reseach paper for Pro moss
Wilson Li
iics515-oc-october_22-2014.pptxIICS515-October 22, 2014
Public Communication: Propaganda and Public Diplomacy
1
keywords
Propaganda (Vincent and other sources):
integration and agitation propaganda
name-calling
glittering generalities
card stacking
testimonials
image transfer
“plain folks”
bandwagon effect
Cultivation theory (Gerbner in Vincent reading):
cultivation
mainstreaming
mean world syndrome
Chomsky (and his propaganda model in Vincent reading):
the “propaganda model” (five filters)
Soft power and public diplomacy (Nye and Snow):
hard power and soft power
fungibility
public diplomacy
Propaganda from the English civil war, 1642-1651
(Cavaliers were Royalists, supporters of the Crown; Roundheads, under Cromwell, favoured the power of Parliament)
2
The exam question related to this material
Public diplomacy is a form of communication that a state uses to share information and ideas with foreign publics during times of peace. Propaganda is a form of communication that a state uses to transmit ideological messages to foreign publics in times of war. Propaganda can also be used, as discussed in class, as a form of communication used to transmit ideological messages to foreign publics and to domestic publics in times of peace.
Describe the two forms of communication, in your own words. As you do so, reflect on how each of these two forms of communication reveals to us ideas relating to the relationship of communication and power.
outline
What is Public Communication?
Propaganda and Global Communication (in 4 sections)
We address propaganda and communication using three theorists or models that Vincent pays particular attention to.
Sources: Richard Vincent, “Global Communication and Propaganda.” From Yahya Kamalipour. Global Communication. IICS515 reading, plus many other sources.
What is Propaganda? (using Jacques Ellul and Richard Vincent here)
Propaganda theory in the early 20th century
George Gerbner and the “cultivation model”
Noam Chomsky and the “propaganda model”
Propaganda exercise: “Duck and Cover”
6. Public Diplomacy
Sources:
Nancy Snow, Chapter 4, Thomas McPhail textbook, Global Communication. IICS515 reading.
Joseph Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.”
Public Diplomacy example: Russia Today and Confucius Institute
One in a series of imagined propaganda posters for World War 3
4
How we are addressing these readings (Vincent and Snow):
We are reading these two articles and reviewing the lecture material with the theme of “communication and power” in mind
Vincent (“Global Communication and Propaganda”)
The Vincent article is comfortable to read, and full of historical detail about propaganda around the world
Our IICS515 course is mandated to introduce theory as it relates to intercultural and international communication
What I am going to do here is to select out from Vincent the three main sources of theory that Vincent addresses for special attention:
Propaganda theory from the 1920s-50s
George Gerbner and cultivation theory
Noam Chomsky and the “propaganda model”
Snow (the “Public Diplomacy” chapter in the McPhail textbook)
The Snow article is comfortable to read, and does not have a lot of theory
For that reason, I am going to draw heavily on a different article by Joseph Nye
This article, as a source for my lecture, offers us an opportunity to be introduced to a new concept (“soft power”) and allows us to address public diplomacy in conceptual terms
1. What is public communication?
Definition of public communication:
“Public communications denotes communications between persons as equals. It is the receipt and exchange of messages, ideas and opinions. Means of public communications evolved over time with the development of technology and mediums of communications. Likewise, public opinions, policies and ideas evolved as society's attitudes and opinions changed. However, the exchange or transaction of ideas remains constant. People respond and react within public groups, thereby contributing to and shaping public discourse.”
The unifying theme for today’s lecture is “public communication,” and it encompasses as well as challenges the two forms of international communication to which we are giving our attention today
These two forms of international communication are propaganda and public diplomacy
Public communication is a way of characterizing our entire media culture and the public’s place in it, and is not some separate phenomenon in our media culture
In other words, “public communication” is a style of thinking or a perspective on our conventional mass and digital media systems
In the past, notably as captured in terms like “mass media” and “mass communication,” we have addressed our media culture with the prefix “mass” so as to favour one-way mass dissemination of messages from centralized sources, such as media outlets like newspapers, radio and television, to a largely passive waiting public
However, the media culture we live in now, distinguished as it is by social media like blogs, Facebook and Twitter, and an expectation on the public’s part for greater participation and interaction, is now better defined as a “two-way” or multi-part conversation
The word “public communication” has thus emerged to describe and explain the nature of this new dynamic in our media culture
6
Definitions of propaganda and public diplomacy
Definitions of propaganda:
“[Propaganda is communication used] to persuade and convert by using intentionally selective and biased information.”
Richard Vincent, “Global Communication and Propaganda,” IICS515 reading, p. 232
“Propaganda has to do with the use of communication channels, through known persuasive or manipulative techniques, in an attempt to shape or alter public opinion.”
Richard Vincent, “Global Communication and Propaganda,” IICS515 reading, p. 235
Definition of public diplomacy (aka “public affairs communication”)
“The objective of those involved in public affairs communication is to inform and influence public opinion internationally. At times, this is referred to as the effort to ‘win the international public’s hearts and minds.”
Richard Vincent, “Global Communication and Propaganda,” IICS515 reading, p. 238
Examples of public diplomacy?
Russia Today television network
Voice of America radio programming overseas
Confucius Institutes for Chinese language learning in Canadian universities and school boards
Scholarship programs and exchange programs inviting students to study abroad
Some other definitions of propaganda
Definition of propaganda:
“… a systematic, motivated attempt to influence the thinking and behaviour of others through means that impede or circumvent a propagandee’s ability to appreciate the nature of this influence.”
From Randal Martin, Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion, page 95
Definition of propaganda:
“Whatever its particular shape, propaganda constitutes an intentional and sponsored message, a deliberate kind of ‘symbolic practice’ that seeks to persuade the body politic, or some significant constituency within the public sphere. It normally addresses or ‘constructs’ the model person…. In a much more pointed sense than its rivals, propaganda is both the language and the instrument of power.”
From Paul Rutherford. Endless Propaganda: The Advertising of Public Goods. 2000.
“Lord Haw-Haw” (William Joyce), British-born Nazi sympathizer and propagandist for Germany during WWII
8
Why address propaganda and public diplomacy in the same lecture?
Propaganda and public diplomacy are two sides of the same “coin” insofar as they both represent, in their conventional form, ways in which governments communicate with foreign publics
When we place them together like this in a single lecture, we are able to see more clearly the complex ways in which state power, political and cultural differences between nations, and communication interact
There is a fine line between propaganda and public diplomacy, and it is a line that moves depending on the nature of the message, the circumstances in the world at a given moment in time, or the particular state or foreign public that is involved
By putting both together in the same lecture, the particular elements of each are magnified and made more clear
How are power and communication related in this lecture?
Definition of power:
“the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes you want” (Joseph Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” p. 333)
We often think of communication in terms of sending and receiving information, or being informed, advertised to, and entertained
Those activities are not ones we think of as involving “power” in any meaningful sense, insofar as we mean by power the ability to direct others to believe or behave as we want them to, or otherwise influence the outcome of communication in our favour
However, international communication is by nature a “practice” and a “space” in which very interested parties all participate in relationships defined by influence, persuasion, testimonial, and power
These interested parties can include the following:
Governments
Transnational institutions like the World Bank or the International Olympics Committee
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Amnesty International or Save the Children
Transnational corporations like Exxon Mobil or Apple
Terrorist organizations, e.g., Islamic State
Exceptional individuals, e.g. Malala, the Chinese artist WeiWei, Edward Snowden
International communication thus has a special relationship to power, and the theme of “power” is manifested in a number of ways in the theories present in today’s readings and lecture
10
2. What is propaganda? (i) Jacques Ellul’s formative role in making critical sense of propaganda
My source for this brief section is one of the greatest scholars of propaganda research, the French social scientist and theologian Jacques Ellul
Ellul is the premier critic of propaganda in the 20th century, and an influence on other scholars and theorists of propaganda
Ellul’s major works are:
Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965)
The Technological Society (1965)
Ellul defines propaganda in his book, Propaganda, as follows:
“a manipulation for the purpose of changing ideas or opinions, of making individuals 'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere to some doctrine--all matters of mind.”
