This Week:

Quote of the Week

The President: Lying or Ignorant?

How Overt and Deep Propaganda Work: A Case Study

Who Does Propaganda?

Greetings,

As this "Propaganda Series" proceeds, I grapple with the order of presenting things.  Can one really understand WHO does Propaganda before we talk about HOW it is done?  And can readers really understand WHAT Propaganda is without understanding WHY we have it?  Probably not.
But I can't put everything in here at once, so I'm just picking pieces to do in some kind of order--WHAT and WHERE the last two weeks, WHO this week, HOW and WHEN and WHY coming up--and then, at the end of the series, I plan to do a summary that should tie it all together.  Also, I will say a few words about what we can DO about Propaganda, both in the personal sense of protecting ourselves from it, and in the social sense of reducing its power.

Since the series is kind of heavy on theory, I decided to do a little case study this week.  It's short, but useful, I think.  I also stuck in a little piece about Venezuela and our "President," as that is an ongoing story of great import, with much Propaganda to be found.

I have heard from a LOT of you about the first two parts of the series.  Excellent points--thank you!  Your feedback is really energizing.

Energetically yours,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This is from an opinion piece published in various newspapers in the past week, including in my local paper the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of December 7th.  The original title of the piece, by Walter Jajko, retired Air Force brigadier general and now a professor of defense studies, was originally titled, "It's Propaganda Time."  Mr. Jajko said:

"Critics of the Iraq war are outraged over the revelation that the U.S. military has been paying millions of dollars to plant pro-American, Pentagon-written propaganda articles in Iraqi newspapers and to buy off Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.  But in my opinion, it's about time. We need to be using all the means available in the war of ideas: public diplomacy, psychological operations, influence agents, disinformation and computer information warfare--from open and overt to clandestine and covert, from public explanation of policy to secret subversion of enemies. All of these must be well-orchestrated."

The President: Lying or Ignorant?

On October 10th,  the Toronto Sun ran a story with the headline: "Venezuela Seeks Nuke."  On October 13th, two different newspapers had two similar headlines.  The Christian Science Monitor's headline read: "U.S. Unfazed by Venezuela's Talk of Nukes," and the Financial Times of London had a headline reading: "U.S. to Lobby Argentina on Chavez Nuclear Move."

"Chavez" refers to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.  The Monitor's story included these words:

"The leader [Chavez] has publicly addressed with Iran the sharing of nuclear know-how among have-not countries, and recently his government broached with Argentina the subject of buying a nuclear reactor."  The Times said, "Venezuelan officials have confirmed reports in Argentina that Venezuela's state-owned oil company ... in August asked Argentina to sell it a 'medium-sized' nuclear reactor."

For the record, here is what Chavez himself has said on the subject of nuclear energy, as quoted on October 16th by the Washington Post: "We're at the doorway of a major energy crisis worldwide.  We'll have to develop other resources such as wind, solar and nuclear energy--naturally for peaceful purposes."

I report all this to make it clear that the story of Venezuela seeking nuclear technology was widely reported around the world, including in the United States, during the month of October.  Here, then, is a comment made by President Bush on the first day of November, speaking in a "Roundtable Interview" with "Foreign Print Media."

An unnamed reporter asked, "Mr. President, President Chavez asked the Argentine government [of President Kirchner] to build a nuclear reactor for energy in Venezuela.  Is that a danger for the region?  Is that a danger for the United States?"

The President said, "I guess if I were a taxpayer in Venezuela, I would wonder about the energy supply that Venezuela has. ... I ... hope President Kirchner shares with me the concept, the notion, the idea."

The reporter asked, "You will talk with [President Kirchner] about this?"  The President then said, "If he wants to talk about it, I'd be curious to know.  It's the first I've heard of it.  And it's an interesting question."

"It's the first I've heard of it," said Mr. Bush.  So, perhaps it is true, as has been rumored, that the President of the United States really does not read the newspapers.  Or, perhaps, the President of the United States did know about the Venezuelan nuclear proposal when the question was asked.

