« How to shake a Bush | Main | Dan Drezner, Public Diplomacy, & Academic Blogging »
March 13, 2005
Propaganda, sanctioned and otherwise
This weekend, the national newspaper of record inadvertently reminded readers why it is impossible to limit the "record" to a single source. In a major front page piece, the New York Times alerts readers to a wave of government-produced television segments, airing and masquerading as local news stories around the country. While Bush-administration pay-outs to Armstrong Williams and other commentators to promote specific policies have been known for some months, it appears that the government is also in the local news business. For producer and distributor alike, it's a good deal. The Bush administration gets a great way to cut through the filter of national media (a goal during last year's campaign, as well), and local affiliates get much-desired content. That such content consists of little more than gussied-up, one-sided advertisements is, perhaps, marginally inconvenient.
In the same paper, on the same day, we learn that Iraqi insurgents' web presence -- previously discussed in this space -- has taken a sophisticated, perhaps more defensive turn in recent weeks. Citing the very helpful SITE Institute, the Times notes that recent pronouncements from Zarqawi-linked groups complain that insurgent successes are being under-reported and attempt to paint insurgents as defenders of Muslims. That the internet offers insurgents an inexpensive and effective means for disseminating their propaganda is not new. But over time, the insurgents develop a record of their web-based communiques, a pattern of sorts, enabling us to detect trends and to attempt to divine their current status and future intent.
While the modes and means may differ, the Bush administration and Iraqi insurgents are after the same thing -- converting minds. Both rely on misdirection, selective reporting, and biased analysis. In other words, both are propaganda. But if you think about it, what media isn't? As was noted here earlier, governments are always faced with challenges from the media, and they rarely hesitate to enter the fray on their own in an attempt to even the scales. The more one looks into the overlapping webs of media ownership, affiliations, connections, and funders, the less hope one has that there is any reliable way of getting accurate, impartial information. In a developed country, this is undeniably a problem. But at least the traditions and customs of civil society in such states act as a brake for all but the most egregious of media excesses. In much of the world, however, such robust traditions do not exist, and the potential hazards of propaganda/media manipulation are less predictable and much greater.
The solution? There is no single one, of course. And in that, incidentally, lies a potential response. If no single media source can be trusted, then multiple sources must be consulted, regularly, rigorously, and responsibly. None will be completely accurate, and all will have biases and agendas, overt and subtle. But distillation from variety offers the best chance for gleaning something of value from the media storm, and technology (thankfully) is offering new and easier ways to do this all the time. The catch? Even with the advent of blogs, RSS feeds, and web-based accessibility, such a distillation takes time, energy, commitment, and above all, patience on the part of the media recipient. That the media industry is essentially a service one -- important inasmuch as it seeks to keep its customers happy (and, by extension, lazy) -- places the burden squarely on the consumer. This, of course, presumes an interest for accurate information (and an awareness that such a commodity may be lacking) among a citizenry -- why take up all the time and energy consulting multiple newspapers, websites, or cable channels when one seems to do just fine? It's a tough argument to refute, and autocrats the world over, of all stripes, are content not to try.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 11:47 PM to Middle East,