In his view, propaganda over a lifetime creates in people a highly malleable form of consciousness that encourages them to believe whatever they are told
In this, propaganda thus develops a kind of mentality suited to a highly managed and changeful modern world
Jacques Ellul (1912-94)
11
Origin of the term “propaganda”
The word “propaganda” originates in 1622 with the creation by the Roman Catholic Church of a major organization called the “Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith”
The word “propaganda” comes thus from the word “to propagate”
“To propagate” means to communicate to others, often in the sense of communicating a doctrine or belief system
The Congregation was created to produce information on behalf of Catholicism and against the Protestant movement known as the Reformation
The Reformation had emerged with Martin Luther’s criticisms of the Church in the early 15th century, and was seen as a dire threat to the Roman Catholic Church’s power
The Roman Catholic Church’s response takes the larger shape of what is called the Counter-Reformation (1543-1648), a movement defined by the Roman Catholic campaign to reverse Protestantism's spread in Europe, and reestablish Catholic supremacy in Europe
The Congregation also had a major role in spreading Catholic doctrine to the non-Christian world, especially to those areas of the world that were newly discovered (e.g., the “New World” of North and South America) and to Asia and Africa
For example, consider the presence of the Jesuit “Black Robes” in French Canada in the 17th century (following on Samuel de Champlain’s establishment of Quebec City)
The official seal of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
12
What are the features of propaganda according to Ellul?
Propaganda for Ellul is not about lying to the public
Rather, it is about the use of half-truths and truths out of context
Our believing that propaganda is a “big lie” leaves us vulnerable to its influence
Propaganda is not a specific property of a message but an overall sociological condition that includes the properties of a message AND the contextual conditions in the media culture
The specific features of propaganda are:
(i) the scope of debate is limited to a narrow range
(ii) messages derive from and reflect dominant political and economic interests
(iii) messages marginalize and demonize opposing perspectives
(iv) messages use simplistic language and images and reduce complexity of reality to digestible form
(v) messages typically appeal to emotion, not to reason
(vi) messages compel conformity of audience, and do not invite dialogue or questions
Ellul recognized two major forms of propaganda:
agitation propaganda: inciting people to believe something or do something, e.g., cut back on fuel or food to support the war effort, join the army, fight the enemy, etc.
(ii) integration propaganda: persuading people to adjust to a given set of circumstances, e.g. , preparing North Americans to live with the prospect of an atomic war in the Cold War period, as in Duck and Cover
PDF of Ellul’s book, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965)
13
(ii) The Richard Vincent article on propaganda and global communication: What propaganda is and does:
Vincent tells us that propaganda is an ancient form of communication, and that it relates to international communication in three important ways:
Governments communicate with their own domestic public
Governments communicate with foreign publics, e.g., in time of war, or in peace as with public diplomacy
Non-governmental entities, such as NGOs (i.e., non-governmental organizations) and terrorist groups, seek to shape public opinion or to influence policy
We see propaganda techniques now in their modern form embedded within a number of ordinary communication practices in the professional world
These practices include the following:
public relations
marketing and publicity
advertising
Propaganda is often difficult to detect, as it hides itself in the communication practices indicated above, and in public discourse in general
As Vincent writes:
“[Propaganda is] a phenomenon of public discourse guidance or coercion that is not always recognized as harmful by everyone.” (Vincent, p. 235)
14
The Propaganda theorists were a blend of scholar, practitioner, consultant, and military strategist active in the early 20th century
They were scholars of propaganda, and they were also practitioners of it—they were themselves war and peacetime propagandists
Please note that the Propaganda theorists are a specific school of media theory and offer a particular perspective on propaganda, but are not representative of all scholars of propaganda
Propaganda theory represents the first tradition of media analysis in North America, and was active in the 1920s-50s
As Vincent writes:
The work of the Propaganda theorists represents “the first major body of work concerned with mass media and mass communication research.” (Vincent, p. 238)
The most important thing to appreciate about them is that they studied propaganda in order to use it in wartime and peacetime
So while you might believe that propaganda is a dangerous or unethical form of communication, the Propaganda theorists saw it as a solution to the problems of modern society
The three major members of this loosely defined “school” were remarkable people in their own right:
Edward Bernays was Sigmund Freud’s nephew, and one of the founders of public relations
Walter Lippmann was a major public intellectual and advisor to governments
Harold Lasswell is the most academic of the three, but also worked in propaganda research for the U.S. government in WWII
3. What is Propaganda Theory?
15
Walter Lippmann on cover of Time magazine, 1937
Clip from Noam Chomsky’s film, Manufacturing Consent, discussing Lippmann and Niebuhr
Who are the major Propaganda theorists?
Edward Bernays, featured with a quote from one of his books on propaganda
Harold Lasswell
16
Propaganda theory’s surprising view of what propaganda is and how it should be used
Let’s start with a simple definition of propaganda courtesy of the U.S.-based Institute for Propaganda Analysis, a public service organization that was interested in educating the public about the presence of propaganda in their lives
“Propaganda is the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influence the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends through psychological manipulations.”
