Propaganda as Effective Arms in Information War - Research Paper Example

Propaganda: outdated concept or transformed weapon in information warfare? Abstract According to scholars, propaganda has been used since time immemorial. It started as neutral term. However, its used by the Roman Catholic Church against Protestantism gave it a pejorative meaning. Although information warfare has been a late development compared to propaganda, a study of a 1928 material on propaganda indicates that propaganda has been weaponised or transformed into a weapon as early as 1928 in the work of Edward Bernays. This is not to say that propaganda was not upgraded when it became information warfare in the last several years. Today, the tools of information warfare include computers, mass media, and tremendous control on information: determining what information will flow, will not flow, and the types of information that will flow. Propaganda has been associated with use of flawed or absence of logic but the work of Bernays in 1928 widened the concept of propaganda to cover the use of manipulation. Taken into in this framework, propaganda has been transformed into a weapon: it became information warfare in the late 20th century. This matter is true not only for the United States but globally as well. Propaganda: outdated concept or transformed weapon in information warfare? Jowett and O’Donnell (2006) defined propaganda as “a form of communication that attempts to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of a propagandist” (p. 1). The full Jowett and O’Donnell’s definition of propaganda is that it is “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 7). In propaganda, elements of informative and persuasive communication are combined and this characteristic distinguishes propaganda as a specific class of communication (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 1). In the most neutral sense, propaganda means to disseminate or promote ideas (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 2). In Latin, it only means “to propagate” or “to sow” (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 2). However, the propaganda of the Roman Catholic Church in opposing the spread of Protestantism resulted to the loss of neutrality in the word “propaganda” and the word has acquired a pejorative meaning (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 2). The other terms which are considered “synonyms for propaganda are lies, distortion, deceit, manipulation, mind control, psychological warfare, brainwashing, and palaver” (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 2-3). In addition, in the early 21st century and even earlier, the terms that imply propaganda included “spin” and “news management” (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 3). “Spin” is associated with the manipulation of political information while “news management” covers even non-political matters (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 3). Propaganda is often used as the catch-all term for all suspicious rhetoric (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 3). It is also the description for organized persuasion by large organizations employing poor, non-existent, or flawed logic (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2006, p. 3). According to Standler (2005), the tools employed by propaganda includes name-calling, glittering generalities, transfers, testimonial, plain folks, card stacking, band-wagon, insistence of only a binary choice, and pejorative labels. These tools, however, works on the mind. There is no use of coercion and, typically, a political or power advantage is not involved. Understood within the framework of Jowett and O’Donnell (2006) and Standler (2006) definitions, propaganda can be used by the powerful and even by a group that is not so strong politically. In contrast, this is not the case for information warfare where some control or power must be involved to effectively deprive information and determine what information can flow vis-à-vis the enemy, adversary, or target of the information warfare. For William Hutchinson, editor of the Journal of Information Warfare and Chair of the Australian Information Warfare and Security Centre, the concept of information warfare “began as a technology oriented to gain information dominance by superior command and control” (2006, p. 213). The concept developed further with the realization that power of information is both a weapon and a target (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). As conflicts became ongoing and not temporary, “control over mass communication became a high priority for the governments as well as military” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). Hutchinson argued that “manipulation of information of information became an essential function” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). Hutchinson stressed that “the world of deception became an integral part of official communication between governments and their constituency” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). The concept of information warfare developed predominantly in the United States (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). The origin of the development of the concept can be traced to the late 1980s “when the expression was specific to the military domain” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). Further, according to Hutchinson, information warfare became “a living concept in the Gulf War of 1991” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). For Hutchinson, “information warfare’s origins are electronic warfare, military deception, psychological operations and information operational security” (2006, p. 213). However, during that time, the emphasis was still on technology rather than on the information proper although a “media management” component was developing (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 213). In America’s earlier wars, such as Vietnam War, media persons and press people managed to use America’s military helicopter to send images of the war to the US homeland to which the American public reacted. The US military in their wars of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s sought to control the flow of such images. In the Falklands War of 1982, the war was fought in a relatively isolated setting that made it possible for the military to have control of information (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). The military acquired the opportunity to control press releases and all communications were controlled and communicated by government (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). The military deliberately censored information. The US military learned from the experience and applied the lessons from the experience during its invasion of Panama (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). According to Hutchinson, in the invasion of Panama as well as in the Falklands war, the application of information warfare“was a classic case of manipulating the data presented to the population” (2006, p. 214). Besides manipulation of data, information warfare includes a manipulation of contexts or on how data may be interpreted (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). Thus, in the Panama invasion, “victory parades were staged showing ‘Panamians’ celebrating the American involvement” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). According to Hutchinson, the image transmitted to America was that the invasion was received with jubilation although “the invasion was look upon with resentment” by Panamians (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). According to the Hutchinson, the application of information warfare in the Gulf War of 1991, however, was handled with “sophistication”. The US military created “press pools” and “approved journalists” with an arrangement that the journalists would only report the data given to them by the government or the military (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). Hutchinson reported that independent media were even being kept away and were treated as potential enemies (2006, p. 214). In the mid-1990s, information warfare was becoming an integrated doctrine given developments in computer and communications technologies (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). However, information warfare was still technology focused doctrine during this time with “command and control” still dominating and “media management” was seen as a “separate entity” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). An influential text by M. Libicki (1995) outlined the scope of information warfare (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). Information warfare was described as “a combination of command and control warfare, intelligence based warfare, economic warfare, cyber-warfare, and hacker warfare” but developments in the areas of public diplomacy and public affairs were also shaping the concept (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 214). An important perspective shaping the concept of information warfare is that the deliberate use of misleading information, lying, or deception is becoming a part and parcel of information warfare (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 215). In addition, an important concept was emerging, “information operations”, and information warfare was deemed a component of information operations (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 215). During this time, information warfare was started to be seen as legitimate and appropriate to use not only during wartimes or during invasions as were the earlier cases but in peacetimes as well (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 217). According to Hutchinson, information warfare is a construct of a “war mindset” that moved from the military to civilian affairs (2006, p. 217). As mentioned earlier, the use of deception is considered part of the art of information warfare. The United States military defines deception as “measures designed to mislead the enemy by manipulation, distortion, or falsification of evidence to induce him to react in a manner prejudicial to his interests” (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 217). Unfortunately, the “enemy” is seen to be hiding among the civilian population and has become a part of the civilian population. The means of deception includes camouflage/concealment/cover, demonstration/feint/diversion, display/decoy/dummy, mimicry/spoofing, dazzling/sensory saturations, disinformation/ruse, and conditioning (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 218). Deception can be used with regard to government or military objectives, target, and story (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 218). The deception can cover presenting data that represent on how one wants to see the truth, the context for the data, and the production of a “noise in the communication channel” so the enemy can only receive the data desired by the deceiver (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 220-221). Unfortunately, the elements of deception are used both on the enemy and among the civilian population because the enemy is believed to have hidden and had become a part of the civilian population. Further, information warfare is done tactically and strategically as warfare in peacetime has tactical and strategic components (Hutchinson, 2006, p. 221). Comparing, propaganda in Edward Bernays (1928) and information warfare in Hutchinson (2006) concepts, we can note a similarity between Hutchinson’s 2006 concept of information warfare and the way propaganda was defined by Bernays in 1928. For starters, Bernays (1928, p. 1) defended the need for propaganda as a way to organize chaos. Bernays (1928) had emphasized that “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society” (p. 1). Bernays even said that in such a “democratic society”, there is a “true ruling power” and an “invisible government”. He said, “those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country” (Bernays, 1928, p. 1). Thus, given the foregoing discussion, what can be concluded is that even if propaganda works on the mind in the original sense. As early as 1928, at least for the United States of America, it has been transformed to a concept very close to Hutchinson’s concept of “information warfare”. Hutchinson’s concept, of course, is not his own but his description of the concepts guiding the strategies of the US governments and military. The US concept, however, is being used by other countries dependent on the US for military training and probably by US allies in Europe. In summary, we can say that, contrary to the statements of Hutchinson (2006), the beginnings of information warfare was initiated in 1928 by Edward Bernays in his conception of what propaganda constitutes. It is in this sense that we can say that information warfare is weaponised propaganda or a propaganda that has been transformed into a weapon in the 21st century that employs information flow, information control, manipulation of information, deception, and denial of information other than the use of flawed logic. References Bernays, E. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright Publishing. Hutchinson, W. (2006). Information warfare and deception. Informing Science, (9), 213-223. Jowett, G. & O’Donnell, V. (2006). Propaganda and persuasion. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Libicki, M. (1995). What is information warfare? Washington: National Defense University. Standler, R. (2005). Propaganda and how to recognize it. In www.rbs0.com/propaganda.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2010]. Read More