In recent posts (here and here) we have been talking about the use of propaganda and media in society. The question posed by political philosophers; “Should an educated and informed elite have control over the media so the thoughts of the common people may be directed in a way that benefits the society and the people who live in it?”
By the time we arrive in the 20th Century with our advanced communications the question becomes more pertinent. Now the 6 large corporations that control 90% of the media we consume influence people on a world wide scale. Smaller news organizations from other countries quote stories from these big corporations whereas the reverse is seldom the case.
Harold Dwight Lasswell (February 13, 1902 – December 18, 1978) was an American political scientist and communications theorist. He was a professor of law at Yale University. He served as president of the American Political Science Association, American Society of International Law, and World Academy of Art and Science. Wikipedia
“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.”
In Lasswell’s doctoral dissertation on Propaganda Technique in the World War he defined propaganda as “the control of opinion by significant symbols” such as stories, rumors, reports, pictures, and other forms of social communication. He also wrote that propaganda is “concerned with the management of opinions and attitudes by the direct manipulation of social suggestion.” In his dissertation, Lasswell noted that propaganda is unavoidable and democracies must adjust to it, rather than fight it. Wikipedia
Propaganda is not only for the political elites. Edward Bernays used the ideas and psychology of propaganda in support of major corporations.
Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as “the father of public relations.” Wikipedia
His best-known campaigns include a 1929 effort to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist “Torches of Freedom“, and his work for the United Fruit Company in the 1950s, connected with the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954…Bernays described the masses as irrational and subject to herd instinct—and he outlined how skilled practitioners could use crowd psychology and psychoanalysis to control them in desired ways. Wikipedia
The art of propaganda began to advance; becoming more influential and subtle.
Starting in 1975 Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge began butchering people with help from the Vietcong who came to assist in the Cambodian Civil War after the US departed Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge purged their newly won society of 1.5 to 2 million undesirables (doctors, lawyers and the educated) so they could not interfere with the indoctrination of the culture (Wikipedia).
During the same time period, 1975, the East Timor civil war led to a victory by Fretilin, a leftist Catholic group. Indonesian Islamic forces immediately occupied East Timor. They framed the operation as “pacification of communists” and were provided military aid by the United States. In the realm of 300,000 people were killed (Wikipedia). Fretilin became Marxist after the Indonesian invasion, probably to procure arms. The US sold weapons to Indonesia so Fretilin would have to acquire them from a communist source, such was the nature Cold War.
Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent (1:07:53) poses a question about coverage in the US media of these two events. When the Indonesian forces landed in East Timor there was virtually no news coverage. When Pol Pot and his forces began purging their domestic enemies the press focused on the story. There was 16 to 17 times more coverage on Cambodia than East Timor in the US press.
Noam Chomsky has been accused of supporting Pol Pot, a rhetorical assault designed to discredit his survey of coverage of the two events. His point is the US press chose to focus on the atrocities in Cambodia and ignore those in East Timor rather than say either event was justifiable.
Saying the difference in press coverage of the two events is economic in nature flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Since we are talking about the same year US troops left Vietnam the notion is even crazier. Is it true that advertising in a paper critical of US backing for Indonesia would drop? The press had become very critical of US involvement in Vietnam prior to 1975.
Perhaps there’s a different way of looking at this. What if the press became critical of US involvement in Vietnam to create consent to exit the conflict? After, the press focused everyone’s attention on Pol Pot’s slaughter of Cambodians while at the same time the Indonesians were killing East Timorese. No one noticed the latter event.
If true this would be difficult to prove. There is no known evidence to support the speculation in the above paragraph. Given the statements and thoughts of propaganda and social science experts quoted in this and the last two posts we must admit, however, that it is possible.
Related
- Case Study 76
- Cambodian Genocide Wikipedia
- East Timor Genocide Wikipedia