We normally think of propaganda as a special form of communication used in times of war
We associate it with graphic imagery, exhortatory language, vivid colour, caricatures of the enemy, powerful emotion, etc.
We can see just such a style of communication evident in this WWI poster, one used by a U.S. group that lobbied the American public to enter WWI
We assume that in peacetime, communication returns to normal, and that there is reasonable honesty, transparency and rationality when hostilities have ceased and normal peacetime communication and media operates resume
However, this is not the view of propaganda that is favoured by Propaganda theory nor by Lasswell, Bernays and other Propaganda theorists
World War I propaganda addressed to American public by U.S. government
17
Propaganda in peacetime and the troubling foundations of professional communication
The propaganda theorists, based on their work producing propaganda during World War I and II, argued that the lessons learned and the tools developed in wartime propaganda could be applied to the problem of managing and governing democratic society in peacetime
And so Bernays, Lippmann, Lasswell and others went to work after WWI to help government, companies, and various other organizations to develop and apply public relations and other professional communications tools and techniques modeled after propaganda techniques
Their work would become the foundation of much of what we consider PR and professional communications at large today
Among these lessons applied to peacetime communications:
appeal to sentiment and feeling, not to reason
simplify at all times
pick only a few themes but repeat them constantly
never leave grounds for doubt
first be sure to get attention
stereotype whenever possible
stigmatize dissenting views
invoke authority as a source of legitimacy for your message (“9 out of 10 doctors prefer Camel cigarettes”)
All communications professionals today now live with the legacy of Propaganda theory
That’s because the elements of Propaganda theory was built into the foundations of professional communication when it was being developed in the early to mid-20th century in PR, advertising, marketing, audience research, the creation of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, etc.
Ad from Bernays’ 1929 “Torches of Freedom” campaign
Background on this campaign at the Museum of Public Relations
18
Propaganda theory’s view of media influence: “strong” or “direct” effects
Propaganda theory is characterized, among other factors, by its “strong effects” view of media, or as it is also known and named by Vincent, the “hypodermic needle” or “silver bullet” view of media influence
As Vincent writes:
“This theory [Propaganda theory] espoused the notion that the mass media are so powerful that they can inject messages into an audience who then fall down as if hit by a bullet. Bullet theories therefore argue that subjects cannot resist the mass mediated manipulation because of its innate appeal.” (Vincent, p. 239)
Such a model was often characterized as the “hypodermic needle” or “silver bullet” model of media influence because it was believed that the message went directly to the brain, changing thought and behaviour, like an injection or like a magic or silver “bullet”
Vincent tells us this is a “stimulus-response” model of communication, which implies that media acts to “condition” human consciousness to respond automatically to certain triggering messages, e.g., key words, colours, etc.
Features of the “strong effects” model of media influence:
Every individual acts in a similar reflexive way to the stimulus of a media message
The influence of a media message is strong and direct, motivating the audience to act on it immediately
Communication is seen effectively as “conditioning,” acting directly on the nervous system and brain, and without any intervening historical, psychological or social factors, e.g., free will, debate, critical capacity
The public has no resources available to it by which to interpret or deflect messages
The public is conceived as essentially passive, not active, in nature
19
Criticism of strong effects (aka “hypodermic needle” or “silver bullet”) model
It defines people’s experience of media strictly in terms of their immediate encounter with a message
It is not sensitive to the fact that people experience and engage with messages and media over the long term (e.g., how pre-existing racism might then affect how people interpret a wartime enemy)
It is not interested in or sensitive to the contexts in which audiences are located, and the fact that gender, ethnicity, class, educational level, and other variables affect how we interpret a message
It assumes an overly simplistic and direct effect on the public to the point of overwhelming them or being input directly to their conscious or unconscious mind (hence the bullet or needle metaphor)
It assumes the public is uniquely vulnerable, helpless, and incapable of resistance or interpretation
It assumes media messages have one dimension of meaning, and are not polysemic (i.e., have many meanings) in nature
Japanese WWII propaganda (giant samurai smashing ships with Nazi, Italian, and Japanese flag in background)
20
(iii) Vincent’s list of propaganda strategies and techniques
Vincent then identifies a number of propaganda techniques that have been regularly used in propaganda for centuries
They are as follows:
Name calling
Definition of name calling:
