MEDIA PROPAGANDA: Fine Lies and Fake Truths

“Propaganda is to Democracy, what violence is to Totalitarianism.”   – Noam Chomsky

Media and propaganda is not the story of the World Wars any more. With the advent and development of technology it has only become more cryptic and insidious.

Most people tend to think that with democracy come absolute ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ from any ‘power of control’. In reality, the democratic governments need not ‘control’ its people in obvious ways by using force. They do it all through propaganda.

Noam Chomsky explains, “..since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says- in other words, control what people think.” They ‘manufacture’ the public’s ‘consent’ and the public often accepts the government’s propaganda ‘unquestioningly’. One may think it is the uneducated who fall for it, but apparently, its the educated lot that is more prone to propaganda, simply because they ‘read a lot’, perhaps a little blindly.

One may be surprised but propaganda abounds in democracies and not just in the form of ‘news’ or the press, radio, TV but also through posters, billboards, stamps, books, plays, comic strips, sporting events, entertainment/Hollywood, awards and prizes, monuments, street names (sounds familiar?) which makes it even more difficult to be ‘noticed’ by a layman. “Techniques have been honed to a high art…,” he says, which may include ‘crude ways’ such as ‘historical engineering’, ‘lying’, ‘suppressing facts’ and more ‘subtler’ means such as ‘feigning dissent’, ‘creating a political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins’, substituting ‘defense’ for ‘aggression’ and so on.

Brian Eno said, “When our governments want to sell us a course of action, they do it by making sure it’s the only thing on the agenda, the only thing everyone’s talking about.” In ‘What makes mainstream media mainstream’, Chomsky explains how this happens. The government and major profitable corporations that own our media are ‘closely interlinked’ (See how they are here). This ‘elite media’ sets a ‘framework’ for all others to follow. If you are not broadcasting what the ‘major elite’ or ‘national tabloids’ are, you will probably not ‘last long’ in the industry. He says, “Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controlled from above. If you don’t like what they are doing you get out. The major media are just part of that system.” ‘Independent thinkers’ who don’t abide by the same are usually ‘weeded out’, so the higher positions are only held by the mouth pieces of the government, which in turn ‘direct the mass audience.’

America changed the name of the War Department to ‘Department of defense’, MX- Missile to ‘the Peacekeeper’, referring to civilian casualties as ‘collateral damage’, liquidation as ‘murder’, shell-shock as ‘combat fatigue’, trauma of war on civilians as ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’, aggression as ‘defence’

Johnnie Manzaria & Jonathon Bruck’s research on the media portrayal of nuclear power of Pakistan and France helps us understand the ‘tactics’ of propaganda. When Pakistan developed its nuclear technology, the media ‘linked it to historically defined US enemies such as Libya, Iran, Iraq & USSR’. It then spoke of the ‘possibility’ of Pakistan sharing it with ‘Islamic states’, and how ‘happy Muslims were’, the fear that it ‘may fall into the hands of countries the West has branded sponsors of terrorism’, ‘the Islamic bomb’, ‘the unstable South Asia’ and the quote that the ‘Father of the Islamic Bomb’ fed birds, ants and monkeys. The fact that Pakistan developed the technology ‘was not what shaped the articles’. The tactic used here was that of ‘reinforcement of societal myths & stereotypes’ and that of instilling ‘fear’. By linking it with an enemy, it provided a justification for ‘fear’, by connecting it to Muslims and then ‘Islam’, subjects that people are barely aware of, it created uncertainty, and so ‘reinforced stereotypes’ and by quoting the birds, ants and monkeys, it portrayed the country to be crude, uncivilized and unworthy of nuclear technology. The quote is ‘factually correct’ but ‘the context in which it is used was to create an uneasiness in the minds of the reader.’ Thus, it successfully proved Pakistan to be ‘threatening’ without directly saying so. Coming to France, the media praised it for the achievement, spoke of strengthening the Prime Minister’s position, and of disarmament talks and tours, and so it shifted the military implications of nuclear technology to ‘politics’ and ‘diplomacy’. By ‘persuading the reader to focus on the non-threatening nature of the technology’, it was ‘able to spin the truth’. The authors say, “Since the article began by suggesting that France is worthy of nuclear weapons, since they will not use them for ill deeds, the idea of giving them nuclear technology would now seem logical.” Thus, the reader is made to feel completely comfortable about France’s nuclear power.

