Persuasion and Propaganda - Assignment Example

PROPAGANDA Introduction The current investigation looks at some issues of propaganda and persuasion, and how these techniques can be used, and havebeen used, to influence others. For example, the use of propaganda and persuasion was widespread among both Allied and Axis power during the second World War. Generally, persuasion of a large segment of the general public of a nation can be achieved by various methods, including the dissemination of propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation. Propaganda may be true, but uses psychological levers to encourage a certain way of thinking. Politicians sometimes use propaganda to downplay negative events that are occurring. Misinformation differs from propaganda in that it always refers to something which is not true. It differs from disinformation in that its intention is neutral. This category can also be clearly seen in the events and situations of the Nazis and others, as well. Disinformation is patently and deliberately untrue, and is perhaps the most dangerous sort of informational counterfeit. This type is also clearly shown in World War II propaganda as well as politics. Propaganda was used on the front lines, as well as the home front, during this time: “One of the more widespread uses of propaganda was in leaflets that were dropped on soldiers from the air. These leaflets were intended to demoralize the soldier so that he would lay down his arms and surrender. The United States, Germany, and Japan all used these leaflets” (State, 2009). The basic assumption of the current report is that by looking at issues of propaganda and persuasion, along with psychological concepts such as groupthink and conformity, one can see how the Nazis and other powers have used persuasion to their benefit: propaganda is still evinced in the mass media of today, and has strong roots in history. Support Hitler and the Nazi party used propaganda and persuasion to good effect at various key moments in history. First of all, when the Nazi party was just rising to power in Germany, they used propaganda and misinformation in order to get the people on their side very quickly. Hitler and the Nazis gained a great amount of power in a relatively short amount of time, beginning in about 1932 and reaching an apex in about 1939. “Germany, as diagnosed by Hitler, had not been recuperating sufficiently from the ill effects of World War I, and this because the energies of the German people were divided… Hitler vowed to destroy those who underscored economics” (Germany, 2000). This message rang out strongly with the German people, whether it was true or not. Hitler used propaganda and persuasion to take advantage of the wounds that many Germans felt about the Treaty of Versailles: he spoke to their emotions rather than their logic, which is a key psychological feature of propaganda. The Nazis rose to power and revised and reapplied these propaganda methods by which they expanded this power. Through the use of internment, violence, propaganda, and intimidation, the Nazis took control of a vulnerable nation obsessed with the imaginary inequities and glories of its past. From a psychological angle, as well as a political one, the preconditions of the rise of the totalitarian state were predicted during this time as well, in terms of the persuasion of mass appeal. The political system in Germany in 1932 was disparate and chaotic. Established political parties fought viciously and often physically to increase the number of seats they held in the Reichstag. Unemployment was high, the economy was not doing well, and the domestic political situation in Germany was often represented by shows of force and street violence. Instead of laws being regulated and obeyed by the use of legislation, excessive force, vehement rhetoric designed to psychologically incite the population, and open violence became the currencies of power. This street violence and propaganda was especially typified by the troopers of the Nazi party, which held around 200 seats in the Reichstag: at this time, 1932, Hindenburg, Germany’s president or chancellor, wanted to retire from office, but was persuaded by advisors who feared that the instability of the political situation would lead to a victory for the Nazis to bid for an extension that would allow him to hold office until 1934 (Germany, 2000). This extension was denied, and the Nazis made a strong showing in the ensuing election, garnering about thirteen and a half million votes to Hindenberg’s nineteen, largely due to their ability to psychologically manipulate the German public regarding the Treaty of Versailles and other issues. Thinking of how propaganda was used in the past by the Nazis seems to remove it from something that could happen today. But at this point in the current investigation, before further discussion of the Nazis’ use of propaganda during the second World War, one must also think of how the roots of propaganda are still very strong in society today. Controversial issues of public importance are being presented in ostensibly objective news broadcasts on a daily basis. But this does not mean that there no longer needs to be an imposed scale of balance in terms of providing coverage that provides counterargument as a tactic of reportage. Many news programs today, on both the left and the right, are basically political-agenda-led propaganda circuses masquerading as objective news programs, just like the Nazis used. Without a law to mandate equality in the news in effect, there is still the real danger that the viewer today will mistake propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation