This class, using commercial news as our canvas, essentially deals with two areas: first, how do people in the media, or with influence over the media, manipulate the masses? Second, why is the media consuming public so vulnerable to manipulation? The first gets at large, political pressures and economic structures--the propaganda model is a good example of how news is filtered, and the kinds of pressures that lead to censorship in mainstream, commercial media. The second gets at the psychology of persuasion--what is it about the human mind that it is susceptible to techniques of deception that essentially bypass logic and rational reasoning?

First, we should try to distinguish between persuasion and propaganda. We all try to persuade in one way or another, consciously and otherwise. In a society of 300 million, with the largest economy in the world, persuasion becomes central for a lot of people's livelihoods. Politicians seeking office, companies seeking to increase sales, lawyers seeking to represent clients, media outlets seeking to increase audience and market share.

German sociologist Max Weber (pronounced 'vay-brrr') identified well over a century ago a social process he referred to as 'rationalization.' Rationalization was an inevitable product of 'modernization' and the industrial revolution. As societies become larger and more complex, new forms of social organization develop to maintain social order. For instance, without some sort of bureaucracy, a set of rules, people with distinct job responsibilities, registration at the beginning of the term here at EOU would be a nightmare. Imagine how it would be at Penn State, with 42,000 students. Thirty seven million people live below the poverty line. Imagine trying to manage welfare and public assistance services without many bureaucracies in place to figure out who is eligible, how to deliver services, how to ensure they're reaching eligible recipients, etc.

A few things happened in the 21st century that caught the attention of powerful organizations, individuals and public officials. First, the US entered WWI, and many Americans were ambivalent about our involvement. The government enlisted a group of influential people to serve on the Committee on Public Information, or CPI, designed to help sell the war domestically. George Creel and Edward Bernays (the latter considered the founder of the public relations industry) were enlisted in the effort. Bernays was the newphew of Sigmund Freud, one of the founders of the modern discipline of psychology, and was quite interested in Freud's theories of personality and psychotherapy. Except Bernays interest was in understanding how to move masses, how to use Frued's theory of the unconscious to persuade, not individuals, but populations. He would later become quite wealthy, using what he had learned and Freud's theories to sell a variety of ideas and products and presidents and candidates. Bernays is considered the most important figure in making it socially acceptable for women to smoke--quite a feat, when you think abou it. Smoking was, in Freudian terms, tied up with masculinity and male sexual prowess, and hence even though one might say smoking was in a sense the height of conformity to a certain set of institutions, Bernays made it seem rebellious, referring to the cigarettes women were smoking as 'torches of freedom.' I wanted to show you a Virginia Slims commercial on youtube or Google Video, but the tobacco companies are quite vigilant about protecting copyrighted material (especially when it's used for purposes other than to sell their products).

Other historical processes were well underway besides the war effort, and the realization that the masses could be persuaded. Bernays understood he could sell much more than war. Back to that process of rationalization, the production of goods in society was becoming complex as well. A socioeconomic class was developing that purchased 'luxury' goods. Those with means were satisfying wants instead of just needs. And being encouraged to do so through the media. Henry Ford figured out he could sell many more cars, at lower prices to boot, if he could mass produce them. We got the assembly line, which revolutionized production, but which requires pretty sophisticated mechanisms and organization to pull off. The agribusiness industry figured out how to produce higher levels of agricultural crops, using fossil fuels and machinery. Every industry in a society of 100 + million, if it is to survive as a nation-wide entity, must mass produce. This requires lots of political mobilization--lawyers and lobbyists, influencing legislators and regulators, funding political campaigns, etc., with the intent of making sure that no laws or regulations get passed that would hurt sales or profits, or whose costs could not be passed on to consumers. But mass production implies that what industries are producing has a market. How to get consumers to buy the stuff being mass-produced? Why mass consumption, of course! The advertising and public relations industries were built around the idea that mass production required means of increasing levels of consumption, and they've been pretty darned successful. They've taken advantage of research and theory from disparate social scientific fields, especially from psychology--from the work of Sigmund Freud and B.F. Skinner especially. Although as the authors of Age of Propaganda point out, the literature on the psychology of persuasion dates back a few thousand years to the times of the Sophists, Aristotle, Cicero, etc. But while the Greeks looked at persuasion as a means of elevating public debate and discourse, advertisers have used what they've learned about persuasion mainly to move products and services, and as an industry to present consumption as the highest expression of post-industrial society. At some point in the 20th century, a certain segment of the ruling class began viewing citizens less as citizens, less as workers, and more as consumers (of course consuming requires a job, and there have to be some democratic rituals to justify power relations).

