Propaganda- Another Word for Control

Propaganda is just a ‘word’, but what a powerful word it is! It is the representation and embodiment of all that has been going in human affairs since man’s existence began; how to control the thoughts, actions and resultant behaviors of the human race. When I read all the statistics and data as presented by Mr. Chomsky in “Manufacturing Consent: A Propaganda Model”, (Chomsky, 2009) I am the more convinced that the billions of dollars spent in the media, to ‘skew’ or do we call that ‘Spin’ today, stories labeled ‘News’, is all for the control of the thoughts and minds of the populace at large.
I realize that sounds profound, and un-cited to boot. Nevertheless, Messer’s Chomsky and Romano have gone to great lengths to help us understand and see the profundity of the above statement.
The press indeed holds great sway over the American mind, and seems to earns the Chomsky moniker of ‘stupid American’. However, I have to say that Media Propaganda is not a one-size-fits all phenomenon. It is not relegated to Americans alone. I have spent hours in front of French television at two of my French cousin’s homes. One lives in Montpellier, and the other in Paris. Except for the language, the format and the struggle for the French mind are the same as the American media. A fundamentally ‘universal’ approach, by men, to either soothe, or incite the populace. As Chomsky cites the results of the ‘emerging radical press’ in England that “working class papers” served to “inflame passions and awaken their selfishness” (Chomsky, pg.3).


The Deception about Facts
I am impressed with the lengths that Romano goes to help us understand the vagueness of the word ‘News’ itself, and I read with bated interest his logic regarding the “absence of standards for journalistic concepts” (Romano, Grisly Truth about Bare Facts, pg.39). In early journalism classes, we are taught that the word ‘News’ came from something not as esoteric as a strong definition of News, but more that it was an acronym for the cardinal points of a map, or weather vane. (i.e., North, East, West and South = N.E.W.S.) I couldn’t confirm, nor refute that point, however, that ambiguity alone leaves the door open for ‘News’ rooms to draw on stories that come from all over the map – but will only print, or air, the ones determined to be of local interest.
This should take many of us, current or aspiring journalists, back to Journalism 101, where we learned purpose. We learned that the goal, the ‘purpose’ of the media were to serve as the ‘watchdogs’ of Governmental affairs. Simply put, we learned that historically the media was to report on what the Government was doing, therefore, offering the populace at large the opportunity to challenge the Governments actions, and to thwart actions which could be detrimental to society.
As Romano states, “(two different) newspapers run scores of different stories each day…are they missing more news than they report?” ( Romano, pg.40)
A Devilish Propaganda Model
Chomsky's 'A Propaganda Model' is excellent reading, and an informative piece at that. I just don't think he goes back far enough in history!
It should come as no surprise that a Propaganda Model – or shall I more refer to it as a ‘Machine’ or, better yet, a ‘Tool’ – has been around since, oh let’s say, the book of Genesis! For you Bible scholars, you’ll remember the scene in Genesis 3:1 – 6, where Eve and the ‘subtle’ serpent exchange a dialogue wherein the serpent [played by Satan] speaks those infamous, and Propagandist words that changed the course of humankind forever: “Ye shall not surely die.” [Zodhiates, 1991, Gen. 1:4 KJV]. A grand lie to be sure. You could stop right there and say – there’s no propaganda, but purely lying! A grand lie, playing on the naiveté humans.
This whole scene, whether a playwright or poet had written it, is still a subtle seduction, a courtship, even a clever dance, with propaganda. Move to verse 5 and see how the Propaganda Model pushes even further to justify the lie. ‘For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil’. [Zodhiates, 1991, Gen.1:5]
Eve was convinced, through her rationalizations around the serpents challenge, that the tree would provide her with three benefits; Food for nourishment, Attractive (pleasant to the eyes) Wisdom for anyone who asks, three qualities that humans desire. I can’t find fault in any one of those benefits. So where’s the catch you ask? What was the only thing wrong? Rationalized disobedience, because God had said ‘No’. The serpent played on their weaknesses and launched a propaganda campaign that would serve to remand what God had ordered, and lead to their disobedience.
Granted, this entire story has more depth to it, and this is not the place for a full on Bible Study, however, I believe it does play a part in our understanding of our human frailty, or gullibility, towards believing everything we hear!

Can Reports on Propaganda be Propaganda Themselves?
However, one must address the ‘Reports on Propaganda’. Are they propaganda in and of themselves? What if we are being told truth, but cleverly, someone comes along and plants a seed of doubt that challenges the truth as perhaps non-truth? As a result, I look at everything I’m told with a raised eye-brow, and challenge, with veracity, what I am told.
Is FOX wrong? Are they misleading their viewers? Is CNN so right, pure as the driven news? Doesn’t anybody, and everybody, for that matter, have an axe to grind, a dog in the fight, and all the other vernaculars that you can think of to justify their angles?
Remember when ‘Dewey Wins’ was the headline that was wrong, and Dewey lovers were so excited – until the truth came out! Even Mark Twain gets a piece of that action when a paper stated that he had died, and he exclaimed that they had ‘greatly exaggerated’ his demise.
Ultimately Base Human Nature
Ultimately, it boils down to the ‘Base Human Nature’ of man that desires to manipulate others to gain an ideological, political, or even religious upper hand. Satan tried it, and won, in the Garden of Eden. Man has tried it, and frequently wins, in his far-reaching goal of Control. The proactive approach of getting others to do what you want them to do, by controlling their thoughts, actions, and subsequently their behaviors, is the ‘Propaganda Model’.



