Propaganda and Foreign Policy - Essay Example

? Propaganda and Foreign Policy (06.01.12) Introduction Propaganda is an important tool used my many nations, including the US, in their respective foreign policies. Given that politics on an international level entails a great deal of competition amongst nations, policies have to be framed in deciding the kind of resources that a nation will compete for by adopting different political strategies. According to Noam Chomsky (1999), “within the reigning social order, the general public must remain an object of manipulation, not a participant in thought, debate and decision” (Noam Chomsky, 1999, p.131). Propaganda is also defined as, "Propaganda is not the same as advertising or art. Art today is preoccupied with abstract ideas; advertising tries to get you to buy something. Propaganda, on the other hand, is interested in making you believe something. It is the stronger societal force; once you start believing in an idea or ideology you will buy anything – metaphorical or literal – it tries to sell you. Once the public was scared into believing Iraq was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, they didn’t seem to mind that they were being fed lies over and over. Untruths and misleading statements were quickly accepted as reinforcement and justification for a particular point of view, even when proven false. Propaganda is that strong" (MLC, 2012, p.1). This paper will examine this statement in determining the views of society with reference to the roles played by the elites and the media. The relationship between the mass media and propaganda is indeed complex and by no means a linear process. The paper will consider whether the mass media reflects the ruling elite ideology and whether it is inevitable. An analysis will be made of how development in communications impacts propaganda and whether such developments make propaganda more or less important and effective. An examination will also be made of whether instant communication options such as satellite TV provide the truth concerning events in the context of representing objective reality or mediating the reality. Harold Lasswell, who was a sociologist, had written after the end of the First World War that there was a distinct relationship amongst the war and propaganda. He was of the opinion that moist Americans had just started learning at that time, although not a century later: “A new and subtler instrument must weld thousands and even millions of human beings into one amalgamated mass of hate will and hope. A new will must burn out of the canker of dissent and temper the steel of bellicose enthusiasm. The name of this new hammer and anvil of social solidarity is propaganda. Talk must take the place of drill; print must supply the dance. War dances live in literature, and at the fringes of modern earth; war propaganda breathes and fumes in the capitals and provinces of the world.” Another example is of what happened, immediately after the end of the Second World War; Germany had become an important economic and political global resource for the allied nations, particularly the US and the USSR. It is correct to say in this context that all battles are fought on two fronts; the war front and people’s minds, through propaganda. It is thus true that the nice people and the bad people can be held guilty of misguiding their citizens through fabricated, inaccurate, subjective and exaggerated news and information, with the prime objective of receiving support and a feeling of legitimacy. Propaganda serves well in rallying citizens for a given cause but it is mostly done through exaggeration and misrepresentation relative to the given issues in order to get people’s approval and support (Hale, 1975). Propaganda cannot be said to be new in war. It has always been a part of all conflicts and is considered a means that is used by governments for demoralizing their enemies and mobilizing their nations. It is evident that while fighting a war, there is a need for the creation and maintenance of sentiments amongst soldiers and citizens at any given time. At the same time, there is also a pertinent requirement for effectively mobilizing the maximum media support. Communication systems have been advancing rapidly across the world and their influence on all people has led to changed patterns of diplomacy and foreign policies. The most noteworthy amongst these is the enhanced efforts by governments to have control over the media atmosphere through distribution of propaganda, which is graciously referred to as explanations or information so that the masses and elite foreign audiences are influenced to achieve short and long terms policy objectives (Berelson, 1966). This is a new development in diplomacy and is mostly referred to as public diplomacy that aims at engaging with foreign audiences as well as with the established policy making elites. Pampering the media through strategies such as motivation, managing, massaging and providing it are considered major strategic imperatives to develop and nourish a common opinion relative to any war policy. Thus, it can be said that media does not mostly need to be made a party to all policy initiatives. Susan Carruthers, came up with conclusions on this very issue, relative to the ways in which media goes to literal war (2000). She held that “following the lead of their state, mass media are frequently more willing accomplices in war time propaganda than they care to admit, and may even play a significant part in instigating conflict”. The main issue in discussions relating to the roles played by the mass media in contemporary societies is whether