sex life and popularity will improve instantaneously. Now, okay, there may be other products that would do this as well, and regular flossing might get rid of that nasty plaque in between your teeth, but we don't sell that, so HEY!! YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!! OVER HERE!! . . . You get the idea . . . . As for Iraq, the spin was always associated with fear-mongering:

 Saddam was working with al Qaida (proved false);  Some connection with 9/11 (proved false--it was the Taliban in Afghanistan, that other war, who were sheltering al Qaida). At one point, a majority of Americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11 (15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia, our good friend in the region, and none were from Iraq);  It's a 'war on terror,' rather than a criminal case for the international criminal court, or a war in a specific country, like Afganistan or Iraq, or against al Qaida (to declare war requires an act of Congress, which hasn't happened since WWII);  The enemy are terrorists, evildoers, who hate freedom, revel in tyranny, practice an of hatred, etc.;  The US on the other hand spreads democracy around the world (though this may be at times hard to reconcile with 'shock and awe' bombing campaigns). Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The US, on the other hand, has 'smart bombs,' 'daisy cutters,' 'bunker busters,' and a host of other very deadly 'precision munitions' categorized in part by their 'kill zones'). And then there's the 7,500 plus nuclear warheads . . . . Spin is critical-- getting the media to use your language, rather than come up with their own characterization of the situation. Words matter. Here's an interesting site that gets below the surface of 'name-calling.'

4. Appeal to emotion (pathos)--If you can get the consumer either to try to 'get rid' of a negative emotion (for instance, VP Dick Cheney repeatedly said during the 2004 campaign that electing (democratic challenger) John Kerry would increase the likelihood of another 9/11-style attack). Fear was used to promote the invasion of Iraq as well. Both Bush and Condoleezza Rice said

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (October 2002)

Turns out that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program, had no biochemical weapons, posed no immediate or even short-term threat to the United States (but certainly did to any Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime). However, even a year after the Iraq invasion, a majority of Americans believed the WMDs so-called had been found (pg 7).

Propaganda and appeals to emotion are used to sell much more than a government's campaign for war, though. Advertisers draw on consumers' fears and insecurities to promote a variety of products, using the 'fear/relief' technique--make the consumer fearful, create cognitive dissonance, and offer the product as the means to reduce or rid one of the dissonance. And neither is fear the only means to secure a more 'compliant' consumer. One can also try to leave the consumer with warm and fuzzy, feel-good emotions. Hollywood pulls on the heartstrings. But so does Madison Avenue (advertisers), and so do politicians. Once you get rid of the negative feelings, you replace them with positive emotions--for the White House, the 'war on terror' was matched by rhetoric about safety, security. As the authors note, in describing the cognitive response approach:

The successful persuasion tactic is one that directs and channels thoughts so that the target thinks in a manner agreeable to the communicators' point of view; the successful tactic disrupts any negative thoughts and promotes positive thoughts about the proposed course of action (Pratkanis and Aronson, p 31).

Routes to persuasion

Social psychologists talk about two 'routes' to persuading people: the peripheral and central. The peripheral route depends on the audience not paying much attention to the message, to not processing it in a rational way. Imagine coming home from a hard day, turning on the TV, and trying to absorb an analysis of Social Security 'Reform'. The communicator may depend on you not thinking that privatization won't save social security, and in the long run the only way to 'save' it is to reduce benefits by 40-50%. Maybe if you hear of the 'social security crisis' or problem enough, over and over, you'll begin to internalize the message and think of it as your own opinion. After all, you saw it on TV, right??

In the central route, the 'recipient' or consumer is paying attention and engaged. Which do you think propaganda techniques are most likely to take advantage of? Do they want to engage the rational mind, or the target human emotion? When it comes to simplifying complex messages, we often have to rely on experts anyway. And if they're experts, we can't really follow their arguments and maybe we'll just take them at face value. Now, if you're familiar with the third party technique (of finding people with 'credibility' to deliver your biased message), you may be more skeptical when someone is sold to you as an expert. And you should be. One of the big questions Pratkanis and Aronson ask is:

How can we have a true democracy if the public is ill-informed and vulnerable to propaganda, and in many cases incapable of engaging in informed debate and analysis? As they write, 'mindless propaganda, not thoughtful persuasion, flourishes' (p 39).

Another important point they make is that the most effective persuader is oneself. If persuaders, PR people, can get people to persuade themselves to adopt a point of view, buy that new Chicken Fajita Southwestern Bar-B-Q Ranch/Honey Dijon Dipper Grilled Croissant, because they watched the commercial and by God they made the decision all on their own, all the better. Same no doubt works in the classroom--I can talk or write about this stuff 'til I am (or you the reader are) blue in the face, so to speak, but we watch videos hopefully so you can see it in action, and the more media you're checking out this term, the more likely you'll be to see just how prevalent and, in some cases, insidious, propaganda can be.

Think of it this way. Most Americans like fast food, even if you don't. They like the convenience, but even the flavor, and we know how good cinematographers are at making the food look obscenely delicious in commercials. But much of that flavor comes from chemicals, and those chemicals from the flavor and fragrance industry. Sort of like industrial agriculture-- you have infertile soils, you add chemicals. You have tasteless beef produced efficiently but without attention to quality, you add chemicals to get flavor. But when we eat the food, we're not thinking about where it came from, or really how the taste was achieved.

Same with those images, even those printed or spoken words. They have gone through considerable processing, even massaging, before reaching your eyes or ears. Don't think you're the grateful recipient of sincere efforts to inform the public in a democracy. There's just a bit more to it than that.