Aaron Delwiche, author of Propaganda Critic, says, “Information Revolution has led to information overload,” because of which people tend to use ‘short-cuts’ to make sense of a situation. He says, “Propagandists love short-cuts- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and by bending the rules of logic.” He came up with a revealing list of propaganda tactics- use of terms ‘terrorist’, ‘fanatic’, ‘radical’, ‘rogue’ so ‘the audience rejects the person or idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence,’ using ‘virtue words’ like ‘good, civilization, patriotism, democracy, science, health’ to make the audience approve of something, euphemisms- in the 1940’s America changed the name of the War Department to ‘Department of defense’, MX- Missile to ‘the Peacekeeper’, referring to civilian casualties as ‘collateral damage’, liquidation as ‘murder’, shell-shock as ‘combat fatigue’, trauma of war on civilians as ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’, aggression as ‘defence’ to make the ‘unpleasant reality more palatable’, presenting millionaire Presidents as ‘ordinary people’, illogical fallacies like ‘all Christians believe in God, All Muslims believe in God, so All Christians are Muslims.’ Doesn’t make sense? Try making sense of this one. All Muslims follow Islam, all terrorists follow Islam, so all Muslims are likely to be so. It works on the same tactic.

Another technique is ‘to make huge predictions about the future on the basis of a few small facts’. For instance, Iran ‘may’ share its nuclear technology with ‘terrorists’ and hence, prove to be a death sentence for Israel in the future, so it should be lobbed with bombs. A very important tactic is that of a ‘faceless enemy’, where the audience perceives a country as an enemy, or ‘terrorist’ when it actually comprises of ordinary men, women and children, the enemy being just a minor fringe (or non-existent as is the case most of the time) so the bombs that are always used in ‘defence’ are actually not on an enemy but on ‘men, women and children.’

He rues over “their selective cry that ‘something must be done’ about Islamic fanatics but nothing must be done about Zionist fanatics,“ or for that matter, American fanatics, if I may add. ‘Sophistry and power of liberal propaganda’ is what keeps Israel still running .

Richard W. Behan, a writer for Alternet, calls ‘the war on terror’ a ‘classic lie’. He says, ‘The fraudulence of the ‘war on terror’ is clearly revealed by looking at the pattern of actions that preceded and followed its launch’. In his study, one will find how the Bush administration ‘endlessly recited its mantra of deceit’ after 9/11. The military incursions that followed were clearly already decided even before the twin towers were brought down. One must remember that, something as big as a military incursion doesn’t happen in a week or so. It is ‘planned and preconceived.’ 9/11 was only used as a justification for attacking a ‘sovereign nation unprovoked’. Behan lists ample evidences, many from US files and documents, that revealed the administrations ideology of ‘world dominance’, the ‘greed for Persian gulf oil’, the need to ‘overthrow Saddam Hussein regime’ and the many other references to Iraqi oil resources. He says, ‘as early as Feb. 3, 2001, the Bush administration was committed to invading Iraq, with the oil fields clearly in mind.’ For similar reasons, Afghanistan was a war in favor of British and American oil companies. The decision to invade Afghanistan was made as early as five weeks before 9/11. The American oil company Unocal received the most benefits under the Bush regime- to the extent that soon after the overthrow of Taliban, it ‘installed’ its own ex-consultant, Hamid Karzai, as head of the interim government. The ambassadors to Karzai’s government were also Unocal members. Not to forget, the arms industry makes hundreds of millions of money through these perpetual wars.