it actually reflects social realities in the broader sense or whether the ruling elite that controls them filters out the facts that should be made public. Actually, the media does both depending upon the manner in which reality is defined. On the one hand, assuming that the media does not cover up facts, the activities of politicians that represent people are simply reproduced by the mass media. However, such activities may be faked by the politicians and under such circumstances it cannot be said that the mass media is manipulating in a democracy because the democracy itself appears to be a sham. On the other hand, if we assume different meanings to the political set up, mass media does appear to provide distorted pictures to the public. This happens when real politics comprises of the political activities of people whereby they involve in collective struggle in varied fields relative to social, economic and political activities instead of actions of politicians. This distortion by the mass media is done through depicting low significance of these activities through misrepresentation, marginalization or by just ignoring them entirely (Doob, 1966). The 2003 Iraq war was unique in terms of the sophisticated ways that were adopted by the Bush administration in terms of corporate Public relations strategies for creating the belief and opinion in favor of the war propaganda. This made American citizens to support him unconditionally and this outcome was made possible primarily through media support that orchestrated the war strategy for the public. Once the media was brought on board, it was sold to politicians as well as to people. The strategy aimed at targeting the media by using cultivating and co-opting strategies. These strategies incorporated development of messages as well as well-coordinated press releases that were carried forward with the perception management, psychological warfare and communication strategy by using PR companies and other military and civilian agencies. According to Farrell (1967), the mass media does provide misrepresented pictures of political realities while reporting the cause of any crisis or the conflicts relative to different groups of elites. In these matters, the mass media devotedly reflects the impression that some elite groups wish to be reproduced. For instance, there have been allegations about the manner in which the media misrepresented the real facts about the criminal bombing of the Iraqis in 1998.It is therefore evident that the mass media enables a true picture of reality only under conditions whereby the ruling elite is not in unanimous agreement about conceptions of the given aspects of political realities. However, this position depends upon the avenues open to the media to manufacture stories. According to Chomsky (2002), the manufacturing of news is a one way process whereby the mass media filters out information through different modes so as to have high level of consents relative to their agendas. Some theorists (Ellul, 1973) have spoken about a two way process through which mass media and social reality are viewed as being interdependent with each other, whereby one intrudes into another. This theory gains strength from the validity of the hypothesis that reality cannot be perceived as something that is external to the ways in which it is born. For example, watching TV is considered a point of reality because people’s knowledge of reality comprises of perceptions that are actual realities. Simultaneously, the perception of reality is subject to the functioning of the media that is different relative to economic and political social systems (Herman and Chomsky, 1988). It became evident that the problems were thoroughly investigated and then modeled by the Pentagon through analysis of what went wrong in the government’s media strategy in the past, such as during the Vietnam War. This was done to learn lessons in finding a better strategy that would prove more effective under the prevailing circumstances. Instead of creating conflicting relationships, the Pentagon worked towards building partnerships with the media and with journalists. This plan was a perfect fit in the overall plan strategy, which is evident from the fact that through his doctrine, General Tommy Frank divided the work into four distinct challenges; media, intelligence, military and political. It is thus evident that the fourth estate was perceived as an important front. It is also known that managing news was a significant aspect of the plans relative to the Iraq War. Remembering those days it is evident that the conflict was covered through repeated references to the people that were managing and commenting upon the given plans as if they themselves the plan. However such plans were not made entirely public and were not disclosed to the media, probably in view of the need to constantly refine and update the plans. The war was perceived and treated as a product that was to be introduced in the market. At this time an obedient media was repeatedly briefed and was selectively provided information unofficially, relative to being fed with preconceived information about creating the required hype amongst the public. The media was proactive and in this sense started cultivating media relations as well as targeted major programs by closely consulting with other services. It is correct to say that the ruling economic elites are not prone to accept a competitive environment that results from the unequal growth of the global market economies, which jeopardizes the interest of many. This is the main reason why ruling elites are always in favor of protecting themselves against