“[Name calling] involves the use of labels to project an idea in a favourable or unfavourable light.” (Vincent, p. 243)
Name calling is the use of carefully chosen words and phrases to describe people, phenomena or issues that act to evoke a strong positive or negative response
For example, we can call people who fight against a government “terrorists” or “freedom fighters”
Name calling is, in effect, stereotyping, as Vincent tells us
“One frequent use of name calling comes when stereotyping is employed to paint a negative image of the opposition or enemy. Name calling employs emotional reactions and encourages the public to draw hasty conclusions with only a cursory examination of issues.” (Vincent, p. 243)
Glittering generality
Definition of glittering generality:
“The tendency to associate an issue or image with a noble or virtuous term.” (Vincent, p. 245)
Another word for “glittering generality” is euphemism, i.e., the use of a word to give an idea a very positive meaning and disguise some of its negative meaning
For example, when civilians are killed in an attack by an army, the term “collateral damage” is sometimes used to hide the messy fact of the deaths
Glittering generalities act to camouflage and hide difficult ideas, and to distort facts
21
Vincent’s list of propaganda strategies and techniques
Image transfer
Definition of image transfer:
“When one takes the power, respect, or good reputation bestowed on an existing entity or concept, and then attempts to share those positive qualities through association with a product, individual/group, or position/program, the perpetrator is hoping to benefit through the phenomenon known as image transfer.” (Vincent, p. 247)
Image transfer is the power of symbolism and metaphor
We see image transfer in the way that brands and logos, flags and celebrities, are used to “transfer” positive meaning from a symbol to an entity’s reputation, e.g., to the identity and reputation of a country
For example, American popular culture around the world transfers a certain positive meaning to the U.S. government and America itself
Testimonial
Definition of testimonial:
“A testimonial is when a distinguished, or recognized but highly unpopular, person is used to cast a product, individual/group, or position/program in either a positive or negative light.” (Vincent, p. 248)
A testimonial is when a popular spokesperson is used to give a positive view of a issue or idea, e.g., the way celebrities are sometimes called on to stand with politicians and lend their celebrity to a candidate, cause or message
Image transfer of Popeye to U.S. war effort in WWII
22
Vincent’s list of propaganda strategies and techniques
“Plain folks”
“plain folks” is the invocation of one’s “plain” or “regular person” status to suggest an identity between an individual and the people
For example, U.S. president Richard Nixon used to speak of the “silent majority” of Americans as people supportive of his views
“The use of plain folks comes in when a communicator wishes to convince others that they or their ideas are good or valid since they are similar to everyone else, just everyday ordinary people.” (Vincent, p. 250)
Card stacking
Definition of card stacking
“Card stacking occurs when a presentation uses a selection of facts and distortions, elucidations and confusions, and both logical and illogical statements…. It is also the most difficult to detect, for not all information has been provided through distortion or omission, for the audience to make an informed decision.” (Vincent, p. 251)
Card stacking is when a message is offered that is based on a very selective presentation of the facts
An example here is the presentation that Secretary of State Colin Powell made at the United Nations about the alleged evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the 2003 Iraq War
The bandwagon effect
Definition of the bandwagon effect
“The bandwagon effect involves utilization of a notion that ‘everybody is doing it’ or ‘we are all doing it’ so that group members are encouraged to just join or follow the crowd.”
Another word for this is “peer pressure,” as we feel compelled to join in and identify with a message if we feel others are doing so
Bandwagon effect in poster—”we’re in the army now”
23
4. Cultivation Theory
Gerbner from “The Killing Screens” video on media violence
Gerbner represents someone who’s undertaken work in the general area of empirical media scholarship, and done so with such sophistication that it has taken the empirical tradition to its limits
Gerbner’s work is specifically contrasted with media effects theory, the dominant theory in the empirical tradition of media analysis
Cultivation is the long-term process by which people come to see the real world in terms similar to the “symbolic environment” that is projected on television
Think of cultivation here in the sense of agriculture: the gradual process of developing in people a view of the world that conforms to that which they see on TV
We can think of “cultivation” as a way of modelling how people are exposed to propaganda for a long time, and how that can change them
Think here of the German people in Nazi Germany, or the people living in North Korea
Definition of cultivation:
“Cultivation implies long-term, cumulative consequences of exposure to an essentially repetitive and stable system of messages, not immediate short-term responses or individual interpretations of content. It is associated with continuity, stabilization, and gradual shifts rather than outright change.”