This, in turn, raises another question: Is the President amazingly ignorant, or is he a liar?  Now, THAT'S an interesting question, but none of the reporters present bothered to ask it, nor did they bother to ask any follow-up question to get clarification on this incredible answer, which itself was barely reported in the U.S.

Is it too much to ask for journalists who have access to the President to hold him accountable for his words?  And, if it's not, who will hold the press accountable?  That's a question we all need to ask.

How Overt and Deep Propaganda Work: A Case Study

This case study of Overt and Deep Propaganda in the media was selected because it is completely typical of reporting in the U.S. media about Iraq.

The lead story in the New York Times (All The News That's Fit To Print!) of December 3rd bore  the headline: "Blast in Falluja Kills 10 Marines; 11 Are Wounded."  In the lengthy (1,365 word) article, the words "killed" or "killing" appear 10 times.  Seven of those references refer to U.S. military personnel.  One refers to "four American security guards" killed in 2004.  One refers to "two of Falluja's leading Muslim clerics."  And one reference was to "1,200 insurgents" who  supposedly were killed by U.S. forces in Falluja in 2004 ("American commanders said" this was true).

That last one was the only direct reference to any killing done by U.S. forces.  You'll see why I say "direct" when you read this paragraph, which was the one just before the claim that "1,200 insurgents" had been killed: "The second offensive [by U.S. forces against Falluja], eight months  [after the one in April 2004], was the most relentless American attack against the insurgents.  It ended with American forces in control of the largely devastated city, but with many of its 300,000 residents having fled."

Now, one might imagine that in a "largely devastated city" of 300,000--somewhat larger than St. Paul, Minnesota--from which "many" of the residents had fled, that there may have been some innocent civilians killed.  Maybe even more than the 10 Marines whose deaths earned the lead headline on the front page last week.  Yet there was no mention of Iraqi civilians in the article, and the only reference to anyone killed by U.S. forces was the reference to "insurgents" killed.

It's worth noting that the Times had reported, on October 30th, "the first public disclosure that the United States military is tracking some of the deaths of Iraqi civilians," which was "quietly" done in "a single bar graph on Page 23" of "a report to Congress."  As the Times noted, "the military had previously avoided virtually all public discussion of the issue" of Iraqi civilians killed.  But even this "quiet" announcement--which was consigned to page 10 of that day's paper--included only "rough figures for Iraqis who have been killed or wounded by insurgents."  Any information about Iraqis killed by /U.S. forces/ is still scrupulously avoided, both by those who know (U.S. leadership), and those who are supposedly "covering" this occupation.  So, for Propaganda purposes, the message is clear: Few innocent people are dying in Iraq, and the only ones who are dying are being killed by the enemy.

Propaganda Check

There are only three direct quotations in the article.  The first one is White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who was quoted as saying, "We are saddened by the loss of lives, whether it is one soldier who loses his or her life, or 10 or 11.  Our hearts and prayers go out to their families, their loved ones.  We are forever grateful for their service and sacrifice."

The second time we see quotation marks is when the leader of a Falluja mosque says, apparently speaking to his congregation, "The election is both legitimate and necessary, and your duty to vote is heavier than a mountain."  Another cleric was quoted referring to the killers of the leading clerics as "murderers," with the Times reporter claiming that he "said believers should respond by voting in large numbers."  The election they are talking about is the upcoming election on December 15th, the success of which, not coincidentally, is the top priority of the U.S. occupation forces at the moment.

Virtually all of the factual information cited in the article (excluding the last four paragraphs, which deal with another subject) comes from "American commanders" and "an American official (anonymous)" and "the Marines."  During wartime, it is standard for officials from each side to fulfill a Propaganda function, at minimum by avoiding reference to any information that might reflect badly on "their" side.  Perhaps these sources simply failed to refer to Iraqi civilian casualties, or perhaps the reporter failed to record any references they might have made.  The Propaganda effect is the same either way: Readers of the media in this country are spared any knowledge of the deaths caused by the forces acting in their name.

