Summary
Propaganda is a specific method of presenting a message that is targeted at serving a particular agenda. Although the message that is given out passes over true information, the message may be partisan and may not succeed in painting a full picture According to Herman (2000), propaganda is defined as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (Herman, 2000, p.101). There was the launching of the “Center for Media and Democracy”, CMD, in the year 1993 in order to create what was the only public interest at that period. Moreover, media organizations are committed to ensuring exposure of government as well as corporate propaganda and the impacts it had on democracy as well as on democratic social change (Herman, 2000).
Propaganda shares a large number of techniques with public relations or advertisement and, of course, the last ones can be said to be a form of propaganda aimed at boosting a commercial good or service. However, as it is generally understood, the term “propaganda” refers to, in most cases, nationalist or political messages. It can take the form of “leaflets, posters, TV broadcasts or radio broadcasts” (Herman, 2000, p.105).
In a more common and narrower application of the term “propaganda”, it refers to “deliberately false or misleading information that supports a political cause or the interests of those in power” (Herman, 2000, p.107). A propagandist looks for opportunities to change the way individuals understand a particular situation or issue for the reason of altering their expectations and actions “in ways that are desirable to the interest group” (Herman, 2000, p.108).
During a war, propaganda is a powerful tool. In this case, it is often aimed at dehumanizing the enemy and creating extreme dislike against some special group. The skill is to create an untrue image in people’s minds. This can be achieved through the use of special words or avoiding some other words and also by shifting the blame to the enemy with claims that the opponent did some particular things which he did not do as a matter of fact. In every form of propaganda, there are two requirements, faint and injustice. These two demands may be on the basis of either facts or fiction; the intention always hates creation (Jowett & O’Donnell).
History of Propaganda
The contemporary political logic of the term ‘propaganda” can be traced back to the WW 1 era when it was not initially pejorative. The techniques applied were first codified and used in a scientific approach by Walter Lippman, a journalist, and Edward Bernays, a psychologist, at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the course of World War I, both Bernays and Lippman worked for the “Committee on Public Information” created by Woodrow Wilson, the U.S President, in order to influence popular opinion to engage in the war, leaning on the side of Britain (Howe,1982).
The pro-war propaganda campaign of the “Creel Committee” created a great anti-German hysteria in a period of six months. This campaign impressed the American business permanently as well as Hitler and the rest “with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion” (Herman, 2000, p.109). The existing PR industry is a direct product of the work of the “Creel Committee”, and it still remains to be utilized expansively by the U.S. government. A number of early figures in the PR industry were the “Creel Committee” members, and such people as Carl Byoir, Bernays and Ivy Lee were among them. World War II saw continual utilization of propaganda as a war weapon both by Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s propagandist and the “Political Warfare Executive” of Britain (Herman, 2000).
In Germany, a large part of propaganda was created by the “Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” which was under Joseph Goebbels who was appointed to this position in the year 1933, a short time after Hitler came to power. Herman (2000) points out that “journalists, writers and artists were required to register with one of the ministry’s subordinate chambers of the press, fine arts, music, theater, film, literature, or radio” (Herman, 2000, p.108).
The Nazis had a very strong belief in propaganda as being an essential weapon that could help them to attain their goals and objectives. Hitler was impressed by the supremacy of Allied propaganda in the course of World War II and held a belief that it had been “a primary cause of the collapse of morale and revolts in the German home front and navy in 1981” (Herman, 2000, p.109). Hitler held meetings with Goebbels almost on a daily basis to engage in discussions about the news and Goebbels got the thoughts of Hitler on the subject and in turn met with the senior officials in the Ministry to “pass down the official Party line on world events” (Herman, 2000, p.101). The journalists as well as the news broadcasters were supposed to have approvals well in advance before giving out their information or works. Hitler together with other influential Nazis in high ranks did not have moral reservations regarding the spreading of propaganda which they themselves understood to be untrue. The lack of not giving true information by the Nazis came to be referred to as the “Big Lie”.
Up to the time of the conclusion of the “Battle of Stalingrad”, on February 2, 1943, the emphasis of the Germany propaganda was on the prowess of the Germany weapons and the humanity of the German armed forces to the people of the “occupied territories” (Herman, 2000). Contrary to this, the British and the Allied fliers were portrayed as being cowards, killers, and the Americans were represented as being criminals in the fashion of Al Capone. At the same time, the German propaganda was aimed at separating the Americans from the British and both of them from the Soviets (Herman, 2000).
There was expansive use of propaganda by both the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the course of the Cold War. Each of the two sides utilized the TV, radio, and film to bring an influence on their own people, on each other and on the Third World countries. The U.S. Information Agency operated the “Voice of America as an official government station” (Herman, 2000). Moreover, it is also pointed out that “Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, in part supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, provided gray propaganda in news and entertainment programs to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union respectively” (Herman, 2000, p.110). Radio Moscow, which was the official government radio station of the Soviet Union, engaged in the broadcasting of the white propaganda, and at the same time, the “Freedom Broadcast” and “Radio Peace” dealt with the broadcasting of grey propaganda. Around special crisis, the two sides spread black propaganda programs as well.
