INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 1

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 1"

Caren Copeland
5 years ago
Views:

1 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 1 Invisible Propaganda: The Mediated Visibility of the United States Political System Alex Copp MIT 3100: Information in the Public Sphere Dr. James Compton March 13, 2014

2 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 2 In John Thompson s article, The New Visibility, he argues that the few-to-many method of communication enabled through new forms of media has allowed for a visibility that keeps those in positions of political power in check. Thompson believes that the pervasiveness of the mass media has created a kind of fragility for political leaders, and while they may seek to manage their visibility, they cannot completely control it (2005, p. 42). Although, Thompson makes a valid and well-reasoned argument, he is overly idealistic, as he does not fully consider how this same visibility is heavily constructed through propagandist techniques that work to solidify and extend existing structures of power. The idea that mediated visibility is transparent is insidiously propagated by those who help to construct it, and consequently, this point of view threatens to eliminate the ideal of a critical public sphere. The American political system, its news media coverage, and its electoral campaign funding all act as evidence of how mediated visibility is actually a form of propaganda, since its supposed transparent power is undermined by its manipulative tactics. The images and messages that are made visible to citizens are considered propaganda because they are not only created with the purpose of influencing particular opinions and behavour, but they are also disseminated and funded by non-public figures and corporations who remain largely invisible to scrutiny and criticism. Before looking at the relationship between visibility, media technologies, and propaganda, one must first define what is actually implied by the term propaganda. Antonio Miotto defines propaganda as a technique of social pressure which tends to create psychological or social groups with a unified structure across the homogeneity of the affective mental states of the individuals under consideration (1965, p.xii). Miotto s broad and all-encompassing definition of propaganda is appropriate because as both a term and a phenomenon, propaganda is no longer as restricted or isolated in its use as it was during the World Wars (when the term was popularized), and has instead taken on a much more pluralistic significance. Many scholars argue that propaganda plays a necessary role in creating power structures and order within a society. J. Fred MacDonald maintains,

3 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 3 Through its power of persuasion, propaganda has offered the method by which to reorganize, consolidate, and govern. And via its ability to condition, it has forged in each political arrangement a stabilizing consensus (1989, p. 34). In his comprehensive study of the subject, Jacques Ellul maintains that propaganda is actually a necessary evil within the system of democracy itself: Historically, from the moment a democratic regime establishes itself, propaganda establishes itself alongside it under various forms. This is inevitable, as democracy depends on public opinion and competition between political parties. In order to come to power, parties make propaganda to gain voters. (1965, p. 232) In this sense, it becomes difficult to condemn the use of propaganda since it is, in fact, so integral to the proper functioning of the political system in which we live. In light of this reality, propaganda must be critiqued, so that the layers of deceit and manipulation are unpacked, and the underlying consequences of its implementation can be analyzed. The whole notion of mediated visibility is integrally tied to a system of propaganda because of the ways in which it is both constructed and consumed. People can only make judgments on what they read, hear, and see, and thus the importance of manipulating political visibility is essential in party politics. In the New Visibility, Thompson maintains that Western society is not based upon a system of surveillance/discipline few watching many as Michel Foucault would argue, but rather, many watching few, as the visibility of political leaders in modern democracies is permeated through omnipresent media technologies. He explains, thanks to the media, it is primarily those who exercise power, rather than those over whom power is exercised, who are subjected to a new kind of visibility (2005, p. 41). Thompson concedes that mediated visibility is a double-edged sword, but he defends its value because new media technologies, like the Internet, have allowed for networks of communication that are much more difficult to control for those in positions of power (2005, p. 41). However, as a direct result of this increased visibility, politicians must now allocate an enormous amount of resources (PR consultants, communications personnel, etc.) towards managing

4 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 4 their visibility and self-presentation, which can be deemed both wasteful and manipulative (Thompson, 2005, p. 41). Jacques Ellul would argue that this carefully constructed management of visibility constitutes propaganda. While some might see this as simply the natural response to increasingly pervasive media technologies, Ellul maintains that propaganda is, in fact, a direct consequence of technological innovation. In his book, Propaganda, Ellul reasons, In the midst of increasing mechanization and technological organization, propaganda is simply the means used to prevent these things from being felt as too oppressive and to persuade man to submit with good grace (1965, p. xviii). Thus, instead of seeing their political leaders as they really are, citizens only see propagandist images and representations of them, which typically depict strong and decisive heroes with the power to change the world. This provides them with comfort, but it hides dark truths concerning their inter-party politics and ascension to power. What is often hidden behind the veil of mediated propaganda is the actual substance and ideology that should be at the centre of political debate. John Thompson argues that in a quickly developing technological environments, people are increasingly uncertain about how best to tackle complex problems of the modern world and thus become more concerned with the character of the individuals who are (or might become) their leaders, rather than their actual ideas (2005, p. 46). Furthermore, deliberating over controversial ideas is quite divisive in terms of gaining support. Propaganda is most effective when it appeals to the masses (Ellul, 1965, p. 6). Universally accepted ideals like more jobs, supporting our troops, and educating our children are commonly used phrases in American politics that do not actually address any particular policies, but instead reduce complex issues into pithy sound bites. Yet, they are easy to understand and can influence voters into thinking that the solutions to complex problems are actually quite simple. However, when both parties are using this same rhetoric, it becomes more difficult to gain support using these tactics. As a result, parties and their leaders seek more and more to make political capital out of the character failings of others (Thompson, 2005, p. 47). This form of persuasion represents both the best and the