References:
Zodhiates, S. (1991). The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible (KJV). Chattanooga: AMG Publishers
Chomsky, N. (2009). Manufacturing Consent: A Propaganda Model. 1, 1-35.
Romano, C. (2009). The Grisly Truth about Bare Facts. 38-78.

My Stance on News and Media

What is your stance on news and media?
I, as are many of you, am involved with journalism, although I do all my work right now as a freelance writer. While it is not my current vocation, I have been schooled in reporting techniques, etiquettes, etc. The most difficult area of reporting is remaining ‘objective’ to the germ of the story. As I read the Chomsky ‘Manufacturing Consent: A Propaganda Model’, and Romano’s ‘Grisly Truth about Facts’, I found myself nodding my head in so much agreement.
My stance centers along the difficult lines of a purists’ (naïve?) theory – simply write the truth, and you won’t have to worry about what lies you told. On the other hand, if that’s too harsh try this one, ‘…write the truth and you won’t have to worry about what propaganda spin you have had to manufacture.’ I know that that statement, in and of itself, will open its own can of controversial worms. Nevertheless, that’s what an on-line community can discuss for ages to come.
However, it was somewhere in the midst of ‘A Propaganda Model’ that the idea struck that challenged me into thinking, “just how much do I trust any news source?” Chomsky’s Challenge began early on when he opened my eyes to the ‘Filters’ to the Propaganda Model: 1. The Size of the publications firm. 2. The reliance on Advertisers. 3. The Reliance of the media on data being fed to it. 4. The resultant “Flak” if the media are not toeing the line, and 5. The level of ‘Anticommunism’… (Which I personally thought was a very interesting filter.)
It was a story that I likened greatly to the exercise we’ve done in the past regarding the PBS video by Bill Moyers – “Buying the War.” Wherein, for sixty minutes the viewer is being told that the Media – in general – all bought into the second Iraq war hook line and sinker, all as a result of a huge propaganda machine.
In my upcoming 3-page paper, I am going to weigh in very heavily on my reply to my perspective on the ‘Propaganda Model’ article, and the associated Romero piece ‘Grisly Truth about Facts’.
I particularly like the quote from Romano, under the ‘Cover Your Ass’ category, “10 percent of the story is for readers and 90 percent for lawyers”.
Chomsky, McKibben and Romero, all make salient points regarding media and ‘News’ spins (starting with what is news), and all are worthy of further discussion, and certainly points that have been discussed for years up to this point. Admittedly, there is far more going on behind the News scenes than this naïve writer ever knew!
- Marc -

Explaining CMC: Group Dynamics

Explaining CMC: Group Dynamics
Marc Knutson
I must confess that throughout this first two complete week immersion into the study of Computer Mediated Communication, there have been many subjects that have caught my eye, and indeed my intrigue. More specifically and poignantly is the entire phenomenon of ‘Flames and Flaming’ (Thurlow, p.70) However, I am going to save that treatise for my final paper.
The second most intriguing aspect that I have read concerns itself with the subject material of Unit 5: Group Dynamics! I was fascinated by the development of these phenomena especially since this is such a young technology (Register Guard, p.A5). Over the years, and through the development of the technology, group dynamics has unfolded that includes terminology, i.e., Disinhibition, Deindividuation, et al, subjects that we will review in more detail in following pages.
However, let’s take things in order. Following in the same track as Thurlow, let’s identify two things first: the words Group, and Dynamics.
Keeping it simple, ‘A social group is where members are all persons who are classified together on the basis of some social/psychological factor(s).’ (Thurlow, 2008, p.60)
Dynamics are defined as: the aggregate of motivational forces, both conscious and unconscious, that determine human behavior and attitudes ( dictionary.reference.com).
Therefore, we are talking about group behavior with motivational forces that appear to determine behavior and attitudes. With that in mind let’s address something I call: Standout Terms
There are many terms associated with the study of ‘Group Dynamics in CMC’ however, quite frankly, some seem to stand out over others, (and for the sake of brevity) specifically:
Disinhibition
In a nutshell, disinhibition has to do with the fact that people ‘simply stop worrying about what people think of them’ (Thurlow, 2008, p.62) And, as a result they feel that they can get away with whatever they can, whether it be texting (most popular) or e-mails. The idea is that when people feel that they lose their sense of identity, which is what FtF supports, they can be obnoxious, or more subversive - irresponsible. Sadly, I have seen what Disinhibition has caused, and will be covered in my final paper about Flaming.

