Propaganda, the Press and Conflict

David R. Willcox

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781134237616
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

An incisiveanalysis ofthe use of the press for propaganda purposes during conflicts, using the first Gulf War and the intervention in Kosovo as case studies.

As the contemporary analysis of propaganda during conflict has tended to focus considerably upon visual and instant media coverage, this book redresses the imbalance and contributes to the growing discourse on the role of the press in modern warfare.

Through an innovative comparative analysis of press treatment of the two conflicts it reveals the existence of five consistent propaganda themes: portrayal of the leader figure, portrayal of the enemy, military threat, threat to international stability and technological warfare. As these themes construct a fluid model for the analysis and understanding of propaganda content in the press during conflicts involving British forces, they also provide the background against which the author can discuss general issues regarding propaganda. Amongst the issues which have become increasingly relevant to both recent academic debate and popular culture, the author tackles the role of the journalist in war coverage, the place of the press in a news market dominated by 'instant' visual media and the effectiveness of propaganda in specific cultural and political context.

This book will appeal to advanced students and researchers in war studies, media studies/propaganda and psychology.

1 THE THEORY OF PROPAGANDA

The analysis of propaganda in contemporary conflict cannot be successfully contemplated without an understanding of the debates surrounding the notion of what constitutes propaganda. Space does not permit a detailed evaluation of the merits or otherwise of the masses of literature concerning propaganda. However, it is possible to identify a number of the more prominent debates surrounding the concept of propaganda. Through the exploration of a cross-section of the commentators, it is feasible to extract a number of contentious issues and establish a sense of the evolution of the term since the turn of the twentieth century.¹ Finally, this process will enable a definition of propaganda to use as the theory upon which the subsequent findings are based.

The subject has been addressed by academics from a number of disciplines, traversing philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics and history, with an equally diverse number of writers. Partly because of this multiplicity of interests the classification of the term has presented writers with a number of quandaries. These enquiries have stimulated the search for a definition of propaganda capable of general and wide acceptance.² Divisions over the classification occur between those who argue the definitions are too all-encompassing or conversely that they are overtly narrow and as such fail to provide a suitably general term for universal usage. Commentators have also argued about the chronological period within which modern propaganda exists and have discussed the issue from personal value-laden assumptions, which influence their treatment of the topic. Such conjecture can arise from the political role of propaganda in either a democratic or a totalitarian regime, or from positive or negative attributes assigned to the term propaganda itself. These predetermined attitudes are difficult to remove entirely and any definition will undoubtedly reverberate with the cultural and political influences of the time, much as propaganda itself requires timely cultural significance to be effective. However, this should not deter one from making such statements, albeit with a recognition of these influences and limitations.

The study of propaganda in the twentieth century came to the fore in the aftermath of the First World War. The widespread employment of methods to alter public opinion stimulated both interest in its usefulness and fears about its power to manipulate the public. During the conflict, rumours had abounded on both sides pertaining to the atrocities carried out by the other.³ In an effort to understand these issues, writers have sought to dissect the incidences of propaganda and formulate definitions based upon the reasons and the results of these attempts at manipulation. For a phenomenon aimed largely at human emotion and interpreted via cultural stimuli and personal responses, the term propaganda has largely defied any single scientific definition.

For the American psychologist Harold D. Lasswell writing in the 1920s the definition was simply; ‘[propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols’.⁴ This brief assertion itself highlights some of the difficulties inherent in providing a suitable definition. His use of the phrase ‘collective attitudes’ was, Lasswell explains, an attempt to portray an understanding that denoted uniformity without the implication of any physical accord. This can nominally be understood to mean public opinion, a shared attitude without the necessity of actual physical proximity. By ‘significant symbols’ Lasswell was referring to any number of relevant stimuli evoked to generate a reaction. These stimuli could include images, reference to historical prejudices, notions of racial superiority, indeed any number of verbal or visual symbols invoked to elicit a desired response. While his approach may initially appear too brief to be useful this definition and his further discussion of the issue actually summarizes many of the key issues required.

Lasswell’s definition is brief but his wider discussion of the topic reveals the inadequacies of simply providing a definition of propaganda without explaining the context within which it is set. Lasswell proposed that the ever-present function of propaganda in society had become evident because of the social disorganization brought about by rapid technological changes.⁵ He therefore saw the efficiency of propaganda being increased through the modernization of society, or as he phrased it by ‘the complication of our material environment through the expansion of technology’.⁶ His comments are telling for he enters into another of the debates prevalent in the discussion of propaganda. The story of the evolution of propaganda mirrors the technological changes encountered in society. While it is accepted that propaganda in one form or another has existed through much of human existence, some theorists have sought to draw a distinction between modern and older forms of propaganda. These discussions are returned to later in this chapter, but the argument centres on the concept that modern propaganda is made possible by contemporary methods of information dissemination in an industrialized country. Lasswell asserts this distinction in his definition of propaganda.

