 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Peter Steward's Web Pages |
 |
|
My Site
Review Section
|
Propaganda - A Study
An Introduction
Propaganda has been with us since the beginning of time in many forms - some subtle, some brutal, some just plain ridiculous.
I have for a long time been interested in the whole concept of propaganda and its place in history, for it has been present throughout every age and through every continent.
The object of this essay/piece is to look at propaganda and its many forms and how it has been used and for what purposes over the years.
Today most people would assume that propaganda no longer exists - certainly in the business led United Kingdom we are no longer subjected to it. This is just not true. Today it has been re-modelled under the heading of Marketing. In other parts of the world it still exists as blatant propaganda.
So as our story unfolds we will try to delve into the lies behind propaganda and the differences between those lies and the truth. For example just why did so many people believe in the First World War that conditions in the trenches would be preferable to the struggle for survival at home? Who put this propaganda together and why were people so gullible as to swallow it hook, line and sinker?
To work properly does propaganda have to be aimed at the most gullible? How can people in power deliberately lie, re-construct the truth and use it against fellow citizens and does this simply eminate from the need for power? These are just some of the questions I will try to answer.
Chapter One - Propaganda in its Infancy
We need to start with a reasonable definition of propaganda and for this I turned to Wikipedia which had the following to say:
"Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviours of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."
I would suggest that propaganda is used on a wider canvas than this and not simply for political agendas, although this is often the case.
Virtually all of us have been subjected to modern day propaganda. Indeed advertising often borders on propaganda, informing us that such and such a product is perfect when we all know it probably has flaws.
So I take marketing as my starting point. It is something we are subjected to virtually every hour of the day and in itself is propaganda - albeit propaganda on a vaguely acceptable scale. Virtually every company has a marketing department whose job is to paper over cracks and inform us how successful and efficient the company is. Of course we know differently. So is this a blatant lie? Well of course not. People putting out this "propaganda" by and large really do believe what they are saying. Often this is through a naivety but often because they are blind to the inadequacies of the company or organisation they are representing and of course they are not going to "bite the hand that feeds them". This is true not only in the commercial sector but also amongst volunteer organisations.
It all breaks down of course when reality strikes. However many times you are told a mobile phone or a television or some other consumer item is the best thing since sliced bread, it can only apply as long as your toaster or kettle works. As soon as they break down or go wrong, the whole sales pitch becomes a mockery.
It always amuses me how companies advertise a product and a year later advertise a "new, better and improved formula." I don't think anybody has ever advertised a product as "the best we have at the moment but if you would like to wait another six months we will have an even better model." The launching of an improved product immediately assumes that the previous one was flawed.
So advertising is a kind of propaganda and that propaganda assumes that the public will be taken in. There's no harm done when you find a particular products isn't "all it's cracked up to be." It just leads to annoyance and a change in product choice. It does water down the success of that style of propaganda, however.
Of course companies can never be seen to be cutting back on services. That's precisely why whatever happens to them financially, they always boast an improved service. How many times have we been subjected to propaganda from companies telling us that by halving their workforce they are actually improving the service to their customers and the public? Leaner and fitter are 21st century buzz words. Often it is brought about by one or both of the following factors - 1/ A wish to make bigger profits for directors and/or shareholders 2/ The company or organisation has financial problems.
Often millions of pounds or dollars will be spent on advertising propaganda whilst staff are being made redundant. It is unpalatable propaganda, but the reality of modern life.
The same is true of service. How many times are we subjected to claims that on the surface may be true but underneath it all are pointless and meaningless, where the reality is far divorced from the promises.
Take for example the company or organisation that is working to either national or local targets (and targets in themselves amount to little other than propaganda). We will call them Company A. Company A advertises in the Media and through leafleting and various other forms that its aim is to answer 95% of phone calls from the public within 20 seconds. The 5% slippage factor immediately gives them some flexibility on this level.
A number of switchboard operators are employed to ensure that this target is met. They are checked through technology and in front of them is a results board telling them that in the previous month 97% of calls were answered within the 20 second target with an impressive 75% being answered within 10 seconds.
The public are informed of this fact through company propaganda and many immediately become angry. The question is why? The targets are clearly being met and here is a lean and efficient organisation. We know this because we are told so.
But the reality is very different. I ring up to speak to Mr Smith in customer service to complain about a product. Yes the phone is picked up in an impressive 10 seconds. There is none of this horrible "press one if you wish to book a holiday, press two if you wish to pay a bill" options and the person I speak to is sitting in a room in England and not abroad somewhere. They are polite and friendly.
I ask for Mr Smith and am told that I am being put through. Fourteen minutes later I am still holding on. The person I spoke to continually informs me that Mr Smith is busy and would I like to hold or phone up later. Ultimately I can continue to hold at my own expense or I can phone later and probably be subjected to the same response. If I'm really unlucky I might have been met with an automated response and continually be told that "your call is very important to us." That is the equivalent of telling somebody to "have a nice day" when you couldn't care less what kind of day they have.
Company A is meeting its targets. It is answering virtually all the calls within its designated time, but it's what happens after that that should be subjected to the targets and not the initial answering of the phone.
And once the company propaganda breaks down the public's faith in that particular organisation sinks. When products are involved it can often mean the public switching to another brand. When a service is involved it can result in adverse publicity and the need for more propaganda to counteract the inefficiency and the "twisting of facts"
Of course as they say in modern language "don't worry nobody has died or got injured - there's just been a little inconvenience." Certainly this is true but it is the propaganda that turns us against companies and organisations and makes us angry.
But of course nobody has died or got hurt by it. Sadly throughout the ages that certainly hasn't been the case as we shall see. Propaganda has been responsible for more deaths and injuries than virtually any other aspect. Millions of troops were killed by machine guns, rifles and other means in two world wars, but it was propaganda that was largely responsible for putting individuals in the line of fire in the first place.
So now we must start our journey with another definition that over the coming chapters will serve us well.
To
Be Continued |