for news, just as German citizens did during the second World War. Many blame conservative agenda-making for this problem, but it is really deeper than that, and reflects news programs on both the right and the left of the political spectrum. During World War II, the Nazis took advantage of propaganda to fool a population already hurt by the Treaty of Versailles, to help the Nazi party seize power. The dictations of this treaty prohibited Germany from developing an air force and put severe limits on its army and navy powers. But in some cases, Germany was able to avoid these restrictions and start its military buildup in ways that found loopholes in the treaty. “Versialles had not stated that Germany could not train submarine crews abroad or that pilots for the banned German Air Force could train on civilian planes. Therefore, on paper Hitler inherited a weak military but this was not in reality the case. However, Hitler knew that publicly Nazi Germany was still seen within Europe as being held to the terms of Versailles and he was determined to openly break these terms” (Germany, 2000). But Hitler also knew that he could not openly pursue aggression with this army because he still planned on building it up. So when Hitler first came into power, he was more conciliatory than aggressive towards France and Britain in his propaganda campaigns, due to a tendency to influence through deceit. And there was some sympathy for him even at this time because particularly the British tended to see the treaty as being overly harsh and had sympathies with continued military buildup, just because they didn’t want to see German society completely decimated. Hitler used this good will as a coin to build his propaganda machine. There are many examples of propaganda being used by the mass media, both from World War II and from modern times. And, as mentioned, it is important to mention that it was not just the Nazis using propaganda during this time: even the US Government, especially in its efforts to sell war bonds during this conflict, often crossed the line with misinformation and propaganda, and frequently even used racial stereotypes against Germans, Italians, and Japanese. And today, looking at mass culture and communication from a psychological perspective, influence and propaganda still have strong ties to the furtherance of society. Broadcasters can be impacted ethically by these communication organizations in terms of individual as well as collective ethics. Ethics is not the same as morality or presupposing moral censorship, as some would have it; morality is more of an externalized and often religious response, whereas ethics could perhaps be more readily likened to the basic conscience mechanism of social responsibility. Ethics is something that begins with the individual and acts effectively to represent society in terms of fair and balanced information being presented. It becomes clear when looking at the ethical issues that the working broadcasting environment must also function in this societal space as a greater microcosm than the individual, but a lesser one than the society. Therefore, the rules and codes of the society must be reflected in terms of providing fair and balanced representations, optimally, that do not use propaganda or misinformation to persuade the public. As mentioned above, a psychological theory that is often mentioned alongside issues of conformity, propaganda, and influence, is the theory of groupthink. One can see the various issues covered in the current investigation, including the Nazi rise to power, according to theories of groupthink. Groupthink is the type of thinking which is commonly referred to in psychology and tells us that internal monitoring is often a process of socially influenced codes internal rather than external to the society or political agency (Ahlfinger and Esser, 2001). Ideas of misconduct and the bureaucracy portrayed through internal monitoring and internal audits is mixed. On the one hand, there is research that is in favor of internal monitoring because it works in some cases. On the other hand, there is research that criticizes internal monitoring and internal auditing because it is a situation in which oversight may be magnetized by social bonds between the investigators and the investigated, leading to a sort of loop in which propaganda is produced, with the social consent of its producers to not recognize it as propaganda or unfair influence. Those who oppose this viewpoint have various theories. Some are afraid of censorship. Others are afraid of the government having too much power. Overall, as mentioned above, some useful categories when thinking about issues of conformity and influence in the media, as well as in historical cases such as the rise of the Nazis, means putting influence into categories: propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation. As mentioned, propaganda may be true, but uses levers to encourage a certain way of thinking. “Misinformation differs from propaganda in that it always refers to something which is not true. It differs from disinformation in that it is intention neutral. It isn’t deliberate, it’s just wrong or mistaken… Urban legends are fabricated or untrue stories that are passed along by sincere people who believe them” (State, 2009). Disinformation is patently and deliberately untrue, and as mentioned, it is perhaps the most dangerous sort of informational counterfeit. Something must also be said historically of the issue of propaganda that America used in the news during World War II, especially in an era in which many social problems were in the news elsewhere, but didn’t make it onto