Harold Lasswell’s approach to the study of propaganda is significant for another reason. Despite writing relatively recently after the First World War and the exposure of many propaganda falsehoods, his definition avoids bearing any preconceived notions of either negative, or indeed positive, connotations. For many people the word ‘propaganda’ conjures up a negative image, suggesting underhand manipulation of public thought, or simply outright lies. After the propaganda abuses witnessed in the First World War the image of the concept was not improved.

In contrast to Lasswell, another psychologist Leonard W. Doob created a classification of propaganda that incorporated within it a degree of negative moral judgement. Initially this had not been the case. In a book by Doob first published in 1935 his main emphasis had been placed upon defining the difference between intentional and unintentional propaganda.⁷ The statements were devoid of any moral judgement pertaining to the motives of the propagandist. However, in his definition initially published in 1948, Doob asserts that ‘[propaganda can be called the attempt to affect the personalities and to control the behaviour of individuals toward ends considered unscientific or of doubtful value in a society at a particular time’.⁸ His utilization of the expression ‘unscientific or of doubtful value’ reinforces the negative implications of propaganda by suggesting that the aims of the propagandist are in some way harmful or not useful. This approach appears to ignore the fact that propaganda can occur where both parties benefit. If the propagandist’s cause coincides with the advancement of the whole or part of society, it cannot be wholeheartedly condemned as being of doubtful value. Doob’s description falls short of presenting a neutral-value definition of propaganda, insisting that its use can only be detrimental to society. One can only speculate as to the reason for this shift in his opinion. He may simply have revised his theory in the light of further contemplation. Alternatively, the influence of the Second World War could have altered his perception of the uses and intentions of propaganda and its makers.

Leonard Doob’s psychological interpretation went to great lengths to describe the factors that influence and construct human behaviour. In his assessment, Doob recognized that much of public opinion stems from what he called ‘enduring public opinion’ or behaviour and attitudes learnt through socialization.⁹ In doing so, his definition recognizes the role of culture and society in providing the foundations for propaganda as well as the stimuli to be manipulated for the desired response. Doob is also appearing to draw a distinction between differing methods of influencing public opinion. Propaganda is one element of this and a distinctly negative element as far as his analysis is concerned. Yet, without a definition free from assumption regarding the positive or negative outcome of propaganda, it is not possible to commentate on the nature of it without immediately providing a suspect moral judgement of the propagandist and their motive. Propaganda is a way of altering public attitudes; it is a tool to be utilized but it is not inherently negative.

By the 1960s, the difficult balancing act of constructing comprehensive yet well-defined descriptions of propaganda was being tackled by the philosopher Jacques Ellul. In his book, entitled Propaganda, Ellul identifies the evolution of thinking concerning propaganda in the United States.¹⁰ He outlines the theoretical movement from Lasswell’s psychological interpretation, consistent with the intellectual emphasis from 1920 to 1933, to the focus upon the intention of the propagandist. Ellul’s interpretation seeks to reject the idea of turning to the psychologist for any comprehension of the term propaganda. His interpretation widens the acceptable scope of how propaganda can be utilized. He asserts that there is no difference between the propaganda practised in the name of democracy or that on behalf of a dictatorship, stressing that propaganda as a concept is compatible with either system of government. By avoiding the association of propaganda with either form of government some of the negative connotations of association with dictatorial regimes are avoided. During a period in which the West was in ideological struggle with Communism in the East this development is significant. This approach is consistent with Ellul’s overall definition of propaganda in avoiding the negative associations implicated in Doob’s classification. Part of the stigma surrounding the phrase is thus removed and consequently broadens the acceptable range of what influences and processes can be termed as propaganda.

Part of the process of expanding the notion of propaganda, its influences, effects and employment is to consider not only the ‘top down’ movement of manipulation, but also the reverse. Ellul argues that the propagandee has a positive role to play in the process and can indeed derive some satisfaction from the efforts of the propagandist. In claiming this reciprocal relationship, the approach removes the image of the recipient of propaganda as an automatic victim. Additionally, in keeping with the concept of removing predetermined negative assumptions, the propaganda can be seen at times to be of benefit to all or a part of society.

Ellul does share some common ground with Lasswell concerning their respective understanding of propaganda. Through stressing the role of the mass society in making modern propaganda possible, the two commentators emphasize the importance of seeing contemporary propaganda as a separate manifestation from earlier forms of the concept. Their opinions represent a school of thought that believes the evolution of society into a mass society, with the additional advances in disseminating information rapidly and widely, has altered the composition of propaganda. The debate has often divided opinion. Another proponent of this theory, Amber Blanco White, stresses explicitly the differences between modern and early forms of propaganda.¹¹ The study concludes that modern political propaganda has existed in its current form since the turn of the century.¹² The dominant divergence identified here is the more rapid dissemination of information that has altered incalculably the scope and effect of propaganda.

Against this assumption, Professor E. H. Carr cites another possible reason for an increased use of modern propaganda.¹³ Carr points to the broadening basis of politics, a shift to a mass electorate that makes influencing a larger number of people worthwhile.¹⁴ His theory thus suggests that modern mass propaganda now has greater benefits than before. It is not just a case of appealing to a mass audience ‘because we can’ but also ‘because it is worth doing’. Interestingly, Carr maintained at the start of the Second World War that the political power still lay in the hands of those inhabitants of and near cities.¹⁵ He also asserts that these people were the most accessible to propaganda, something that contemporary technology and information dissemination is perhaps beginning to redress. Carr appears aware of the potential for this state of affairs to alter and leaves room for such changes within his ideological framework. He notes the fact that technological advances force a re-evaluation of power over opinion during crises and propagandists are likely to re-evaluate strategy based on the advancement of technology. This is in keeping with current developments as contemporary shifts to visual media and the Internet have forced a reconsideration of the relationship between propaganda and conflict, a trend likely to continue.¹⁶ Mass society, mass media and shifts in technology each contribute to the structure of modern propaganda and the changes must be seen as part of an ongoing process. In this respect, any definition of propaganda must be equally fluid to apply despite changes in society, unless, that is, one draws distinctions between different forms of propaganda dependent upon the chronological timeframe.

There is a further variable to this early twentieth century discussion of modern propaganda, according to Professor F. C. Bartlett.¹⁷ Another psychologist, Bartlett cites the increasingly effective contact between persons in society, a situation enhanced by a combination of a mass society and developments in mass communication. In addition, he mentions the rapid spread of popular education as a factor in determining how propaganda is disseminated.¹⁸ Where educational levels are low the propagandist resorts to dramatic visual images to stir the emotions of the populace.¹⁹ In his example, Bartlett cites the Russian regime as one that is used to utilizing propaganda in this way. In contemporary society, regardless of levels of education, the propagandist, entertainer and television provider resort to dramatic pictures to invoke support and sustain interest.

Returning to Ellul, his concern with the development of technology was only partially focused upon its impact on propaganda. The grander theoretical beliefs identifiable in his wider works focus upon the relationship of technology and society in the modern era.²⁰ He stresses that technology poses a threat to the freedoms of the social order. His theory pertaining to propaganda, moulded in the same vein, is just one element of this.

The definition offered by Ellul, though sharing some common ground with Lasswell and others, is a more inclusive approach to the topic. His theory is defined thus, ‘[propaganda is a set of methods employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological manipulations and incorporated in an organization’.²¹ This definition contains the main elements deemed necessary by many commentators for a successful definition of propaganda. The description reflects the evolution of both thought and history in influencing the understanding of what constitutes propaganda and what effects it can have. Having moved away from the incorporation of any moral judgements the above definition describes a group seeking to influence opinion to solicit participation in its actions or ideas.

By using the word ‘passive’ Ellul allows the range of public response to include not only active supporters of the propagandist’s aims, but also those people willing passively to accept events and not challenge them. This is an important distinction, for the propagandist does not necessarily have to inspire every recipient to physical or mental action, he or she can simply be satisfied with the quiet acquiescence of a passive populace who are unwilling to challenge their policies or ideas.

In discussions that are more recent, those seeking a clearer definition of propaganda have challenged Ellul’s approach. The authors Gareth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell claim the interpretation Ellul offers is too pervasive to be of any great use.²² In contrast their definition attempts to restrict the boundaries of what constitutes propaganda and produce a more concise terminology. The single most important factor altered by them is the requirement of premeditation. The pair asserts that the actions of the propagandist must be deliberate and planned. In light of this the definition they put forward states that ‘[propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cogni...