Modern-Day use of propaganda in the USA (post 9/11)
The terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, sent shockwaves to all parts of the world. The reactions against these were clearly a mixture of emotions and anger. The media had a great task which was quite challenging of making people across the world to understanding what actually had happened and “in the on-going war that resulted, had an important role to help provide wide perspectives and understandings of the aftermath of those attacks” (Shah, 2007, para 1).
In the aftermath of these attacks in the U.S., while the retaliation led by the U.S. was building up, a number of news media were reporting the “propaganda battle” on the two sides. Shah (2007) points out that “because the effect was to suggest that the while Bin Laden’s propaganda was to incite hatred, convince the Muslim world of his views and give his perspectives to the West, the Western propaganda was to retaliate and correct those misleading aspects” (Shah, 2007, para 3). Bin Laden’s views were certainly misleading and inciting disgust, but assuming that in response, the propaganda of the West was actually misleading to the general public in one way or the other. All through history, all sides make use of propaganda to obtain support from the general public. Although the West is not wrong in dealing with the terrorist acts, the propaganda that is employed by the West as well has to remain in people’s minds in order for them to be aware of whether suitable policies are put in place.
According to Getmanenko (2009), in the current day, technological advancement has made it possible for the media to make use of a number of media communications including the TV, newspaper, magazines, radio, cinema and the Internet effectively. It is now possible for every average citizen to be exposed to any of these sources on a daily basis. Getmanenko (2000) states that “the breadth of potential access to the minds of people through mass media presents tremendous temptation to be propagandists” (Getmanenko, 2009, p. 272). It is further pointed out that in recent times, some of the traditional communication media such as newspapers and magazines have been encountering financial hardships and a large number of them have been “losing audience share to the Internet” (Getmanenko, 2009, p.272).
Legal Issue
The Statutory restrictions on agency communications “with the public are limited to one nearly century old statute and prohibitions in annual appropriations laws” (Kosar, 2005, p. 7). It is pointed out that the “5 U.S.C3107” which was passed in the year 1913 prohibits using appropriated funds “to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose” (Kosar, 2005, p.8). Moreover, in most cases, the “annual appropriation laws”, such as the 2004 “omnibus statute”, offer a standard prohibition that funds may be utilized for “publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress” (Kosar, 2005, p.8). These legal restrictions have been seen in the appropriation laws for more than fifty years.
It seems that agency freedom to spend appropriated funds for propaganda and PR is very limited. But as a matter of fact, this is not the case because:
- There is no requiring of the federal entity in the monitoring of the agency compliance with the propaganda and publicity statutes. Currently, the federal government does have what is referred to as “fire alarm oversight of agency expenditures on communication” (McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984, p.166). Scrutiny normally takes place at a time a Congress Member gets an alert from the media or some other source that the spending of an agency on communication may cause concern. In turn, the Congress Member gives out a written request to the GAO “asking for a legal opinion on activities in question” (Kosar, 2005, p.8).
- “The terms ‘publicity’, ‘propaganda’ and ‘publicity expert’ have been interpreted to forbid a very limited number of activities” (Kosar, 2005, p.8). There has been no definition of these three terms by Congress. Therefore, the GAO “has gone the task of delineating what these terms encompass” (Kosar, 2005, p.8). It has carried out this based on case-by-case over the last fifty years. In general terms, there has been a narrow definition of these terms by the GAO. This office holds that the propaganda or publicity taboo in the appropriation laws prohibits the relations activity which “involves self-aggrandizement or puffery of the agency, its personnel, or activities; is purely partisan; or is covert propaganda” (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1986, p.8). Interpretation of “publicity agent” carried out by the GAO means a person who “extols or advertises an agency, an activity quite different from disseminating information to the citizenry about the agency, its policies, practices, and products” (Kosar, 2005,p.8).
Therefore, the laws that forbid the hiring of publicity experts, as well as the expenditure of appropriation funds on propaganda or publicity, impose very minimal limits on the activities of PR. The GAO findings of the agency’s unlawful activity have not been frequent. It has been pointed out that PR and propaganda laws did not prohibit the employment of the PR companies or the spending of the appropriated funds on it.
- The promotional materials do “not present both the negative and positive consequences of increased logging of forests and that contained inaccuracies that might have deceived the public” (Kosar, 2005, p.9).
- The CMMS brochures encompass a number of “noteworthy omissions and that overstate the access beneficiaries will have the prescription drug program;
- An OPM press release denounces “some Members of Congress who desired to delay civil service policy that OPM favored” (Kosar, 2005, p.9).
In addition, the GAO presented the definition of the term “propaganda” as “government communications that fail to disclose that they are paid for with appropriated funds” (Kosar, 2005, p.9). It only forbids executive agencies from making attempts to convince or lie to the public through furtive means. It does not bar the executive agencies from engaging in propaganda in noticeably public communications. It also pointed out that “executive agencies remain free to use appropriated funds to issue communications that are impossible to verify and engage in activities that attempt to manipulate the emotions of the public” (Kosar, 2005, p.9).
