One of the types of international communication I find most compelling is the use of propaganda by the state in its relationships with other states. Propaganda is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion.” The communication can be geared towards a state’s own public, or the global public; and the information communicated can be true or false to fit the standard definition.
Daya Thussu discusses how propaganda has been used throughout history in his book International Communication: Continuity and Change. While most states no longer have an official office of propaganda, many states did before the two world wars and superficially changed the name once the use of propaganda became negatively affiliated with Nazism or communism. The truth is, propaganda is still used just as prolifically by developed, democratic states as it was by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In addition to propaganda used by China, North Korea and recent Arabic regimes, propaganda was widely used by the US government during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq despite the Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1947 which condemned the use of propaganda which threatened peace.
I ask, should a government be engaging in communication to “influence public opinion”? At least in a democracy, shouldn’t the government be only acting on public opinion, not influencing it? What is a legitimate use of propaganda by a government? If propaganda is used to influence, and therefore change public opinion, when does it not threaten peace? Are we okay with this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good point, Katie. Your question raises one for me, though - how would it be possible for a government to communicate in a way that ISN'T designed to influence public opinion? I'm not sure there's a way for a body with such inherent influence to communicate in a non-influential way. Maybe that's stretching the definition of propaganda too far? Even so, I think it bears considering whether we are aware of all the forces upon us as citizens and readers/listeners.
ReplyDeleteTo Allison and Katie,
ReplyDeleteYou both raise a good argument. Given that some of the first communication devices were designed for the use of a centralized body to transmit it's ideas, values and opinions, I'm afraid there does not exist a happy medium between technical networks for propaganda use and for effective, bias-free information flow by a governing body. The only valid solution I see would be a fine balance between what is communicated via the State and what is available for public access. For example, take the public choice to attend a governmental school (one that embodies it's values and ideas) and the choice to attend privately operated schools that reflect a different value spectrum. In this scenario, assuming there is free information flow without too much interference by the government, the public is a consumer. Each family has the right to educate themselves and choose the system that best reflects their value system.
However, the "research" each person is able to conduct with regards to finding the system that best meets their needs and values is largely dependent on the government's willingness to grant public access to such information through technical means, travel outside of the country, literature,etc. That said, the prospects of a governing body communicating to the public without influencing public opinion in some way seems impossible.
With this analysis in mind, my question is how much education and access to a free flow of information can counteract the effects of propaganda by a governing body? Does this balance exist that will counteract the psychological/persuasive effects of propaganda on the average, non-traveling citizen?