Television as Social and Political Propaganda - Coursework Example

School: Topic: TELEVISION AS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA: HOLLYWOOD TV SHOWS AND MOVIES AS POLITICAL PROPAGANDA, AND PR CAMPAIGNS AS CORPORATE PROPAGANDA. Course Title: Lecturer: Date of Submission: Introduction Tracing the origin of propaganda to the Latin propagare, which is an agricultural term that means to sow Levy (2004), explains propaganda as the practice of influencing people’s attitude and reasoning towards an intended cause and position. With texts which support the fact that propaganda has been used since ancient times, it would be agreed that the phenomenon has long been part of the human society. What has changed over time however has to do with the approach to generating and promoting propaganda. For example Levy (2004) noted that propaganda was first institutionalized by the Catholic Church as a way of propagating the Catholic faith. With time however, propaganda became a political tool with which rulers in ancient and medieval times convinced their subjects to support their call to go into war against their foes (Clark, 1997). In the 20th century, the approach to generating propaganda changed further when elements such as art and television were made focal mediums through which socio-political propaganda were promoted (Elsen, 1981). In this paper, a chronological historical account will be given from ancient world to the current generation to justify the position that although the way propaganda is practiced has changed, the cores are quite the same. What is propaganda? Propaganda has simply been defined as a communication that propagates an agenda (ODonnell & Jowett, 2005). Like any agricultural plant that is propagated, communication that is used as a form of propaganda receives massive follow-up, nurturing, and turning-up until the preferred yield is achieved. As a result of this, propaganda has been used to influence people’s perceptions and opinions about causes and positions taken by people using the propaganda (Nelson, 1996). It is not surprising that some analysts have likened propaganda to communicative indoctrination, where people are forced to accept certain lines of reasoning through the act of constantly presenting them with selective facts whiles intentionally making omissions that do not help their cause (ODonnell & Jowett, 2005). Propaganda has indeed been used in several sectors of society including religion and politics. Today, there seems to be a new twist to propaganda as the corporate world is matching government boot-for-boot in terms popularity with the use of propaganda (Nelson, 1996). Surprisingly however, both government and the corporate world resort to the use of media, particularly television at one point or the other when propagating their self-centered agenda through communication. The use of media platforms such as television can therefore be said to have become a central theme of the definition of propaganda in the 21st century. History of propaganda Levy (2004) noted that even before the World War I, there was a term introduced in Germany which was ‘Kulturpropaganda’ to denote how propaganda was used in a new way with specific regard to culture. Back in the medieval world also, cultural propaganda was popular as seen in the work of Brown (1988) who used “The Bayeux Tapestry” and “Allegory of Good and Bad Government” in defending this point. Hollingsworth (2003) also chronicled the central place of religious art as a form of propaganda during the renaissance, reformation, and counter-reformation eras. Down to the 20th century Clark (1997) exposed how the whole German government endorsed propaganda carried on through art and expressionism. Evolution of TV and media Propaganda The advent of the use of television as a propaganda can be traced to the very beginnings of television as a major media tool. When television became available in experimental forms in the late 1920s, it became an instant success with more people wanting to own the set in their homes. Bourdieu (2001) however notes that right from the beginning and up to date, the television industry has been seen as the preserve of a few, making it possible for few people to control television transmission as a form of media. Even though television set can be found in almost every home in the developing and developed world, options as to who determines what is seen on television remains in the hands on only a few people. This situation is worrying but remains same for movie production also, making only a few production houses control the airwaves by way of television and multimedia (Shiers, 1997). Bourdieu (2001) saw the situation where television production has been the reserve of a few people and few production houses as a leading factor that television has successfully been used as propaganda tool. This is because it is always easier to manipulate few people than it is to do for many people. That is, politicians and corporations that have been at the hem of taking advantage of propaganda as means for winning the hearts of the public find it easier manipulating media houses to promote agenda that best serve their interest. Again, people there are only few production houses taking control of the television airwaves, the kind of message that the larger public receives have largely always been the same without any significant change. Meanwhile, ODonnell and Jowett (2005) observed that whenever people are made to consume the same kind of message, they easily assimilate these messages and the messages became a part of their thinking and perception about issues. A typical example of this will later be seen with the TV series “Homeland”, where there has been a successful calculated attempt to present to viewers a kind of identity of the Muslim world, which makes them direct enemies of Americans. Again, people of the ease with which it is to get into the hearts and minds of people with the use of movies and television shows, corporations and politicians who are able to pay their ways through have often put up