George Gerbner (1919-2005)
24
How cultivation works
25
TV viewers have long-term exposure over years to the world as symbolically represented in program content
Among heavy viewers, the symbolic environment they experience in TV programs becomes the way they see the world
Such heavy viewers are vulnerable as a result of this cultivation to the “mean world syndrome”; they are also more likely to take much more socially conservative views of the world than average
Media, storytelling, and violence: narrative and cultivation
Media act as the primary storytellers in Western and (increasingly) other cultures, and in the narratives the media offer they act to socialize people and to instill the symbolic environment of television into people’s consciousness
Stories in any culture are the major source of children’s moral education, and thus television since the 1950s has become the de facto source of our sense of what is right and wrong, defining what is a good life, values, etc.
One of the particular stories television tells, in endless volume and variety, is the story of violence done by victimizers onto victims; Gerbner refers to this as “dramatic violence”
Violence has a legitimate place in folk culture of the past, e.g., Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel
Violence is a much larger factor in contemporary mass-produced popular culture, and exists far in excess of its normal role as a plot element in stories we tell
As such, its overwhelming presence in our media suggests that violence represents something greater than itself and something worth thinking about critically
Why is media violence worth thinking about?
It’s a vivid demonstration of power in media stories
It travels across cultural boundaries, and is a “universal” language
It carefully constructs who are victims (women, minorities) and who are victimizers
It displaces other ways to approach conflict and contradiction
26
TV’s universal cast: what image of the world does it convey?
| victimizers | victims |
| White Male Wealthy | People of colour Female Poor, marginal |
Other consequences of media violence and the mean world syndrome?
Desensitization: we are numbed to the actual presence of violence in our lives, and so rendered passive and indifferent to real violence
Acceleration: the body count and intensity of violence in media increases over time so as to continue to compel viewers’ attention; these viewers are already accustomed to a certain level of media violence
27
Two outcomes of cultivation: mainstreaming and the mean world syndrome
| Mainstreaming | The mean world syndrome |
| Mainstreaming is the phenomenon whereby heavy TV viewers (30 hours plus a week), who internalize the symbolic environment of television and thus give the “TV answer” to life’s questions, define themselves and these typically socially conservative views homogeneously as “mainstream” We can define mainstreaming as follows: ”The blurring, blending, and bending process by which heavy TV viewers develop a common socially conservative outlook through constant exposure to the same images and labels.” This is the consequence of TV addressing (or interpellating, to use a term from neo-Marxist theory) its audience as a white middle American, politically moderate, middle class construct Regardless of the actual diversity of the audience watching, heavy viewers thus identify themselves with this imaginary TV mainstream, a mainstream which is actually to the right of the real-world American average This explains, for example, why the vast majority of Americans define themselves as middle class, when the middle class is actually a much smaller percentage of the population in income terms | The "mean world syndrome” is the most famous piece of media analysis that Gerbner has done The mean world research is a product of Gerbner’s Cultural Indicators project, a decades-long compilation of TV programming in database form in which characters and plots are catalogued It’s a “counterintuitive” way of thinking about violence -- a way of thinking about media that differs from our normal views That is, we typically think media violence creates violence in people (which, to contrast here again, is media effects-style thinking) The mean world syndrome suggests (as an example of cultivation) that long-term exposure to media violence causes people to see the world as a “mean” place full of violence and criminality The mean world syndrome is amplified if a person has actually experienced violence in their lives, e.g. domestic assault, a mugging, and this phenomenon where our personal experience predicts a stronger response to mediated violence is called “resonance” |
28
What are the consequences of the mean world syndrome?