such patterns (Jowett, 2011). However, it is also correct that the competitive environment always fuels an expanding market economy. The characteristics of self interests and competition have impacted the values systems of the ruling elite that control the market economies (Farrell and Smith, 1967). Chomsky (1999) has at times given the feeling that except for accidental happenings, such as market failure and strong governmental support, ruling elites have always benefited from corporatizing the market economy, which should be avoided. It is clear that the market economy is fed by an extreme dynamic that is fed by competition that automatically results in the added intensity of economic power. Thus, the issue is not of corporatizing the market economy that is perceived to represent attacks of democratic market practices. This cannot be avoided because of the dynamics of the global market economies. The issue is not of capitalism or corporate market economies because other kinds of systems are neither desirable nor feasible. This is a cover for avoiding blame on the ruling elites for infringing the rules of the game (Balkan, 1998). An important aspect of the internal control mechanisms of media houses is the fact that most of them are controlled through a hierarchical framework that is characteristic of all media organizations. This implies that the responsibility of all the important decisions is with a select group of people within the management that answer to the owners. This hierarchical framework gives rise to a consistent level of competition amongst journalists in terms of meeting the expectations of the select management group that takes such decisions (Ellul, 1973). At the same time, people within the management group that takes decisions are also constantly competing with one another to become well accepted by the owners in order to justify their highly paid positions. It is thus evident that all people in this hierarchical structure are fully aware and constantly keep learning about the things that will be agreed and what will not be agreed, which makes them to act accordingly relative to the production of news and information for the public. The filtering of information is done by way of self censoring instead of direct orders from the owners (Brown, 1963). The impact of such internal hierarchical controls and expectations is to impose by means of the internal competitive environment, a unique homogenized performance standard. Ellul (1973) has pointed out in this regard that media personnel that attempt to deviate from this pattern will not succeed in their media careers because they will eventually be marginalized. Given these circumstances it becomes evident that the media cannot be said to make a democratic system stronger. According to Jowett (2011), the media plays an important role in helping to keep citizens away from the public arena because of the assumption that they will otherwise create trouble for the ruling elite. The general public is supposed to remain mere spectators and not participants. The media has the potential to play a significant role in reducing the democratic freedoms and rights that are made available to people following long drawn struggles. This has always happened during times when popular movements or trade unions have clashed with the ruling elites. In substantiating this issue, Chomsky has quoted Walter Lippman, “For Lippmann, there is a new art in the method of democracy, called "manufacture of consent." By manufacturing consent, you can overcome the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. We can make it irrelevant because we can manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them, even if they have a formal way to participate. So we’ll have a real democracy. It will work properly. That’s applying the lessons of the propaganda agency” (Fotopoulos, 1999, p.1) For almost every individual, propaganda is now a part of life that occurs through TV programs, political speeches and newspapers and magazines. Television and the internet are now the two most effective means to spread propaganda. With the speedy developments of communication systems, especially relative to the mass media, propaganda can be said to be an inherent part of present day mass culture. It is often stated by sociologists that the tendency to propagate specific ways of behavior and life styles have a negative impact on communities. However, it is true that propaganda has the potential to be used for positive objectives such as to spread anti discrimination ideas, anti smoking programs and healthy life styles amongst others. The most significant developments in communications that have been impacting propaganda have been the technological innovations relative to visual propaganda. An important aspect of propaganda is its characteristic of appealing to stereo types. In this context, modern telecommunications and mass culture has come to closely associated with the stereotypes that are produced by the media. Developments in communication systems have allowed propaganda to become less effective because advanced technology allows people to access varied sources to get authentic information. The proliferation of the internet has allowed the free flow of information to such an extent that governments are now at a loss to spread the kind of propaganda that could succeed in the past. Any information originating from government or media sources is not taken on face value immediately by people because of the increasing awareness relative to propaganda by governments to meet there political objectives. It can thus be said that the development in communications