newsreels. Some may even go so far as to even question whether separating newsreels and features during the times of theatrical newsreels has historically been a great façade, because of the level of subjectivity and propaganda in the newsreels. This also can be said of many television news programs in the present in reference to the surrounding programming: “The classification of films into such categories as newsreels and features has obscured their common impetus in nineteenth century forms such as sensation and melodrama intersecting with realism and sentimentalism… melodrama became increasingly realist… American realism was a masculine investigative response” (Higashi, 1998, p. 78). This is an historically objective way of looking at theatrical newsreels of the World War II era as propaganda, basically. It is not dividing them nationally into American or German propaganda: both sides were equally guilty. As mentioned above, propaganda also has links to psychological theories of conformity and groupthink. In thinking of concepts of conformity and groupthink, one must make clear differentiations of definition. Conformity is the process through which others show social or other signs of belongingness through social control, and groupthink is the idea that groups of people, influenced by factors of social belongingness more than the effective goals of the organization, will not always create productive decisions. There is significant research concerning the concepts of group dynamics and groupthink, including Alhfinger and Esser’s experiment. The issue this report finds find most noteworthy in this experiment, in terms of rationale of psychodynamics of group theory on behavior and conflict, is that of groupthink, or the psychological classification of group behavior which leads to a negative result in terms of poor decision making within a group, that is not dynamic and is having conflict between conformity in leadership following and innovation in the offering of unique and diverse perspectives during the decision-making process. Groupthink involves a level of conformity to the group leader’s own performative or preferential goals in members of the group, as well as other antecedents that can create conflict in the group environment. “These antecedents include high group cohesiveness, a stressful situation, and a variety of structural or administrative factors such as insulation of the group, promotional leadership, lack of methodical decision-making procedures, and lack of variety among members’ values and perspectives” (Ahlfinger and Esser, 2001). These authors base many of their hypotheses and conclusions on the groupthink paradigm, which again concentrates on a conflict that is mainly spurred on by lack of effective decision making and conformity of opinion within the group dynamic, as it can be applied to propaganda in terms of its self-perpetuation through social approval. The link between social approval and propaganda continuance is involved explicitly with history and also with present radio, internet, and television broadcasters. There are responsibilities which these broadcasters must uphold to the public so that the information that the viewing and listening public receives is fair and balanced and opposing viewpoints get a chance to be presented. In essence, it is a measure of responsibility and accountability for the free press that is able to give counterarguments and provide a space for counterarguments regarding issues that are controversial and require a public forum so that the viewing and listening public can get a full cognizance of the issues being presented on both sides, and not be subjected to misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda. Objectivity has always been a key tenet of journalism, but the achievement of objectivity is less clear and society must respond to a need for clarity in this presentation by highlighting balanced reportage of issues that concern the public or may be political, controversial, or the subject of dis- or misinformation, or propaganda. Conclusion It has been the assertion of this report that by looking at issues of propaganda and persuasion, along with psychological concepts such as groupthink and conformity, one can see how the Nazis and other powers have used persuasion to their benefit: propaganda is still evinced in the mass media of today, and has strong roots in history. The groupthink paradigm involves leadership, and many see promotional leadership as leadership that does not look for unique and dynamic decisions from the group decision making process, but rather imposes the preferential decisions of the group leader onto the group dynamic, encouraging conformity rather than free thinking and discussion within the group. This does highlight conflict in the group, but this conflict will often in groupthink be smoothed over by the unifying perception that conformity and going along with the promotional leader’s decision will affect the group dynamic as well, resulting in the continuance of propaganda that may be, to its perpetrators, something requiring social acceptance for its continuance. REFERENCE Ahlfinger, N.R. and J.K. Esser (2001). Testing the Groupthink Model: Effects of Promotional Leadership and Conformity Predisposition. Social Behavior and Personality 29(1), pp. 31-42. Azar, L. (2001). Twentieth Century in Crisis. MRI Systems. Higashi, S. (1998). Melodrama, Realism, and Race: WW2 Newsreels and Propaganda. Cinema Journal 37. Germany and Rearmament (2009). http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm. State of deception (2009). http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/ Read More