On the 14th anniversary of 9/11, Dr. Gary G. Kohls, a 9/11 truth-seeker, wrote, ‘If real investigative journalism was still alive and kicking in our corporatized, for profit media environment, and if exposing Big Lies was still regarded as important in our dying democracy, the black-listing of 9/11 truth-seekers and the court of law-worthy evidence that they have collected [of an inside-job] would have been celebrated and not denigrated.” In fact, one can link the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to a ‘CIA propaganda campaign’ during the post-Kennedy assassination days. He says, “…the use of this pejorative term is obviously a tactic to shame & humiliate those who saw through the ulterior motives of the commission, and thus effectively censor out or even banish anyone who questions official government accounts.” In a special report for the IPS, Miren Gutierrez says, “The ‘war on terror’ was the starting point for a standardization of set phrases like ‘weapons of mass destruction’, ‘axis of evil’, ‘shock and awe’, and ‘war of liberation.’ Simple, repetitious and emotional…”

John Pilger is an Australian born journalist who perhaps wrote more honestly about India’s rocket to Mars than any Indian journalist in the mainstream media. He wrote, ‘The cheering was inaudible in the rows of tarpaper shacks you see as you land at Mumbai International airport and myriad villages denied basic technology, such as light and safe water.” He further writes, “Secularism may have been Nehru’s grand vision, but Muslims in India remain among the poorest, most discriminated against and brutalised minority…”

In his writings, he reveals uncountable number of instances of US and Israeli propaganda. The ‘Israeli apologetics’ always refuse to accept their crimes, which is how ‘much if not most of the western media has colluded’ regarding the Middle East. The media plays word games by using phrases like ‘equal blame’, ‘conflict’, ‘right to defend’, ‘anti-Semitism’ to present the ‘aggressors’ or the real ‘terrorists’ as the ‘victims.’ He rues over “their selective cry that ‘something must be done’ about Islamic fanatics but nothing must be done about Zionist fanatics,“ or for that matter, American fanatics, if I may add. ‘Sophistry and power of liberal propaganda’ is what keeps Israel still running .

There is more revelation in Pilger’s articles. Fifty percent in every section of a newspaper except sports, is apparently ‘PR- generated material’. The figures are higher in national tabloids. Cheery pictures of Prime ministers and Presidents with crimes against humanity as resumes are portrayed in the mainstream media attending peace rallies, holding peace talks and conferences so people can ‘feel they are doing something while doing nothing.’ International laws are applied as long as the ‘enemy’ is not from amongst ‘us’, where ‘the Serbs and the Sudanese dictators are more likely to face a political court set-up by the west.’ The supposed International laws and sanctions have made Iraq ‘a country of widows and orphans,’ where no conflict or strife ever existed before US aggression. Only ‘worthy victims’ deserve ‘humanitarian intervention.’ That ‘more than seven Hiroshimas fell in populated areas’ in Iraq is never ‘news’. Pilger calls it ‘perception management’ and ‘censorship by omission’, which every mainstream media channel proudly utilizes. Records of US foreign policy by William Blum, shows that “since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical & biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.” He says, “Democracy is now a rhetorical device. Peace is ‘perpetual war’. ‘Global’ is imperial. The once hopeful concept of ‘reform’, now means regression, even destruction.” ‘Information Operations’ are carried out in war zones, to restrict the flow of information or manage what is being leaked- ‘official disinformation’ that is parroted by the elite media all over the globe- the same media and military that gives a ‘face’ to the enemies via videos and photos released only to keep the media ‘happy’ and ‘content’ and the public in fear and approval. The entertainment industry is as well a supporter of cold war, every time it portrays Arab countries as ‘threats’ and Arabs as ‘mad men.’ The Fifth Estate and Argo, the Oscar winning movie, fall into the same scale.

Investigative journalism is dead. ‘Embedded’ journalism is alive. The only real journalism done is by ‘victims’ in conflict areas, who are most likely to be censored or killed to cover-up ugly truths. Pilger says, “It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.” A journalist can never ‘report’ a government line without any further comments and claim neutrality. It is no different than voicing the government. That ‘WikiLeaks called Modi incorruptible’ unbelievably echoed in our media via our ‘responsible staff reporters’ until WikiLeaks tweeted (quite a number of times) refuting the same.

Pilger harshly criticizes the novelist Ian Mc Ewan for accepting the Jerusalem Prize for Literature. To boycott a criminal responsible for genocide is “a measure of basic human decency.” Call to the dock all those celebrities who shook hands with Modi during the election campaigns, as if amnesiac of the Gujarat victims and their moral responsibilities as citizens.

The blame of the success of propaganda partly lies with the public too, for it never enquires,   or demands investigation, evidence, or apology from its government. It accepts ‘unquestioningly’.