have rendered propaganda less effective and governments will have to think of other innovative ways to make their propaganda more effective (Bernay, 2004). With the diversification and advancement of satellite technology, new programming strategies have come up that target not only international but also transnational audiences through the creation of specific channels of interest. Such developments have had a strong impact on many regions of the world whereby information and political ideologies have crossed national frontiers. The impact of satellite TV is best demonstrated by the underestimated global authority of CNN. The modern public sphere and the global public sphere are now intermingled in terms of the multi discursive arena relative to mediation. In such a changing environment, the global information system and the traditional systems of global communication have become almost obsolete. The international communication theories that were based on push technologies have now revealed the imbalance that characterizes the portrayal of global media images, including the investigation of practices of media imperialism followed by large multinational companies. The introduction of instant means of media coverage and information has strongly impacted the cultural effects emanating from the globally transmitted media programs. Instant media coverage allows the world to know of all details in times of international crisis. There are now studies that have investigated the cultural effects of instant information being made available to the masses, thereby rendering government propaganda significantly weak in terms of attempts to prejudice public opinion in favor of the desired policy objectives. Such developments have created new communication segments in interpreting global media flows through new globalized perspectives. It is now difficult to avoid the truth of events because they mostly represent objective realities instead of being always mediated. The increasing competition amongst news agencies that are governed by the rules of their respective nations have encouraged most media agencies to make efforts in being the first to report events across the world and if they use some mediation strategies they stand to lose in terms of loss of credibility amongst the global public (Roberts, 2009). Without the presence of the mass media, it is impossible to have accountability and openness in present day democracies. However, although the mass media has the potential to help politicians, it can also obstruct transparency in politics. Politicians have the ability to replicate the political advantages of transparent practices by making use of media manipulation. It is known that TV can transform political and legal coverage into entertainment programs that can be consumed by the masses. Television can serve as a means to create a self developing culture of scandals. It is common knowledge that programs focusing on the stories of political strategies, political strife and the private life styles of politicians are welcomed by viewers and preferred more over other entertainment programs relative to policy issues. It cannot be denied that political life tends to largely confirm with life styles of politicians depicted in television programs. Thus, scandals, media events and other kinds of coverage relating to politicians and political practices ultimately overshadow and remove other kinds of public discussions and political knowledge. In such ways, the media can adversely impact the achievement of goals relative to political transparency. The media strongly impacts public opinion through its mechanisms such as opening up secrets, holding political authorities responsible for their actions and propagating information (Black, 1975). Theoretically, the mass media can help in making the political systems more transparent. It can help in making people understand the working and objectives of the government, in participating in the political decision making process and in finding ways to hold the government responsible. However, practically, the effects created by the media are different because politicians and governments can easily replicate the political virtue of transparent working by using options of media manipulation. References Balkan, J. M., 1998. How Mass Media Simulate Political Transparency, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/media01.htm. Berelson, Bernard., 1966. Reader in Public opinion and mass communication, Free Press. Bernays, Edward., 2004. Propaganda, Ig Publishing  Black, John B., 1975. Organizing the Propaganda Instrument,  Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Brown, J. A. C., 1963. Techniques of persuasion, Penguin Books. Chomsky, Noam., 1999. Necessary illusions: thought control in democratic societies, South End Press. Chomsky, Noam., 2002. Media Control, Second Edition: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press. Doob, leonard., 1966. Public Opinion and Propaganda, Archon Books.  Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky., 1988. Manufacturing Consent, Pantheon. Ellul, Jacques., 1973. Propaganda and Formation of Men’s Attitude, Vintage Farrell, J. C. and Smith, Asa P., 1967. Image and Reality in World Politics, New York, Columbia University Press. Fotopoulos, Takis., 1999. Mass media, Culture and Democracy, DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, vol.5, no.1. Hale, Julian A. S. 1975. Radio Power, Temple University Press Jowett, Garth S. and Victoria O'Donnell., 2011. Propaganda and Persuasion, Sage Publications. Roberts, Paul Craig., 2009.Why Propaganda Trumps Truth, World News Daily     Read More