Nothing is as handsome as a secret - French proverb
|
|
|
Fighting the web propaganda war
GOVERNMENTS HAVE ALWAYS tried to control their citizens. It's a simple truth that those in authority want to have control of the people’s hearts, minds and allegiances.
In propaganda those in power have had a tool with which they could shape what people think and feel. From Nazi imagery and film used in 1930s and 40s Germany to modern day spin we see so often in the newspapers, it's everywhere.
We've had periods in history where new types of propaganda have been used by those in power to control the people they are supposed to represent.
One was after the invention of the printing press where books carried out religious and political messages, and later the Second World War, where radio was a communication medium used to control and inform the masses with whatever message governments wanted to give out.
But the advent of the web has changed everything. In terms of propaganda it has broken the ability of governments around the world to conduct massive large-scale propaganda campaigns which could control swaths of people.
"The web is the ultimate propaganda machine, but not for governments," said Professor Phil Taylor, of the Institute of Communication Studies at the University of Leeds. "Governments don't use the web very well."
Speaking at Digifest at London's Science Museum he added: "Individuals through web 2.0 are able to challenge established economic information flows which have traditionally been controlled by governments till about 20 years ago."
Through the web, organisations that may have alternative viewpoints, whether it is for example ultra liberal or extremist islamic, can now get their messages across to distant audiences.
He said that we have access to more propaganda than ever before through the web, but also more conspiracy theories - in the sense that an Internet user can pick and choose what they want to believe.
Taylor said, "What do I believe on the web? That's not a new thing. Because when I go to the British Library and pick books off the shelf - which ones of these should I believe? which one of these has credibility? I think that’s the challenge of propaganda that’s going to succeed."
As we come up to the next general election, we are now beginning to see the UK government and other political parties use web technology to promote their party line. But they are finding it challenging to do it in a credible way.
Terry Pattar, an associate with Jane’s strategic advisory services, said: “Governments are trying to engage with those grass-root groups and movements by using the web as a tool.
"They've got a very difficult task in terms of trying to keep track with everything that’s going on, understanding how people are using the web, and at the same time as trying to use it to influence people."
He added, "This is always going to be difficult for a government because as soon as something gets found out to be government sponsored or directed, it loses credibility. By they’ve certainly been trying."
So we are surrounded by propaganda from lots of different sources, whether it's the US with the conservative line peddled by Fox News and Rupert Murdoch to the more liberal viewpoint shown by media like the Guardian newspaper.
But this could be a problem, as there is so much information available on the web that it is impossible to filter out without confirming our existing biases. For instance, extremist groups could use these features of the web to galvanise and recruit new people.
"Extremist groups have these close environments and spaces they can create where the people who come to consume the material they are producing are already interested or sympathetic," said Pattar.
"They come along with one extreme viewpoint, and via the web through links they find sites with similar viewpoints or created by the same people. They can live in quite an enclosed little world where they can really perceive one viewpoint.
"There is nothing to challenge that, because the webmasters who control discussion forums in these kind of environments will be very quick to get rid of comments that dissent from the message they are trying to promote. There is that danger."
China has had big success with social media and discussion forums. The government recruited an enormous amount of people to go through social media channels and write messages supportive of the state government, engaging with those against the party line.
China's fight with Google over the censorship of search results shows that it is completely aware of the power of free information. But the argument centres around the fact that the Chinese state has a completely different ideology than what we feel is normal in the West.
"The Chinese state basically thinks that the collective is more important than the individual," said Professor Taylor. "Where as here in the west we have become so individualistic in our approach. For example in the US they hate government with a vengeance in a way which we are getting to."
Taylor believes that the world wide web had the potential to become a propaganda weapon like media such as film and newspapers were in the past, but had not reached that point and might never likely to do with the web remaining so diverse, global and individualistic.
"Propaganda has traditionally been conducted by organisations like governments, not individuals," he said. "It needs to be controlled, like in the Chinese example. But you can’t control it, we know that. Attempts to build a great firewall will ultimately fail, because if you are a computer geek you can access any website you want to." µ
Share this:
Share
Thank you for the previous comment and link suggestion. Much appreciated.