viewers overestimate their risk of exposure to violence
believe their neighbourhood is unsafe
believe crime rate is going up
support police and government measures to reduce crime
vote for politicians who support "tough on crime" platforms
heavy viewers of TV are most susceptible to mean world syndrome
the poor and less educated are the heaviest viewers of television, leading them to view themselves as criminal
Advanced discussion of cultivation and mean world syndrome on video here
29
5. Chomsky’s propaganda model
Noam Chomsky’s famous 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a frequent source for scholars and laypeople thinking about professional media practice
He refers to his propaganda model of media in Necessary Illusions, but it is developed fully in Manufacturing Consent
Chomsky’s thesis is this:
we believe that the Western media system is free, democratic, and diverse with respect to the range of opinion and ideology there
however, there is embedded in this media system a sophisticated five-part mechanism -- what Chomsky calls the “propaganda model” -- by which the media’s range is significantly narrowed
the propaganda model transforms the substantial output of Western media into “propaganda” insofar as this actual narrow range of opinion serves to support dominant ideological views of society, while excluding dissident opinions and information
this propaganda model works despite the best intentions of journalists to do their work well; in that sense, it represents a systemic bias, rather than being the product of journalists or producers with a personal bias as to the nature of reality
30
the five filters
Media ownership
Advertising
Expert commentary (i.e., news sourcing)
Attacks by media think tanks, pundits, etc. (flak)
The ideology of anti-communism (now “anti-terrorism” or “war on terror,” which serves the same function as did communism in American culture in 1988 when Chomsky first published the book)
Chomsky video clip on propaganda model
31
“Manufacturing consent”: the action of the five filters
The five filters function as a means to the manufacture of “consent” -- that is, the public’s willing support of this narrow range of opinion and information
The term “manufacturing consent” comes from the work of early 20th century conservative critic, Walter Lippmann, who first used the phrase in his book, Public Opinion (and who is also referenced in our chapter from Necessary Illusions)
Chomsky has given us a realistic and detailed description of how ideology is created, and how what he believes to be the illusion of a free, liberal, and plural media system is sustained
The media is typically described by conservatives as a “liberal” media; Chomsky argues that this acts as a check on the media’s critical ability, as it makes media fearful of seeming too liberal in outlook
Critics of the propaganda model that it simplifies the news production process, under-represents the ideological diversity of media, and suggests a conspiratorial view of how media works
32
6. Public diplomacy
Joseph Nye is a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, a political scientist at Harvard, and the author of the “soft power” concept
“Soft power” is one of the most talked-about concepts in international communication, and has inspired a number of books by Nye and about the concept
The term is now a staple in the field and in media commentary on the nature of international communication
“Soft power” is a way of making conceptual sense of the nature of public diplomacy
Major books by Nye:
Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization.
Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone
Joseph Nye, Harvard University
His webpage at Harvard
33
What is power? Nye defines power in general (not soft power per se) as “the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes you want” (Nye, p. 333)
We normally think about power in what Nye describes as “hard power” terms
Hard power is power exercised through military (e.g., war) and police forces, through raw economic power (e.g., boycott, sanctions, siege) or through inducements (e.g., bribes, corruption)
Definition of power and “hard power”
34
Definition of “soft power”:
“Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others…. The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to force you to do what you do not want.” (Nye, p. 333)
In other words, soft power is the capacity to attract others to your culture and politics, to align with your ideals and goals, and to support your aims and policies, all on willing and voluntary terms
It’s a capacity that works for and applies to organizations (e.g., corporations, NGOs, non-profits) and charismatic individuals (e.g., Trudeau, Mandela, MLK) as much as it does for and to countries
It is a form of power that helps us to view the role of communication and communicators in a new light since so much of soft power is also communicative power
Soft power is the power of:
Co-optation
Reputation, status, charisma
Affinity and attraction
Seduction and beauty
The power of example and emulation
Soft power can be communicated by:
National media and culture, e.g. Hollywood film as American soft power, and major showcase events, e.g., Olympics
Economic success and a high standard of living in a country
National values, e.g., freedom, tolerance, humanitarianism, attention to the needs of women or the poor
Government broadcast and information activities, i.e., public diplomacy (not propaganda)
A country acting in ways consistent with its policies and rhetoric
Reputation and branding (be it corporate brands or even the country’s “brand”)
Exchange programs, international students studying in your country’s universities
What is soft power?
35
Why is soft power of value to us as students of communication? How does it contrast with propaganda?
