Propaganda - 1

Propaganda

David Trenholm

Sociology 1006 CO

22 March 2007
 Propaganda - 2

The term “propaganda” in today’s world conjures an assortment of disturbing

imagery for the average North American—imagery like corrupt, malign governments

pulling the collective strings of society, or images of the many manipulative, racist and

accusing advertisements that were often employed during World War I and World War II.

Many North Americans identify propaganda, then, as an ill-intentioned, modern

phenomena—a psychological tactic that had only seen use since the advent of radio,

television and mass publication. Propaganda, however, has been in use since the dawn of

recorded history; many governments and organizations around the world, and throughout

history, have and still use propaganda to subvert nations, political entities and entire

populations. It has only been in recent times where society has witnessed a change in the

use of propaganda, an alarming change that translates into an unprecedented evolution in

its deployment and effectiveness. With the use of modern technology, propaganda and the

monitored and filtered control of information has had an extraordinary affect on vast

populations of people. With continuing advancements in communication technology,

propaganda has undergone a radical transformation in its execution. Governments now

have at their disposal a broad range of media in order to reach the many eyes and ears of

their public; be it with newspaper, television, news programs or radio broadcasts.

Employing the use of mass media—a popular vehicle for filtered information—has

become a favourite among many governments across the globe, including many

freethinking, western democratic nations. The affects of such sensitive orchestrations on

the populace is quite noticeable, whether it be a subtle, minor filtering of information, or

the more blunt, loquacious variety; such cases, in either form, are easily witnessed when

examining examples in history, the most obvious being World War I and World War II. So
 Propaganda - 3

great its impact on the German population, Hitler, a skilled orator, and an employer of

skilled propagandists, was able to draw in vast amounts of political support in a relatively

brief span of time. Cunning propaganda campaigns among allied countries at the time,

even in pre-war America, were effective in curtailing both financial and militaristic

support for the war effort. And yet, could a beneficial angle of such tactics be considered?

Is there an advantage in using propaganda? One must critically look at the distinction

between propaganda, and its more benign cousin, persuasion. The subtle differences

between these two varieties are key in determining whether or not an act of propaganda

or persuasion is justified, and there are many examples in history that can be used. In

many cases such discussions are simply reduced to a simple question; that being a critical

inquiry into the supposed balance between a democracy’s ability to think and act, and a

government’s responsibility to lead their nation into the future while at the same time

achieving noticeable results.

Propaganda is a technique that has been in use since the beginning of recorded

history. Governments and political bodies have employed some variety of psychological

warfare as a means to achieve some kind of result—be it domestically, or internationally.

Far before the introduction of radio and television, propaganda had been in use in the

form of the written and spoken word. William III of Orange, the Stadtholder of the Dutch

Republic in the late 17th century, had launched an extensive propaganda campaign in

England, quite a few years before he planned to take the English throne for himself

(Claydon, 2002). Using posters, letters, and cleverly planted supporters that had the ear of

key parliamentary members, William III was able to subvert the influence of the current

English monarch, Charles. Naturally, with the advent of radio and television, the use of
 Propaganda - 4

propaganda has changed—the speed at which information can now travel is markedly

quicker than in the 17th century. Radio and television can ensure a message reaches an

entire nation within twenty-four hours. Radio was a popular format for propagandists in

World War II, specifically Italy and Nazi Germany. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister

for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, was the man responsible for orchestrating and

deploying the various types of propaganda throughout Germany and abroad. Using the

radio, Goebbels’ reach was far and wide, and his message clear—he was a proponent of

the Big Lie, as propagated by Hitler, “…the bigger the lie, the more easily it will be

believed, provided it is repeated vigorously and often enough.” (Bergmeier & Lotz,

1997). One of the most popular of Hitler’s radio propagandists was an American-born

German named William Joyce, a radio personality who affected an English accent when

addressing the Allied world. Dubbed “Lord Haw-Haw” by the Allies, Joyce was well

known, and well hated (Bergmeier & Lotz, 1997). The evolution of propaganda was not

limited to radio—the written word had also undergone a drastic change. In the First

World War, both sides in the conflict made use of aircraft in dropping leaflets on enemy

troops. Brief messages that were intended to demoralize, falsify and coerce, it was a

tactic that had never been used on such a grand scale. Over sixty million leaflets were

dropped on Germans during the First World War by Allied forces (Bergmeier & Lotz,

1997). Right at the onset of the Korean Conflict, American forces began immediately

dropping leaflet bombs—bombs that had instructions on where to surrender, informed the

Koreans that they would be protected, and would be allowed to return home after the

violence had passed (“Psychological Warfare in Korea”, 1950). It has only been in recent

years, however, that the world has seen a drastic evolution in the use of propaganda,
 Propaganda - 5

specifically in the area of mass media and television.