Necessity of propaganda for national security purposes vs. freedom of press
Wartime propaganda makes attempts to make the people adjust to the abnormal conditions and “adapt their priorities and moral standards to accommodate the needs of war” (Soules, 2007, para 1). In order to realize this, those who engage in propaganda often represent warfare by utilizing conservative visual codes that are already set up in the mass media. Therefore, the recruitment posters have been always designed to appear like movie or advertising posters.
It is pointed out that “integration of war propaganda in to the existing mass media and popular culture allows it to announce a new mobilization of society or troops against an enemy, real or imagined, without destabilizing the status quo too radically” (Soules, 2007, para. 2). The propagandists have to put across the notion that they are still in control even though a fresh enemy of the people comes up. War propaganda viewed through the lens of “popular culture such as movies, ads, and magazine articles makes war seem familiar and at the same time glamorizes it by exploiting the habits of fantasy and desire generated by mass entertainment” (Soules, 2007, para 3).
In the pro-war propaganda, it is quite rare for the human casualties to be shown, and for favorable reasons, no person is willing to be reminded of this cost while being recruited or persuaded to join the war effort. As it is indicated by Soules (2007), this kind of filtering “sought to create an impression that was positive enough to encourage further recruitment, while showing just enough of the soldiers’ hardship to maintain commitment in the domestic war effort” (Soules, 2007, para 4). The exhibition of human suffering in the course of the war has been greatly reserved for the “anti-war campaigns” (Soules, 2007).
At wartime, propaganda is normally carried out together with an all-inclusive attempt to censor dissenting opinions. For instance, in the course of World War II, the United States public was attacked with “pro-war messages” that were conveyed through photographs in the press, posters and newsreels. There were a lot of magazines and newspapers that had a large number of photographs taken by the combat photographers and the war correspondents. But before these photographs could reach the press, they were vetted by the censorship process that sorted out photographs of a broad range of “inappropriate” topics. This process changed the documentary evidence to become propaganda. It was largely considered as the responsibility of the press to offer support to the war effort instead of reporting the facts accurately (Carver,1991).
The invention of the TV caused a remarkable evolution in war propaganda and reporting. This was witnessed beginning with the Korean War to the Vietnam War and eventually to the Oil Wars in the Middle East. A large number of people have presented claims that the relative freedom of the news journalists who reported on the Vietnam War “turned public opinion against the administration of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon” (Soules, 2007, para 6).
Starting with the Gulf War which took place in 1991, the news coverage of the global disagreements to the domestic audiences was sternly censored and given shape to by the armed forces in news releases and press conferences. In the course of the Iraqi War, the embedded news reporters “were required to report only what their military chaperones thought suitable, and any news or images broadcasted on CNN, if not censored by Pentagon, went through a rigorous process of analysis” (Soules, 2007, para 7).
In the course of the Vietnam War, there emerged a new TV coverage referred to as “Happy Talk” “to place the disturbing news of conflict in to a convivial atmosphere of newsroom banter, pundit speculation, and bracketing stories about the weather, sports or human interest” (Soules, 2007, para 8). It is pointed out that this new style brought down the level of any potential notion of crucial disruption in social affairs by “integrating disturbing pictures and information within a contrived atmosphere of normality” (Soules, 2007).
In the year 2003, thorough censorship was surely true for a larger portion of the mainstream media. “But as the numerous links below demonstrate, the internet has become a rich respiratory for satirical and subversive alternate visions” (Soules, 2007, para 8). In light of the U.K.-U.S. fight against Iraq, a unique form of resistance is experienced. The fights are held not so much on the streets but through the electronic networks of the Internet. Moreover, a large number of the anti-war posters and playing cards deconstruct the symbolic coding of previous war propaganda to convey another message, which is still animated by a sense of patriotism.
References
Carver, E. J. (1991). Berlin Calling: American Broadcasters in Service to the Third Reich. New York, Prager Publishers.
Getmanenko, S. (2009). Freedom from the Press: Why the Federal Propaganda Prohibition Act of 2005 is a good idea. Penn State Law Review, 114 (1), 251 – 292.
Herman, E. S. (2000). The Propaganda Model: a retrospective, Journalism Studies, 1(1), 101–112.
Howe, E. (1982). The Black Game: British Subversive Operations Against the German During the Second World War. London: Futura.
Jowett, G. S. & O’Donnell, V. (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Kosar. K. R. (2005). Public Relations and Propaganda: Restrictions on Executive Agency Activities. CRS Report for Congress. Web.
McCubbins, M. D. & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28 (1), 165-179.
Shah, A. (2007). War on terror mainstream media and propaganda. Global Issues. Web.
Soules, M. (2007). Propaganda at war – mass media, propaganda and censorship. Media Studies. Web.
U.S. General Accounting Office, (1986). The decision of the Comptroller General, Volume 66, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.