programs and shows that seek highlight what they stand for. One developing situation that has made the use of television as a tool for propaganda much successful is the kind of admiration that the public has for selected actors and TV personalities. In the U.S. for example, names like Oprah Winfred, Larry King, David Letterman, and Gary Miller commonly rings a bell when it comes to TV talk show. Because of the large following that such selected few presenters have, propagating any agenda with them as anchors can sure be expected to succeed. The same applies to movies when actors like Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCarpro, Halle Berry and Julie Roberts are made to be the face of movies projecting certain agenda, policies or products. The propaganda model The propaganda model introduced by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their 1988 book titled Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media is largely referred to as one of the major authorities that helps to define and understand how political and corporate propaganda functions through the media. This is because according to the propaganda model, there are 5 major classes of filters in society, which serve as determinants for what receives media attention (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). As part of the social orientation of the filters, dissent from the mainstream receives little or no coverage whiles governments and big businesses get all the needed and sometimes unneeded coverage as a means of gaining access to the public (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Meanwhile, governments and big businesses always head political and corporate propagandas respectively. Based on the propaganda model therefore, it can be said that the kind of orientation that society gives to the media whereby the media is always expected to carry or cover news about governments and big businesses is in itself a situation that fosters the growth of political and corporate propaganda. Using Hollywood as an example, it is common knowledge that television shows and movies are some of the areas that the place is best known for. As television and movie production play central role in public media, the best implication that can be given to the propaganda model in relation to Hollywood is that governments and big businesses receive coverage through the use of television shows and movies. In the work of Mullen (2010), the propaganda model was revisited, where the second-order prediction of Herman and Chomsky (1998) that the propaganda model will be marginalized by the academia in years to come was confirmed to have come true. Interestingly, Mullen (2010) held this conclusion with the opinion that the academia ignored the propaganda model largely because the academia also served the interest of corporate and states power. Arguing from this point, it would be admitted that there is even a greater cause for concern in the current generation than what used to be in the 20th century when the propaganda model was developed. This is because the academia has become so powerful today that they set and determine the agenda for public discourse (Cull, 2003). If such a powerful institution should therefore kowtow to corporate and state power, then it would be expected that the issue of political and corporate propaganda will continue to be part of society for long. Analysis of cases Homeland TV Series The Hollywood television show of Homeland is a typical case that can be made of how television has become an important medium for political propaganda. The show was produced by key production companies including Teakwood Lane Productions, Fox 21, Keshet Media Group, Cherry Pie Productions, and Showtime Networks. The show can be said to be a representation of political propaganda and political bias as it is set with the theme of terrorism seeking to portray Muslims as anti-Semitic. This makes the entire series one that can be said to be anti-Islamic propaganda. A typical scene in the series that justifies this claim is where Saul, who was a Jew, was approached by a Lebanese customs worker, who was a Muslim and made negative remarks about Saul’s religion. Meanwhile, because Semitic is rooted in Judaism, any such negative comments are considered anti-Semitic (Bauer, 2006). Given the religious connections in the series that makes the show anti-Islamic propaganda, one will be tempted into believing that Homeland is a religious propaganda rather than a political one. However, the show’s plot can be seen to be set in a manner that pegs the entire American society against Islam. Given the connections that America made to Islam as a religion following such major terrorist events like the 9/11 (Bolton, 2006), one would appreciate that Homeland is a strong political propaganda used by America to state its claim against Islamic nations as a whole. The justification of Homeland as a political propaganda is further seen as the show does not only focus on the lives and actions of individuals but also seeks to criticize major institutions in the Islamic world, marking them as corrupt and condoning terrorism (Beaumont, 2012). For example government officials in Afghanistan are showed to be both corrupt and contemptible, accepting bribes as a means of covering the activities of the drone strikes which eventually led to the killing of several Afghans. What is more, the plot of Homeland continuously shows America to be a nation that frowns on terrorism and thus shows sensitivity to the war against terror. This is indeed a very direct political sneer on the Islamic world as a direct counter depiction of their agencies is showed in the same show. In the opinion of McCloud (2013), the American people have constantly found ways of justifying military extremism in countries purported to be in support of terrorism. As terror based anti-terrorism is globally rejected, Homeland is seen to be a show through which an agenda is propagated that there is justification for American military involvement in the fight against terrorism in other