Deindividuation
Deindividuation draws a strong resemblance to a theory known as ‘The Spiral of Silence’ (Griffin, E.M., 2006) – only in reverse! The theory of the ‘Spiral of Silence’ basically teaches that when someone is in a room of people who are of one strong viewpoint or belief, but there is one who is not of the same viewpoint, or belief – that person will remain silent, and not speak up about his beliefs because he is basically outnumbered. Whereas, we learn that deindividuation is more of what we would think of a mob mentality, ‘like soccer hooligans’, that lose self control. One Final thought on deindividuation: it also reminds me of another theory called Groupthink –
‘when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making’ (psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink).
Conformity
On the heels of ‘Groupthink’ is conformity, which simply put in today’s CMC world means that ‘one’s attitudes, opinions, actions and even perceptions to be affected by prevailing opinions, attitudes, actions and perceptions’ (Thurlow, 2008). Which basically meant that there are those who are not strong enough in their own convictions that they can withstand the pressures of peers or the ‘group’.

Cohesion
Cohesion as defined, is the ‘tendency to stick together’ (Thurlow, p.65) but is not unique to CMC. It plays strongly in Military groups, (platoons, squads, etc.) where we understand the term “safety in numbers”. As soldiers enter a battlefield, or take a patrol out, you sense ‘conformity in their actions, but you experience a ‘cohesiveness’ or a ‘cohesion’ in their mental state. A fundamental tenet of battlefield tactics is ‘don’t become separated.’ Therefore, it remains true in Group Dynamics of CMC also, there is a cohesion of people who share like beliefs, and stick together as a result.

Conclusion
It is therefore, my conclusion, that a study of Group Dynamics is integral to the understanding of the overall culture of the modern Computer Mediated Communication. What, at one point in my very own life didn’t even exist – now has socio-psychological nomenclature that has had to evolve with the changing times. I remember when Bonanza was first aired ‘In Color’! Now we have names for groups that didn’t exist twenty to thirty years ago.

References:
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., and Tomic, A. (2008). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: SAGE Publications.

Griffin, E. (2006). Communication: A First Look at Communication Theory (6th ed.) New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
Modesti, K. (2009, October 30). Internet’s first words recalled, The Register Guard, p. A5
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynamics, retrieved November 9, 2009
http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm, retrieved November 9, 2009.

FtF Vs. CMC

F2F vs. CMC
I am smirking in the irony of the fact that the Internet turned 40 years old this past month (October 29), just as I so happened to be immersed in studying its affects on human affairs. The article, entitled ‘Internet’s first words recalled by researcher’, was written by Kevin Modesti of the Los Angeles Daily News, and appeared in the main section of our local newspaper. (Modesti, K. (2009, October 30). Internet’s first words recalled, The Register Guard, p. A5).

UCLA was hosting a symposium to celebrate the anniversary. The irony reveals itself due to many of the quotes cited by the originators who were developing a computer system in the UCLA computer lab, which was supposed to ‘talk’ to a similar computer at Stanford University. The article’s fist line was, “It was a momentous event that virtually nobody noticed at the time.” (p.A5).

One particular quote of many that emanated from the symposium that stuck out in my mind was from Arianna Huffington, who was a member of the discussion panel, “We’re at a real turning point politically, culturally and in our personal lives. Politically, if it weren’t for the internet, Barak Obama would not be President.”
In her own way, I believe she was touting the affects of CMC on a Universal scale. Face-to-Face has its’ values and place, however, it appears in this case that CMC won the day.

Richness of CMC vs. FtF

Personally, I have the heartfelt sense that FtF communication is a “Richer” form of communication- from pure experience. I enjoy using the multi-dimensional depth of the five senses God embedded in our humanness, as opposed to the two dimensions of black letters on a white (or other colored) background.
However, as of late I find that I vacillate on that standpoint –and genuinely believe- that I can experience the best of both worlds. I say that with conviction, especially as I go ‘on-line’, activate my Web-Cam, and talk in real-time with my family in France. What was once the occasional letter, and very rare phone call to France, is now a virtually daily conversation with my relatives. While emotion was inferred in previous communications (i.e., letters and cards) with CMC, it is real-time.

As for me, I chose neither side, as CMC has allowed me the opportunity to enjoy a ‘virtual’ FtF richness in nearly all my communication. As a result of the above, I fundamentally disagree with the statement in Box BT4:2 SAD, LONELY AND DEPRESSING? Greater use of the internet is associated with declines in participants’ communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness. Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., and Tomic, A. (2008 p. 46).

Those who know me best, and my personality, recognize my attempts at humor, and know when I am serious. For those who don’t know me, I recognize that an e-mail, or text, could carry a connotation that wasn’t intended, so I attempt to minimize that effect with emoticons, or other attempts to assure minimal negative impact.

Happy Birthday Internet – 40 Years Old!

- Marc -

References:

Modesti, K. (2009, October 30). Internet’s first words recalled, The Register Guard, p. A5

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., and Tomic, A. (2008). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: SAGE Publications.

New Blog !

This is the first time I have ever created a Blog! So bear with me as I tiptoe into areas not yet explored by myself!