Invisible Rulers are defiantly a reality. When we think of them we think of large corporations. They are high ranking and their corridors are inaccessible to inquires and lower ranking soldiers behind their cause (i.e. market control).
My comment is to shine focus on the lower ranking soldiers, the small fish in the pond. (I acknowledge that the rulers in previous metaphor are not bigger fish, rather they are those who control the HP levels of the water).
With that said, I think the small players actually have the bigger influence to the success of the high ranking rulers and to the confirmation that this system works. The mass is made up of small parcels of individuals who, for the most part and by necessity, because of their individuality, think they are right about...all their POV's.
But we all know that like the playground, there are kids who are good at sports, are those who are social butterflys (people/parcel pleasers), and perhaps those who would eat by themselves and people watch. No one ever paid attention to them.
[I was all at some point. I dabbled in each intentionally]
Basically, I think we need to pay attention to the analyzers, those who we brand as judgmental and perhaps even awkward.
[I feel as though I am becoming more an more awkward. But I realize awkward is a relational state of being. In that I am awkward in respect to environment/culture that has the majority in rule and number].
We need to challenge them. Ask them why they are judgmental. My prediction is that we end up being challenged ourselves in the process and that might awaken us.
Programs that promote such interaction are:
Charlie Rose
Daily Show
We need to have more round table discussions and promote broadcasted, analytical arguments that focus on the content of the arguments rather than rhetoric (which ultimately entertains and thus sells ads). We need to stop wanting to be entertained all the time. A little patients to listen could do us good. We also could use less of those uncomfortable laughs and smiles that is so characteristic of an American adult in awkward situations. Realize you are being challenged. Acknowledge it and defend yourself. Don't just laugh it off.
- Nima Moinpour
http://www.examiner.com/x-35392-Brooklyn-Documentary-Examiner?showbio
You cannot separate people from the social climate in which they live. Kind of like fish living in the water of a "social pond". Even the "least social" people are still inexorably tied to this social network.
"Propaganda" can be selective government censorship, corporate advertising, paid commenters or bloggers (as done by China and other large organizations such as Microsoft and Apple, as mentioned above). Direct corporate influence over governments adds to this (and we have seen many examples of this, such as on the part of the media and energy industries, in addition to the two other companies already mentioned).
So you could say freedom in our world is being subverted:
1) In communist regimes, by the government.
2) In democratic regimes, by those who have the most money and thus can exert the greatest influence over the people (via their governments and via control over the media, advertising, and so on).
As such, I think there is value in knowing that we -- as "fish" in the common pond of our society -- are being affected by the quality of the social "water" in this pond. I think that this can allow one to make more informed decisions. As well, I think that those involved with corporate ethics should temper their use of advertising and other forms of influence on the public and governments, with the understanding of the higher degree of influence they hold due to the larger financial resources typically available to corporations. Google sets a good example here.
I think we "can" be as powerful as an entire corporation, at least as it concerns the ability to change our own minds (and perhaps the minds of a few others), IF we are conscious of some of the processes at work here. Others that do not consider these issues may not be so empowered, and be in effect forced to swim in the corporate-generated and/or government-generated currents of the "social pond". As for Communist China, I think Google has started a rather large rock rolling, toward the "non-evil" side of the equation.
Here is a short video clip on Edward Bernays, a pioneer of the use of propaganda, that I think illustrates this process (based largely on a BBC series 'The Century of the Self"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiKMmrG1ZKU
Look at Appleinsider. According to my genius self, It is a site of propaganda for Apple. The news are distilled in a very insidious way to make you believe Apple is the coolest hardware software maker in the world (so called experts believe that ...., polls say ..., rumors etc.). The people's comments in the forums are very biased and some are certainly paid for that.
What I mean is not only govt use propaganda but Multinationals too.
BUT the overarching problem is that The Rich, The Government, Corporations, The Religious, and so on, all have an interest in gaining power, and are funded by doing so, which then allows them more activity.
Too often the simple fact conspiracies *do* exist is lost in details (many of which are noise put out by the conspirators).
Concentrated interests *always* conspire to defeat the general interest. They'll fight among themselves for the top *after* their common goal of increasing the power and scope of gov't is achieved.
In brief: distrust all power; always seek to reduce it.