Soft power is fundamentally a form of power as manifested through communication in many forms
These forms are ones we recognize and may be skilled in as students and practitioners of intercultural and international communication:
PR and marketing
Art and media
F2F conversation and relationship building
Negotiation in conflict
Speech writing (and eloquence)
Soft power is a form of “communication power” that, unlike propaganda, makes room for the audience to consider what they might gain and to influence the sender in turn
Soft power is by nature indirect, inclusive, trust-building, highly ethical, and has a truth-value that compels the sender to be honest and to reckon with the sender’s own character and values also
We can contrast soft power sharply with propaganda (hence the two being paired in this IICS515 lecture)
Think of propaganda as a “hard power” form of communication
Soft power that is seen to be propaganda will backfire, and reflect very badly on the country or organization using it
“Information that appears to be propaganda may not only be scorned, but it may also turn out to be counterproductive if it undermines a country’s reputation for credibility.” (Nye)
36
The fungible nature of soft power
In the colonial era, before CNN, the United Nations, and the political and cultural independence of developing world nations intervened, military power was used by major European nations with relative impunity
States were all-powerful; alternative forms of political organization were quite weak
But the late 20th and early 21st centuries have brought about a climate where military power is used less often, and borrowing a term of Nye’s, is less “fungible”
“Fungible” in its dictionary sense means convertible, interchangeable, capable of being transferred from one state or condition to another, e.g., gold is very fungible as a metal
Military power is now less fungible because it is less certain to gain a given state the objectives it used to provide the Great Powers of 19th century Europe
Soft power is highly fungible, as it can be converted into many different forms and values, its outcomes are far more diffuse and potentially transformative than the use of hard power, and it has far fewer consequences and irrevocable “facts on the ground”
Think of how the image or reputation of a country can have soft power benefits that last for decades, e.g., the high regard the Dutch have for Canada because of our role in liberating Holland in World War II
Fungibility is a property of power that is much desired in the 21st century, as a more complex political environment requires that a political actor be able to get as much and as many kinds of value out of an initiative as possible
Also, the economic and political costs of hard power are extraordinarily high – e.g., the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – relative to the victimless and cost-effective nature of soft power, e.g. the proposal that we talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan instead of trying to defeat them militarily, or try to negotiate the Russians into a less aggressive posture relative to the Ukraine
37
The limits of soft power
The mere fact of having soft power resources does not automatically lead to influence or positive consequence
The use of soft power requires skill and discretion, and it can be easily undermined if a country takes actions or develops policies that are inconsistent with the values reflected in its soft power
For example, consider Abu Ghraib, the U.S. run prison in Iraq, and how evidence of torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers there was so powerfully inconsistent with professed American values of liberty and rule of law
Tortured prisoner at U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib in Iraq
38
Public diplomacy: a form of soft power
Public diplomacy is a strategic, deliberate and sophisticated form of soft power
What is public diplomacy?
“Public diplomacy is an instrument that governments use to mobilize these resources to communicate with and attract the publics of other countries, rather than their governments. Public diplomacy tries to attract by drawing attention to these potential resources through broadcasting, subsidizing cultural exports, arranging exchanges, and so forth.” (Nye, p. 334)
Public diplomacy is when a country seeks to communicate with publics in other countries, e.g., U.S. government and its Alhurra TV network (Alhurra is Arabic for “the free one”) in the Arab world, in order to influence those publics to look favourably on the country doing the diplomacy
The greater presence of communication, media and culture in the lives of people around the world, and the greater appetite for democracy in the world (e.g., Arab Spring), means that soft power is even more important than it was before
There are three dimensions to public diplomacy:
(1) Daily communication: explaining domestic and foreign policy decisions to foreign publics, e.g., Prime Minister Harper speaking strongly to Canada’s support for the people of Ukraine
(2) Strategic communication: communication campaigns addressed foreign publics about certain themes and policies, e.g., HIV-AIDS in Africa
(3) Key relationships: these are relationships created with foreign individuals who are brought to a country and develop an affinity for it, e.g. foreign students educated in the U.S., Canadian students teaching and learning in Japan
Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California (Annenberg)
39
6. What have we learned about communication and power from this material?
We recognize that the same potency and direct influence over human thought and behavior as propagandists sought in war was applied to peacetime communication, and thus built into the foundations of modern public relations, marketing, advertising and political communication
We recognize that communication, while it is in a different category of human life than warfare, boycott, or political decision-making, has its own kind of power and its own relationship to power
This power can be “hard” (as in propaganda) or it can be “soft” (as in public diplomacy), and that the hardness or softness of communication’s power depends on many factors, such as: the sender’s intentions, the presence or lack of diversity in the messages available in a society, the presence or absence of an opportunity for dialogue
As the Propaganda theorists (Lippmann, Bernays, Lasswell) showed us, we are arguably more vulnerable to the influence of communication and media than our view of ourselves as rational, autonomous and skeptical would have us think
As George Gerbner showed us, the nature of media influence is a long-term and not a short-term process, insofar as heavy use of media over years tends to make us think that the world we see in TV and movies is identical to and representative of the real world, e.g., the “mean world syndrome”
As Chomsky shows us, even liberal democratic societies can function in a way to support propaganda if the right factors are in place, e.g., the five filters
We recognize that “public communication” is more of an ideal than a reality for many societies, and is something to strive for as a goal in how we think about and do communication
