Propaganda has become increasingly more prevalent, subtle, and sophisticated (though still sometimes blatant, since "the big lie" will be readily believed if it originates from a credible source and is repeated often enough). Probably this is partly due to much of it being outsourced to PR firms which, as a whole, have considerable knowledge and experience in the art of persausion.
One example of modern propaganda:
The technique of lending credibility to an assertion by linking it to an already credible event that provokes a powerful response in people (the idea being to get people to associate the one with the other). For instance, if you wanted to convince people that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, in order to further drum up support for the war, then you would have different people repeat, as often as possible, statements beginning with 9/11 (the credible even that provokes the powerful emotional response) and ending with a remark about Saddam Hussein. And in fact this was done, repeatedly, and it produced the desired effect:
March 14, 2003:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Quote:
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
|
Though effective, there is nothing particularly subtle or sophisticated about that example. It worked because, minus Bin Laden and with the self-destruction of the Sept. 11 hijackers, the American public has never really been given any closure on this event and since Saddam Hussein is already a hated tyrant then perhaps many Americans even wanted to believe he was connected to 9/11 and were therefore not motivated to examine these "connections" any closer.
Better examples of propaganda (because of their ability to turn white into black) are of the Orwellian kind where people can be convinced that:
1. War is Peace (many people believe this already)
2. Freedom is Slavery (ditto)
3. Ignorance is Strength (3 out of 3)
Maybe I will elaborate on this further in a later post.
[Edit] There's an excellent Wiki article on propaganda here, including historic usage and common techniques. Good reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda