<<

Journal of ISSN 0021–9916 Book Review

Network : Manipulation, book’s editors through the Oxford Inter- , and Radicalization in net Institute’s Project on Computational

American Politics Propaganda (Wooley & Howard, 2016; Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/69/5/E18/5521244 by guest on 27 September 2021 Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris & Kollanyi, Howard, & Wooley, 2016). Hal Roberts This approach to analysing propaganda

Oxford University Press, 2018 £18.99 online has heavily focused on auto- (Paperback) £64.00 (Hardback) pp. 472 mated Twitter activity and so-called bot networks. Indeed, out of nine case Two books published in November 2018 studies, in Computational Propaganda, explore changing tactics of and methods eightcoveredTwitterbotsasacorner- for analysing propaganda in a digi- stone of computational propaganda. tal space. Computational Propaganda: Given that Wooley and Howard defined Political Parties, Politicians, and Political computationalpropaganda‘astheuse Manipulation on edited by of algorithms, automation, and human SamuelC.WooleyandPhilipN.Howard curation to purposefully manage and picksuponearlierresearchbythe distribute misleading over duo analysing the automated spread of social media networks’ (4), the book’s propaganda using social media. Network focus on Twitter automation covers only Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinforma- a small subset of what computational tion, and Radicalization in American propaganda is as a concept. This narrow Politics by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, focusalsosuggeststhatthisisinitial and Hal Roberts is available from research into an emerging field which Oxford University Press in Paperback needs further investigation into other (472 pages, £18.99) and Hardback (472 aspects of it, in particular the use of pages, £64.00) formats. While both bigdatatodrivebehaviouraladvertis- books are valuable for the ing, or the analysing, segmenting and practitioner and academic alike, they targeting of using informa- highlight the emerging nature of this tion about individuals to create and field, and as such scratch the surface of deliver persuasive messaging (Wanless a complex topic. In the reading of these & Berk, 2019). Twitter automation, and twobooks,itbecomesclearthatmuch indeed other social network activity, more research is still required into how are components of a wider compu- propaganda is changing in a Digital Age. tational propaganda system, which Computational Propaganda (Wooley itself badly needs investigating and & Howard, 2018) is a collection of case the book’s authors should be strongly studies by various researchers following encouraged to branch out beyond asimilarmethoddevelopedbythe Twitter automation.

E18 Journal of Communication 69 (2019) E18–E21 © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Communication Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Book Review Book Review

What makes Computational Propa- densetomeandalongacademicread, ganda an enjoyable read is its diversity, but well worth it. but this is tempered by the formulaic What makes Network Propaganda nature of the chapters. The nine case unique is its attempt to analyse informa- studies cover different countries, with tion campaigns inside a wider context, an overview of the relevant media or what the authors call a media ecosys- landscape. For those seeking short tem. Often analysis of propaganda

introductions to an array of coun- focuses on the propagandist and their Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/69/5/E18/5521244 by guest on 27 September 2021 tries and their media environments, activity, but this fails to put the cam- Computational Propaganda is great. paign into a wider context, at times Despite this variety, the chapters tend to making more of such efforts than rehash the editor’s past research making is warranted. As Benkler, Faris and the compilation somewhat repetitive. Roberts note, the very identification of Likewise, as most of the case studies Russian efforts to shape the information follow the same method as developed by environment during the 2016 U.S. Wooley and Howard, focusing heavily was somehow equated to its onTwitteranalysis,thechapterscan effectiveness, as if in merely attempting be formulaic, which helps connect the to, such activity had shaped target audi- chapters on one hand, but on the other, ence perspectives (254–5). Indeed, of makes for an unsurprising read. The the authors’ conclusions is that research chapter on Poland, by Robert Gorwa on the manipulation of the information stoodoutinthisregard,shiningmoreof environmentmustbedonecautiously, an insider light on how avoiding assumptions that activities companies offer services related to automatically result in successful effect computational propaganda aimed at (267). This sort of analysis makes manipulating the information envi- Network Propaganda asoberwork ronment (2018). Other chapters also which refreshingly contrasts with other drew on practitioner interviews, but research that focuses solely on Russian Gorwa’s provided more illuminating propaganda activity in isolation. information—it alone makes this book a Network Propaganda not only covers good purchase. foreign activity, but also how domes- Where Computational Propaganda tic media and political actors shape looks at a narrower type of activity the information environment, and as in different countries, Network Propa- such is a good model for fostering a ganda is a broader analysis of the media deeper understanding of information ecosystem in one case study: the U.S. campaigns. In analysing the U.S. media before and after the 2016 presidential ecosystem during the first year of the election. In exploring the topic, Benkler, Trump presidency the authors found FarisandRobertsanalysetraditional that the right-leaning media ecosystem and digital media, as well as social had effectively segregated itself from the media, including Twitter, Facebook rest, on the centre and left of the political and YouTube activity. This breadth of spectrum, and far from technology or analysis makes Network Propaganda a being solely to , a frayed