In modern society, the techniques of persuasion require a knowledge of how to use mass media. And to the extent that persuasion is designed not to illuminate and inform, but to sell, and to obscure alternative conceptions of society not so focused on material consumption (as an example), we can call it propaganda. The authors refer to propaganda as mass influence through the manipulation of symbols and psychology of the individual. It's not the sole property of totalitarian regimes. It isn't just advertisers who do this. Hitler's rise in Nazi Germany was largely due to the expertise of his propagandists, such as Joseph Goebbels. Politicians have long seen the value of using techniques of persuasion and propaganda. What makes the current generation of propagandists--most distinguished among them the Bush / Cheney White House--different is their systematic and disciplined approach to using every form of mass media and information technology, via print, radio, Internet, television, cinema, etc., to communicate and amplify a fairly narrow set of messages and philosophies. This requires a power base, and corporate consolidation of commercial media ownership--and the alignment of corporate media and the interests of the government--certainly hasn't hurt.

Hence as business historically becomes more complex, mass production requires mass consumption requires . . . mass persuasion. And mass persuasion is every bit as well thought out as mass production is. As citizens this isn't one of the things we're taught in school--how to deal with propaganda for what it is. Most of us are in a sense media suckers, left to fend for ourselves and figure out on our own what's going on. Mass media is the vehicle for a propaganda system of this magnitude, and it's important to understand somewhat how it operates and who drives it.

What are the goals of propaganda?

• To move public opinion to 'voluntarily' accept views of others as one's own.
• What separates it from the Greeks, others? There is no attempt to educate, inform, stimulate debate--the object is to persuade masses--the 'target'--that there is no debate, there are no alternatives--to obscure undesirable alternatives (from the point of view of the 'communicators').
• In many cases, at least in our society, there are three sorts of goals of propaganda. First, to sell products (and more generally, encourage consumption). Second, to sell wars (in other words, gain the public support needed to invade another country). Third, to sell politicians and ideologies.
• Mass persuasion is easier to do with images and feelings than with text, although text and language is very important in the process. TV, film and radio have had a big impact on the rise of propaganda and its effectiveness. People don't process information from these media the same way we do printed words, for instance. Part has to do with the immediacy of modern media. We expect instant analysis (trust the media to do the analysis for you!). If you're reading a newspaper, or a book, you can actually pause, digest an idea, look at it skeptically, re-read, etc. TV on the other hand is for quick processors or zombies.
• But . . . who's doing the analyzing? What credibility do they have? Whose interests might they be serving? For example, Armstrong Williams, a black and conservative (unusual combination) columnist and media consultant, was paid $240,000 by the White House (that's taxpayer money, in case you were wondering ...), to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. Without disclosing he was paid, of course, and mainly to try to sell African Americans on the act and increase electoral support (see how this is spun by the conservative news watchdog, Accuracy in Media).

Here we'll begin addressing this second issue, and start with what the authors (Pratkanis and Aronson) refer to as the 'Four stratagems of persuasion.'

1. Pre-persuasion--this is the ability to frame the debate. All politically charged debates have groups competing to have their version prevail in the public arena. Immigration, for instance, can be 'framed' as a problem of 'illegal aliens' or 'undocumented workers,' with an emphasis on the illegality and the immigrants. Sympathy in this framing is usually reserved for hard-working Americans and 'legal' immigrants playing by the rules. Immigration could be framed, alternately, as an issue of 'cheap labor' that benefits workers and consumers, or as an economic and development problem, or a failure of free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 2005, after his re-election, President Bush continually said that Social Security was in an urgent state of crisis. It wasn't (but Medicare was and is), and wouldn't be for one or two generations, but it gives a sense of urgency that something must be done now. Campaign contributors from Wall Street and the financial industry may have felt a sense of urgency, though--they had a business-friendly White House and Congress, which doesn't happen very often.

And if you can get people up front to agree there's a problem, then the battle's half over, and all that's left is to convince them that the only reasonable solution is yours (see #3). What they were selling was a system of private accounts, which would give people more control over their retirement, but also place the burden of risk on citizens to invest wisely, and provide billions in brokerage fees for Wall Street and the various investment vehicles it would promote to workers.