Here is a summary of the Overt Propaganda in this article:

1. In Iraq, there are perpetrators and there are victims. 
2. The U.S. and its allies are the victims, and "we" mourn them. 
3. The perpetrators are anyone who attacks the U.S. or its allies. 
4. There are no civilian victims of U.S. operations worth noting.

There are also a couple of different levels of Deep Propaganda: When we see reporting on the loss of U.S. lives accompanied by a near-total blackout of reports on civilian casualties at the hands of those U.S. forces, the obvious Deep Propaganda is, "U.S. lives are worth more than Iraqi lives."

In this case, as in many others, there is an even deeper level of internalized ideology (that is, Deep Propaganda) that tells us / why / Iraqi lives are worth less.  That deeper level is racism, upon which rests the "us" and "them" dynamic that is the broad justification for any war.  "They" are different--I mean, LOOK at them!--so if we kill a few dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, in our attempt to pursue "our" objectives, we don't even need bother to notice or count.  And we certainly aren't going to have a White House spokesman send out "our hearts and prayers" to the families of the victims of our operations--whoever they may be; remember that they are not noticed--as he does for the "one soldier...or 10 or 11."

Don't get me wrong: Each and every soldier killed is deserving of our hearts and prayers.  But moral people should agree that each and every innocent Iraqi is equally deserving.  And what is missing from the reporting on the occupation of Iraq is information about the consequences of the actions of our agents--that is, the U.S. occupation forces.  And this knowledge is fundamental to the U.S. public's ability to judge the morality and justification for the occupation, if there is any.

In summary: When propagandists attempt to focus our attention on one thing and avoid another, that is Overt Propaganda.  But the reason that the reporting of this Overt Propaganda is accepted as legitimate journalism is Deep Propaganda: The Deep Propaganda of a jingoistic, warlike, "us/them" ideology, which is in turn supported by the even deeper Deep Propaganda of racism, a racism that values some lives more than others.

Who Does Propaganda?

Before I give my tremendously brief ideas on Who Does Propaganda, I want to suggest two things. 

1.  Propaganda, despite its bad reputation, can be either true or false.  Sometimes Propaganda is the result of simply presenting one set of accurate facts while suppressing other accurate facts that contradict them. 

2.  Remember that, when considering "who" does something, to not limit yourself to individual people.  Sometimes an institution is the "who."  It's more important to know, for example, that you learned something in grade school than to know exactly which teacher told it to you.  Also, if you focus on individuals, you start thinking that having different individuals in place would solve the problem, and that's not how institutions work.

Please keep those two things in mind, and also keep in mind that capital-P Propaganda requires both a PRODUCER and a DISTRIBUTOR, and that there are two levels of Propaganda: Overt Propaganda and Deep Propaganda.  That will give us four groups of "perpetrators" of Propaganda:

Who PRODUCES Overt Propaganda?  Government officials, corporations, advertisers (who work for corporations, and are themselves corporations), wealthy people (who hire corporations). Who DISTRIBUTES Overt Propaganda?  For the most part, the media is the conduit for Overt Propaganda.  Who, after all, would know what the propagandists said if it wasn't sent to us via the TV, the radio, the newspaper, the internet, or whatever form of media you use?  You'll occasionally find it in textbooks, church sermons, and the like.  Whoever is in the business of distributing ideas may consciously or unconsciously spread Propaganda.

Who PRODUCES Deep Propaganda?  Every society has its own stories and myths and beliefs that it passes along.  And many institutions do the passing: families, churches, schools, universities, all the branches of government, and media.

Who DISTRIBUTES Deep Propaganda?  Since most people's main source of information about the world outside of their homes and neighborhoods is the media, journalists and journalistic institutions increasingly function as distributors of Deep Propaganda.

That's who does Propaganda. If it seems too brief, and too simple, that's because, to really understand WHO does Propaganda, we need to look in some detail at HOW they do it.

And that is coming up NEXT WEEK.