Journal of Communication 69 (2019) E18–E21 E19 Book Review Book Review

‘institutional and political-cultural fab- (Ross, 2002, 17) and other ric’ was the underlying issue (23). This were employed, particularly by Western is an important finding as it highlights liberal democracies, for their attempts to thecomplexityoftheproblemathand, persuade,suchaspublicaffairs,public demonstrating the need to analyse pro- relations (Moloney, 2006), public diplo- paganda not just as campaign activities macy and information operations (Gar- butalsoinawidercontext. rison, 1999). This has led to propaganda

Both sets of authors put forward being a much-debated concept, often Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/69/5/E18/5521244 by guest on 27 September 2021 adapted concepts of propaganda, taking used to denote activity that the into consideration the changing means undertakes, as opposed to an objective for distribution of information and the field of study. As such, propaganda is not ability of audiences to engage with it. a well understood concept and neither Wooley and Howard have elsewhere of these books contribute to clarifying definedcomputationalpropagandaas this definitional problem. ‘the assemblage of social media plat- Definitionalchallengesaside,both forms, autonomous agents, and big data Computational Propaganda and Net- tasked with the manipulation of public work Propaganda offer models for .’ (2016, 4886) Benkler, Faris analysing how information is used to and Roberts focus network propaganda persuade target audiences, particularly on ‘the ways in which the architecture of in a digital space. That alone makes a media ecosystem makes it more or less both books worth reading. Network Pro- susceptible to disseminating persuasive paganda isthestrongerofthetwobooks, messaging.’ (2018, 24) While there is putting information campaigns into a merit to revising concepts given how widercontext,andoughttoberequired digital technologies have changed the reading for anyone developing policy to way people communicate, both books counter such activities. This is not to position propaganda as inherently discount Computational Propaganda,it negative, which highlights the contested isausefulintroductiontoanemerging nature of this term, and begs the ques- concept, it is only hoped that the authors tion of whether or not it is well-suited and other researchers adopting it begin foranalysisorclearlydescribingthe to look between Twitter activity, or problemathand.Manyotherdefinitions indeed social media, into the wider tend to describe propaganda as the use system enabled by information commu- of persuasive information to manipulate nication technologies that enables the atargetaudienceintosomecourseof tracking and targeting of audiences for action as desired by the propagandist persuasivepurposes.Thisisunlikelyto (Bernays, 1928; Lasswell, 1948; Taylor, be propaganda in their definition of it, 1990; Marlin, 2013; Jowett & O’Donnell, butmoresoadvertising. 2015), and as such is more neutral—or in other words, propaganda could be used for both good and bad purposes. References The term came to be ‘associated mainly Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). with totalitarian regimes and efforts’ Network Propaganda: Manipulation,

E20 Journal of Communication 69 (2019) E18–E21 Book Review Book Review

Disinformation, and Radicalization ideas: a series of addresses,NewYork: in American Politics.Oxford:Oxford Institute for Religious and Social Studies, University Press. 37–52. Bernays, E. L. (1928, 2005). Propaganda. Marlin, R. (2013). Propaganda and the Ethics Brooklyn: Ig publishers. of . Toronto, : Broad- Garrison, W.C., 1999. Information view Press. Operations and Counter-Propaganda: Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking public rela- MakingaWeaponofPublicAffairs. tions: PR propaganda and democracy. Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania: Army Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/69/5/E18/5521244 by guest on 27 September 2021 War College. Accessed on 1 June 2019 Ross, S. T. (2002). Understanding propa- from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/ ganda: The epistemic merit model and fulltext/u2/a363892.pdf its application to art. Journal of Aesthetic Gorwa, R. (2018). Poland: Unpacking Education, 36(1), 16–30. the Ecosystem of Social Media Taylor, P. M. (1990). /2003) Munitions of the Manipulation. In S. C. Wooley & P. mind. Manchester: Manchester Univer- N. Howard (Eds.), Computational sity Press. Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, Wanless, A., & Berk, M. (2019). (In Press) and Political Manipulation on Social The is the Amplifier: Partic- Media (pp. 86–10). Oxford: Oxford ipatory Propaganda. In P. Baines, N. University Press. O’Shaughnessy & N. Snow (Eds.), The Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2015). Pro- Sage Handbook of Propaganda.London: paganda & Persuasion.LosAngeles: Sage. Sage. Howard, P. N., & Woolley, S. C. (2016). Kollanyi, B., Howard, P. N., & Woolley, S. C. , computational (2016). Bots and automation over twitter propaganda, and autonomous agents- during the US election. Data memo. Introduction. International Journal of Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Communication, 10, 4882–4890. Propaganda, 2016(4), 1–5. Accessed on 1 June 2019 from https://comprop.oii.ox. ac.uk/research/working-papers/bots- Alicia Wanless and-automation-over-twitter-during- Alton Corp and Doctoral Researcher, the-u-s-election/ Lasswell, H. (1948). The Structure and Func- King’s College London, WC2R 2LS, tion of Communication in Society. In . Bryson L. (Ed.), The communication of E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Communication 69 (2019) E18–E21 E21