Television and cable news have revolutionized the way people receive

information—the globe has grown much smaller, as it does not take long at all for news

from the east to reach the west, or from the west to reach the east. The control television

has over a large population is also quite substantial—many North Americans receive their

information from the evening news or the morning newspaper. Both vehicles of

communication have the potential to significantly impact large populations. Noam

Chomsky, an acclaimed linguistic scholar and political activist, is well known for his

theories on the mass media, as well as his work on Manufacturing Consent with Edward

S. Herman. Chomsky and Herman both believe that a propaganda model exists and is in

use, and that it exists in mass media and millions of people are exposed to it daily. This is

a new type of propaganda that revolves around “filters” that are established to determine

what gets published or broadcasted, and what does not. The ownership of the medium;

the medium’s source of funds; the medium’s source of information, “flak” or disciplining

of the medium, and an anti-communist ideology (Herman and Chomsky, 1988) are all

filters that contribute to what information the public digests. Professor Chomsky

predicted in the coming years that the anti-communist filter would be replaced with an

Islamic or anti-terrorist filter—which it most assuredly has, especially in a post-9/11

world. These filters are very interesting to consider when examining the affects of the

mass media—take the medium’s source, or sourcing. Many small radio stations and

television networks receive their information or news stories from the New York Times

and Associated Press wire (Achbar, 1994), and as a result one company or

conglomeration is essentially controlling what is national news. What the average North
 Propaganda - 6

American might know about the world depends upon a select few news executives, who

decide what should be news, and what should not be news—the fact that these decisions

might be made with filters inspired by corporations and government discipline is

unsettling. In the massive corporate world of America, it is important to know who

controls what enterprise—who owns the news medium? What corporate sponsorships

exist that could influence broadcasts? What kind of disciplining or coercion exists from

the state or other private corporations? These questions, Chomsky believes, are important

in explaining the subtle and seemingly invisible propaganda that exists in mass media

today (Achbar, 1994).

Propaganda has always been perceived as something malign, deceitful and

coercive. Many associate the use of propaganda with Nazi Germany, North Korea and

Soviet Russia—but propaganda has been in use by many western democracies as well,

and in many cases its use was, for the most part, for the greater good. The old phrase

“does the end justify the means?” comes to mind, and that question could easily be

posited when analysing the well-intentioned propaganda that has occurred in the past.

Ralph White (1917), in an article on Propaganda, stated that the difference between

persuasion and propaganda lay in the “evil” overtones of the latter form. While the term

“evil” might be a strong world, there is no doubt that the term propaganda does carry a

certain malicious overtone, while persuasion has a rather neutral connotation to it. White

lists several elements to persuasion, both legitimate elements and questionable elements

that divide persuasion from propaganda. Legitimate elements include attracting and

maintaining attention and rapport, building credibility, appealing to emotions and motives

and involving action. Five other elements are flagged as questionable; lying, innuendo,
 Propaganda - 7

presenting opinion as fact, deliberate omissions and implied obviousness (White, 1971).

On the extreme side of the spectrum, incorporating both the legitimate elements with the

questionable elements produce a kind of propaganda one might see in Nazi Germany,

while innocent use of the questionable forms of persuasion might result in the various

war posters and advertisements as seen in Canada, the U.S. and Britain during the war

years. With this information in mind, the deployment of propaganda leaflets in the World

Wars and the Korean Conflict do not seem as malign, and indeed, might have proved

effective in limiting casualties. Coupled with White’s analogy on persuasion and

propaganda, and Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model of 1988, it makes sense that

most forms of “propaganda” evident in modern mass media is, for the most part,

innocently used. There are only so many stories that can be played in the evening news,

and so some will not receive coverage—but it is worth considering that there might be

some form of malign force contributing to which story receives attention, and which does

story does not.

Propaganda will continue to be a word to be avoided and feared—but that will not

impede its evolution. Although many North Americans would balk at the insistence that

propaganda is in use in the media today, there is no denying that some form, be it benign

or subversive, is in use throughout cable television, radio, and the printed word. There is

no telling what other form propaganda will take in the future, as developments in

communication technology continue. Its affects and use have changed, this is certain, and

it will continue to change as society evolves. The use of propaganda has been classically

identified as a balance between governmental control, and the rights and freedoms of

citizens—but it changed somewhat, and its deployment has taken a new form in the mass
 Propaganda - 8

media. While the role of the government is arguably involved at some level, the

distribution of this new persuasive technique finds a partner in the corporate sector of

America—a sector that has an exorbitant amount of influence over cable television, news,

and daily newspaper. It is important, then, that freethinking, democratic enthusiasts arm

themselves with the necessary information so that they might be better equipped to

identify the more subtle forms of propaganda and persuasion in use today—it is hardly as

obvious as Hitler and Goebbels’ rhetoric, and will undoubtedly take a keener eye to spot.

David Trenholm

References
 Propaganda - 9

Achbar, Mark. (1994). Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.
Montréal: Black Rose Books.

Bergmeier, Horst J.P. and Rainer E. Lotz. (1997). Hitler’s Airwaves: The inside Story of
Nazi Radio Broadcasting and Propaganda Swing. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.

Buitenhuis, Peter. (1987). The Great War of Words: British, American and Canadian
Propaganda and Fiction, 1914-1933. Vancouver: University of British Columbia
Press.

Claydon, Tony. (2002). William III: Profiles in Power. London: Pearson Education
Limited.

Herman, Edward S. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass
Media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Interim Report. (1951). Psychological Warfare in Korea. The Public Opinion Quarterly,
15, 65-75.

White, Ralph K. (1971). Propaganda: Morally Questionable and Morally Unquestionable

Techniques. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
398, 26-35.