Or, to change subjects, it may not matter what brand of car you buy, as long as you buy one--and trade it in regularly for a new one (The alternative of keeping your old car is one the automotive industry would rather you didn't ponder for long stretches of time). Of course it matters to the dealer, but maybe the idea is to head off dangerous talk about people hanging on to their cars for 10 years or more. Another example: the fast food restaurant you frequent, as long as it's BK or McD's or Wendy's, and not some sit-down place. You won't see McD's going up against a sit-down restaurant--eating fast food is the given, and the competition is the other fast food chains. Or (another example) as long as you're purchasing medications to take care of health-related symptoms, rather than exploring alternative means of wellness. Got a health problem? We've got medicine for it!

So, the idea is to guide people down an intellectual cattle chute, to make people think there are limited options--for instance, if you're for peace and democracy in the Middle East, you're for the White House plan and the Iraq war. Oops! Wrong war (but if you're interested, here was the way PR firm Hill and Knowlton framed it)! Try this one. And add fear. And after the initial invasion, here was the phase 2 speech (and here was how it was produced). Otherwise you were against peace, for tyranny, or perhaps not supporting the troops. This seems silly now, but this was the argument being made and reported uncritically by the news media (remember the 'source filter' ...). Another example--support of the troops. The White House has worked hard to make it seem that anyone against the war was not supporting the troops. Tying Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda, Iraq to 9/11. Obviously the case can be made that people are against the war precisely because they believe the troops are engaged in an open-ended mission with no exit strategy, no explicit goals or objectives, and a lack of support for those who serve, whose tours have been extended, the National Guard troops brought into the conflict (and the costs to their own states), those who have returned with physical and psychological disabilities, etc. Ultimately, if one can associate patriotism with the war effort, it is easier to brand critics and dissenters as unpatriotic and somehow 'unAmerican,' or 'America bashers,' 'Bush bashers,' etc. It's easier for those in power, with constant access to a content-hungry commercial media, to influence these debates. Commercial media may air retractions--and this is important--after the fact--but they don't have to headline them. However, it's important to realize that all governments going to war require the support of the population, and do what is necessary to secure it (check out WWII imagery).

Effective propaganda campaigns are multi-pronged and complex, and difficult to sort out. They often involve creation of various entities, for example the 'Office of Srategic Information' prior to the Iraq invasion. Or the coal industry's 'America's Power' site, American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy, that spent millions during the 2008 presidential campaign (and gave to both McCain and Obama). Ken Silverstein's piece in Harper's Magazine provides a glimpse of the multiple strategies employed by public relations firms to not only influence the news, but stage it..

2. Source credibility (ethos)--communicators need to appear authoritative, trustworthy. That 'trust' may be entirely manufactured through imagery (check out this page for multiple examples) or other means of manipulation. Colin Powell's speech in front of the UN Security Council, prior to the Iraq invasion, was crucial to the Administration's case for war, even if he later admitted much of it was based on flimsy evidence. But the next day after his presentation, most every major daily was talking of his 'masterful performance.' It was what the White House needed to sell invasion (and Powell has since admitted he didn't have the facts). Presidents get sold as well. John McCain ran in 2008 as a maverick, an independent. His opponents tried to tie him to George W. Bush's policies. Bush ran in 2000 as a cowboy and a Christian (see an earlier video of Bush debating in the Texas Governor's race--he's much more polished). Barack Obama was characterized by his opponents as an elitist (can't even bowl!), while trying to sell himself as a uniter.

Now, the flip side of credibility involves discrediting. Here's a look at a video clip on youtube meant to make Al Gore look ridiculous as a spokesperson for global warming . There's a pretty good chance this seemingly amateurish video was the product of PR firm DCI, one of whose clients is Exxon Mobil. But what makes it propaganda, as opposed to other forms of persuasion? Gore has been attacked from a variety of sources for his advocacy of activism related to global warming and climate change. And here's a surprise: Fox News couldn't resist a smear after Gore received the 2007 Nobel Prize. Here's how they twisted Gore's Congressional testimony to make it personal (C-Span covers more of the exchange). More recently is the ridiculing in mainstream media of the Tea Party movement, characterizing it by its fringe elements (here's a satiric look).

3. Spin--You need a message (logos, or an appeal to logic). Communicators must deliver a message that focuses attention on what the 'consumer' is supposed to think about. Bad breath is bad, leads to the dreaded halitosis, and will cause you no end of social ostracism, but it can be easily remedied with the purchase of the right gum, breath freshener, or mouthwash! It's easy! Your friendships, sex life and popularity will improve instantaneously. Now, okay, there may be other products that would do this as well, and regular flossing might get rid of that nasty plaque in between your teeth, but we don't sell that, so HEY!! YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!! OVER HERE!! . . . You get the idea . . . .