5 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 5 worst aspects of democracy. As Thompson argues, this visibility keeps politicians accountable for their actions and acts as a credibility test for politics of trust (2005, p. 46), but again, the ways in which opposing parties and interest groups use this information is highly propagandist in nature. Political actors jump at any chance to attack their opponents, for it only increases their own chance of success, even if these scandals or attacks are taken out of context or based upon hypocrisy. For instance, Jimmy Carter built his 1976 presidential campaign on the promise of trust in the aftermath of Nixon s Watergate scandal, saying famously, I ll never lie to you, yet his own presidency was plagued with scandals that undermined his earlier declaration (Thompson, 2005, p. 47). It is not only political actors who use scandals to their advantage the mass media is famous for covering scandals with immediacy and sensationalism. The mainstream news media often blows these events out of proportion and reporters frantically scramble to get exclusive interviews with those involved, and in the process ignore news that may be more pressing or relevant to the public good. Thompson maintains that the mass-mediated political scandal is not simply a retrospective commentary on a scandalous event: rather it [is] partly constitutive of the event as a scandal (2005, p. 43). In other words, the scandal is as much a creation of the media, as it an event on its own. However, the problem then becomes, at what point does the scandal leave the domain of news and take on the status of propaganda? Some might argue that a scandal is never propaganda, as long as it is true. Yet, according to Jacques Ellul, Truth has no content of its own but exists only as history produces it For modern man, propaganda is creating truth. This means that truth is powerless without propaganda (1965, p. 234, 235). Ellul s argument dictates that propaganda and the truth are not mutually exclusive phenomena, but are rather intrinsically linked to each other through history. If the truth is irrelevant in terms of identifying propaganda, motivation and intent become the next litmus tests for whether scandal news coverage constitutes propaganda. Since ratings always skyrocket when a political scandal hits, money is the main motivator behind scandal coverage, not informing the public especially since scandal coverage usually turns into a dramatized spectacle,

6 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 6 rather than focusing on facts. Sensationalized news coverage, therefore, is considered a form of corporate propaganda. However, this argument then implies that all media that stimulates profit or viewers in manipulative ways is propaganda, which begins to blur distinctions between propaganda and advertising, public relations, and marketing in general. This is an abstract and compelling notion, but it leads to a critique of consumer-related propaganda, which is beyond the scope of this paper. What is more important, for the purpose of this discussion, is the political motivation behind news coverage. When news organizations cover scandals or any political news with a distinct political bias, it constitutes propaganda. Especially in a highly concentrated market like the American media industry, where media conglomerates own multiple news outlets and the range of voices is limited, the visibility that the scandal provides is immediately undermined by the hidden structures of power that dictate how such a scandal gets covered. It must be noted that the ideal of objective reporting is impossible to achieve some stories and angles are always prioritized over others hence, the news media is inherently propagandist in nature. However, when the structure of coverage is enforced from a rigid top-down structure with few voices at the top, this is when propaganda is most destructive, as it threatens to homogenize public opinion and hinder social change. Often touted as the counterbalance to corporate-controlled news media, the Internet and social media sites like Twitter are the newest realms of political influence in terms of both information access and campaign tactics. While these sites have provided users with the ability to publish free content and find unfiltered information in ways that were never possible with other media, commercial interests have come to dominate them in recent years. The increasing costs of election campaigns spending on federal races doubled between 2000 and 2012 (Nichols and McChesney, 2013) has a lot to do with the rapid emergence of new media technologies, since a campaign that does not take advantage of every information outlet is not considered effective propaganda. Ellul maintains, The propagandist must use all of the technical means at his disposal

7 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 7 the press, the radio, TV, movies, posters, meetings, door-to-door canvassing. Modern propaganda must utilize all of these media (1965, p. 9). Online content and the emergence of social media has become the newest medium for persuasive political discourse and the dissemination of information, as well as big data collection. According to John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, We are entering a political age in which candidates and parties will maintain extraordinary dossiers on prospective voters. They will tailor messages to demographic groups, to donors and ultimately to individual voters (2013). Big data collection demonstrates that even when new media technologies are praised as being liberating, they often have hidden side effects such as, enabling marketing techniques that are extremely manipulative forms of propaganda. American election campaigns have essentially become as privatized and commercialized as the news media, and while the use of propaganda is much more overt, its funding is hidden more effectively. To build a successful election campaign, a candidate must do an excessive amount of fundraising to private interest groups in order to pay for all of the promotional expenditures. According to John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, for the 2012 presidential election, Obama raised $1.1 billion for his campaign, while Romney raised $1.2 billion (2013). These numbers indicate that a party s fundraising efforts have more to do with their success than their actual policies. Simply put, without enough money, a politician has no chance of winning an election. Hrebenar, Burbank, and Benedict bring up this ethical dilemma in their book, Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Political Campaigns: The need for such huge amounts of campaign money raises serious questions about the relationships between candidates and the political action committees that provide a growing proportion of those funds (1999, p. 6). They argue that contributing money to a political campaign is not simply a motion of political support, but rather a bilateral or exchange relationship : Campaign donors seek information, access, and influence on both current and future public policies. Legislators, in addition to using campaign donations to maximize

8 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 8 constituent vote totals at the next election, have other goals including using interest group members to lobby other congressional members to support a member s bill or using the legislator s upcoming vote to cause the interest group to modify its stance on an issue. (Hrebenar, Burbank, and Benedict, 1999, p. 134) This intersection of private and public spheres in political campaigns completely conflicts with the democratic ideals of Western society. If enough funding wins an election, then big donators can have a serious influence on political policy if they use money as leverage. This tilts the balance of power in the political sphere into the hands of big corporations even though they are not the ones being elected by the people. Although limits have been put on private donations from Political Action Committees (PACs), in 2010, legislature was put in place that allowed for the emergence of Super PACs, which are PACs that can raise funding independent from a political party except with no legal limit (Bennett, 2012). According to James Bennett: In 2010, the first election year for Super PACs, a total of 84 of these groups spent $65 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As of August 23 of this year, 797 Super PACs had raised more than five times as much upwards of $349 million. Fully 60 percent of that money came from just 100 donors. (2012) The corruption of this legislature seems self-evident, as corporations and billionaire CEOs can produce high-quality propaganda without having to go through a political party at all. Granted, it does make the process of political leverage a little more difficult, as there is no direct exchange of funds, however, this does not necessarily matter for two reasons. Firstly, agreements over advertising content and political policy could still be discussed between party and corporation without a formal monetary exchange. And secondly, if a corporation stands to lose $10 million in tax deductions from one government over another, a $5 million donation to the right Super PAC could be seen as a valuable investment. Regardless of a corporation s motivation for supporting a political

9 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 9 party, this kind of unrestricted propaganda is extremely damaging to the public sphere because it is deceptive, corrupt, and invisible, in the sense that those who construct it, remain hidden from criticism. Nichols and McChesney emphasize the gravity of the situation: We need to recognize the dangers of a system in which voters get their information not from a free press but from a moneyand-media election complex that seeks to maintain the free flow of cash into its coffers (2013). The ideal of visibility, even a heavily mediated and constructed visibility, is lost in a system where corporate interests hold such a dominating influence over both public policy and public opinion. The relationship between propaganda and mediated visibility is an essential aspect of how the American political system functions and sustains itself. Not all propaganda is necessarily harmful to a well-functioning democracy political ads and campaigns must be manipulative in order to inspire action at the voting booths and news media must provide information to voters even if objective reporting is nearly impossible. In fact, most people recognize the biased and propagandist nature of political campaigns and the news media, and thus try to base their political affiliations on ideas, rather than persuasive tactics. However, when propaganda becomes total and unlimited in its breadth and funding, avoiding its influence becomes increasingly difficult. Thus, the issue at hand is not necessarily the existence of political propaganda, but rather its scope and its intent. When large corporations are the ones funding political propaganda, yet remain largely invisible from public scrutiny, the scope of propaganda becomes vast and leads to a structure of power that limits accountability and reciprocal visibility. In the current American political system, the politician s influence has been diluted by the need to fundraise and negotiate policy with corporate interests. Yet, they are the ones who are made visible to the public and consequently take the blame when failure occurs, even though they are not the ones who necessarily hold the most power. In essence, the visibility of propaganda in the American political landscape is constructed in such a way that actual structures of power remain hidden, while mass-mediated messages and images act to suppress this reality from surfacing.

10 INVISIBLE PROPAGANDA 10 References: Bennett, James. (2012). The New Price of American Politics. The Atlantic, September 19. Retrieved from Ellul, Jacques. (1965). Propaganda. New York: Vintage Books. Hrebenar, Ronald J., Matthew J. Burbank, and Robert C. Benedict. (1999). Political Parties, Interest Group, and Political Campaigns. Colorado: Westview Press. MacDonald, J. Fred. (1989). Propaganda and Order in Modern Society. In T. Smith (Ed.), Propaganda: A Pluralistic Perspective (pp ). New York: Greenview Press. Miotto, Antonio. Qtd. in: Ellul, Jacques. (1965). Propaganda. New York: Vintage Books. Nichols, John and Robert W. McChesney. (2013). Dollarocracy. The Nation, September 11. Retrieved from Thompson, John. (2005). The New Visibility. Theory Culture and Society, 22(6),

Elections and Voting and The Campaign Process

12 & 13 Elections and Voting and The Campaign Process Multiple-Choice Questions 1. A command, indicated by an electorate s votes, for the elected officials to carry out a party platform or policy agenda