countries. Interestingly, Homeland can be said to be a national political propaganda because of its massive endorsement including the numerous awards it has won in the U.S. Some of the awards include 2012 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor and Lead Actress, and 2012 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama. Hot Coffee Movie The documentary movie of Hot Coffee is another example of how U.S movies have become a preferred tool for propaganda in the 21st century. More specifically, the movie is seen as a form of corporate propaganda that has aspects of public relations (PR) campaigns. This is because Hot Coffee chronicles major American corporate cases including Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests, Gourley v. Neb. Methodist Health Systems and Jones v. Halliburton Co. What is peculiar about all these cases as portrayed in the movie is that they involve some form of corporate level efforts which attempt to promote tort reform by attempting to distort certain tort cases (Mencimer, 2011). What this means is that the exposure in the movie about the actions of the corporations, some of which are accused of spending millions to achieve the said distortions make the movie a propaganda tool against the corporations. The reason this point is made is that the corporations are given very little representation of their sides of the cases in the movie. Rather, victims who are ordinary members of the public seem to have their causes and positions promoted and protected in the movie. There are specific examples that can be cited from Hot Coffee to show how makers of the movie took actions that rightly fit into the definition of propaganda. For example, one of the aspects in defining propaganda is that it seeks to deliberately omit facts whiles projecting others in order to achieve a purported goal (Bytwerk, 2004). Meanwhile, in Hot Coffee, there is a segment feature that interviews Liebeck’s family as part of the analysis of the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests case. With this done, most aspects of McDonald’s side of the facts were omitted so that perceptions of the case as being a frivolous lawsuit would be corrected (Mencimer, 2011). Again, in analysing the case of Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Co. Al Franken who worked feverishly with Jones to get her case heard in court was the one given all the prominence and highlight. In this instance also, Halliburton Co. which was the corporation had its side of the facts serious omitted. All these facts come together to prove that indeed the movie was set to be a propaganda against the corporations with the agenda of promoting public and individual liberation under tort law. Conclusion The paper has been a chronological discussion of how propaganda has been practiced since ancient world till the current time. As part of the propaganda model which was reviewed and the cases analysed, it has been established that there has been significant changes in the approaches to practicing propaganda. The changes have largely come about due to increased levels of enlightenment that society has developed. This is because society has become far too familiar with propaganda as a means of possibly propagating negative agenda and making them appear as positive. Because of this, most agents of propaganda have now taken solace in the use of more cunning and compromising methodologies including television shows and movies. However, the core goal for engaging in propaganda, which is to communicate to people in a way that generates public following and support remains the same. Because the cores are the same, propaganda still remains an important subject both in political and corporate world and evidence of this is clearly seen in Hollywood television shows and movies including Homeland and Hot Coffee. Given the large following that Homeland and Hot Coffee has, and given theoretical evidence to confirm the impact of television and movies on viewers, it can be concluded that propaganda remains as popular and powerful today as it was in ancient, medieval and 20th century times. References Bauer, Y. (2006). Beyond the Fourth Wave: Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Radical Islam. Judaism. 55 (1), 55-62. Beaumont, P. (2012). Homeland is brilliant drama. But does it present a crude image of Muslims? The Guardian. Retrieved June 3, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/13/homeland-drama-offensive-portrayal-islam-arabs Bolton, M. K. (2006). U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-creation. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Brown, S. A. (1988). The Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography. Woodbridge: Boydell. Bytwerk, R. L. (2004). Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Clark, T. (1997). Art and Propaganda in the Twentieth Century. New York: Harry N. Abrams Cull, N. (2003). Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Elsen, A. E. (1981). Purposes of Art. Columbia: Harcourt Brace College Publishers Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books. Hollingsworth, M. (2003). Art in World History. Roma: Giunti Editore Levy, E. (2004). Propaganda and the Jesuit Baroque. California: University of California Press McCloud, Aminah B. "Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance." Choice 51.4 (2013): 710. Web. 30 May 2015 Bourdieu, P. (2001). On Television. Texas: The New Press. Shiers, G. (1997). Early television: a bibliographic guide to 1940. New York: Garland Mencimer, S. (2011). Why Jamie Leigh Jones Lost Her KBR Rape Case. Retrieved June 3, 2015 from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial Mullen, A. (2010). Twenty years on: the second-order prediction of the Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model. Media, Culture & Society. Vol. 32 (4), pp. 673-690. Nelson, R. A. (1996). A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ODonnell, V. & Jowett, G. S. (2005). Propaganda and Persuasion. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc Read More