As for Iraq, the spin was always associated with fear-mongering:

• Saddam was working with al Qaida (proved false);
• some connection with 9/11 (proved false--it was the Taliban in Afghanistan, that other war, who were sheltering al Qaida). At one point, a majority of Americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11 (15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia, our good friend in the region, and none were from Iraq);
• it's a 'war on terror,' rather than a case for the international criminal court;
• the enemy are terrorists, evildoers, they hate freedom, revel in tyranny, practice an ideology of hatred, etc.;
• the US on the other hand spreads democracy around the world (sometimes hard to reconcile with 'shock and awe' bombing campaigns). Saddam had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The US, on the other hand, has 'smart bombs,' 'daisy cutters,' 'bunker busters,' and a host of other very deadly 'precision munitions' categorized in part by their 'kill zones'). And then there's the 10,000 plus nuclear warheads . . . . Spin is critical--getting the media to use your language, rather than come up with their own characterization of the situation. Words matter. Here's an interesting site that gets below the surface of 'name-calling.'

4. Appeal to emotion (pathos)--If you can get the consumer either to try to 'get rid' of a negative emotion (for instance, VP Dick Cheney repeatedly said during the 2004 campaign that electing Kerry would increase the likelihood of another 9/11-style attack). Fear was used to promote the invasion of Iraq as well. Both Bush and Condoleeza Rice said

   "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (October 2002)

   Turns out of course that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program, had no biochemical weapons, posed no immediate or even short-term threat to the United States (but certainly did to any Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime). Propaganda and appeals to emotion are used to sell much more than a government's campaign for war, though. Advertisers draw on consumers' fears and insecurities to promote a variety of products, using the 'fear/relief' technique--make the consumer fearful, create cognitive dissonance, and offer the product as the means to reduce or rid one of the dissonance. And neither is fear the only means to secure a more 'compliant' consumer. One can also try to leave the consumer with warm and fuzzy, feel-good emotions. Hollywood pulls on the heartstrings. But so does Madison Avenue (advertisers), and so do politicians. Once you get rid of the negative feelings, you replace them with positive emotions--for the White House, the 'war on terror' was matched by rhetoric about safety, security.

   As the authors note, in describing the cognitive response approach:

   The successful persuasion tactic is one that directs and channels thoughts so that the target thinks in a manner agreeable to the communicators' point of view; the successful tactic disrupts any negative thoughts and promotes positive thoughts about the proposed course of action (Pratkanis and Aronson, p 31).

Routes to persuasion

Social psychologists talk about two 'routes' to persuading people: the peripheral and central. The peripheral route depends on the audience not paying much attention to the message, to not processing it in a rational way. Imagine coming home from a hard day, turning on the TV, and trying to absorb an analysis of Social Security 'Reform'. The communicator may depend on you not thinking that privatization won't save social security, and in the long run the only way to 'save' it is to reduce benefits by 40-50%. Maybe if you hear of the 'social security crisis' or problem enough, over and over, you'll begin to internalize the message and think of it as your own opinion. After all, you saw it on TV, right??

In the central route, the 'recipient' or consumer is paying attention and engaged. Which do you think propaganda techniques are most likely to take advantage of? When it comes to simplifying complex messages, we often have to rely on experts anyway. And if they're experts, we can't really follow their arguments and maybe we'll just take them at face value. Now, if you're familiar with the third party technique (of finding people with 'credibility' to deliver your biased message), you may be more skeptical when someone is sold to you as an expert. And you should be. One of the big questions Pratkanis and Aronson ask is, how can we have a true democracy if the public is ill-informed and vulnerable to propaganda, and in many cases incapable of engaging in informed debate and analysis? As they write, 'mindless propaganda, not thoughtful persuasion, flourishes' (p 39).

Another important point they make is that the most effective persuader is oneself. If persuaders, PR people, can get people to persuade themselves to adopt a point of view, buy that new Chicken Fajita Southwestern Bar-B-Q Ranch/Honey Dijon Dipper Grilled Croissant, because they watched the commercial and by God they made the decision all on their own, all the better. Same no doubt works in the classroom--I can talk about this stuff 'til I'm blue in the face, so to speak, but we watch videos hopefully so you can see it in action, and the more media you're checking out this term, the more likely you'll be to see just how prevalent and, in some cases, insidious, propaganda can be.