Propaganda, Persuasion and the Media

Our society generally connotes propaganda with evil forces, such as fascism. It is not so widely known that we are exposed to, if not influenced by propaganda on a regular basis.

It would not be a far stretch to say that nearly every aspect of the culture we consume (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) contain propagandistic ideas. This may not be an overt goal of media producers but I would say, given the role media plays in shaping what the public looks at. Propaganda is used to achieve a consensus of ideals within a society. Weather creating support for war, hatred for Jews (or in America's case, Blacks..) or a love for consumerism, media tends to shape, or limit, public opinion through homogenization of content. We see this in the concentrated ownership of media. In the 1950's, there were around 50 companies controlling American media. Many in that time saw this as too limited a scope of ownership and were deeply concerned about openness and accessibility to media outlets. Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which, in it's stated purpose sought to deregulate ownership in order to "let anyone enter any communications business" and to "let any communications business compete in any market against any other" (FCC.gov). In reality it has allowed for a concentration of ownership to the very wealthy, resulting in five major corporations owning most of the means of media production and distribution. Now what does this mean in the context of propaganda?
What it means to me is that very few people control what a very large number (i.e. all of America) watch, read, or listen to, on a daily basis. When mass media first emerged, and often through it's evolution, "moral panics" over content and the effect of it on society, specifically children, occurred. I find it puzzling that the moral panics of today have not evolved into questions of the power of concentrated media ownership, rather remain seated in old school conservative values.

I believe the concentration of media ownership results in a form of propaganda where all we see and hear is shaped by a select few. In their article "Mass Communication, Popular Taste and Organized Social Action", Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton discuss the three conditions of successful propaganda. These traits can be applied to the way our media functions, allowing us to view media as a widely accepted form of propaganda. The first is monopolization: the idea that a message is most successful with a lack of counter propaganda. To support this we can point back to the fact that there are only five companies controlling nearly all media content!! Canalization of ideas is the secondary step in this model. Canalization is the idea of pushing and molding existing attitudes into a desired direction. Given the consistency of media in it's white, middle class, misogynistic depictions of "American life", it is safe to say canalization of ideas is in full effect in our media. Lastly, supplementation acts to solidify the effects of monopolization and canalization with face to face reiteration of ideas. This comes in the form of advertisements we face and the social norms our peers impose upon us. A high school is the perfect example of this, where anyone perceived as weird, strange or different was socially outcast. At the same time, the coolest kids in any school were generally those who fit a mold which was reflected in media. I believe that while in many ways, Lazarsfeld and Merton are right on and our society deeply fulfills each of the traits for successful propaganda, the existing method of media control of opinion may be in trouble!

How can this be and who is doing this?!?! Why, the very medium you are using right now, the internet (of course)!! The internet, especially in it's participatory function (blogs, forums, YouTube, etc.) has opened an entirely new realm in which to challenge media power.

I would like to further examine the in the context of last years Proposition 8 campaign in California. Prop 8 was a bill seeking to "protect marriage" in the state of California. Really, it was a campaign to revoke existing law which acknowledged the right to gay marriage in California. Propaganda was employed on both sides, and both took to the internet to do so. Numerous websites popped up on both sides and video clips and ads are abundant on sites like YouTube.

This example of a Yes ad, aired in California, used the scare tactics typical to traditional propaganda.



This is a grassroots anti-prop 8 ad modeled after popular Mac v. PC ads. It was very effectual in portraying supporters as a threat to liberty.

Although the no (pro-gay rights) side may have reached a large audience, garnering nation wide support, Proposition 8 was passed in the November 2008 state elections.

I don't know if I want to call Prop 8 the mainstream ideal, it's plain disheartening. But apparently in the state of California, home of one of the nation's most thriving gay communities, it is. Homophobic fears were magnified by those interested in "protecting the sanctity of marriage". As far as the internet goes in challenging mainstream ideas, or at least providing an outlet to do so. Websites such as YouTube and the blogosphere have created an entirely new outlet for expression. Content ranges from silly videos to political critiques. On an equally broad scale, there are millions and millions of websites worldwide created by users presenting ideas dissenting from mainstream ideology.

The internet serves as a way to escape our media saturated society, incidently with another form of media. The beauty of the internet is the many many channels we have the abillity to flip through. Each having unique and completely seperate views.

Will this replace mainstream media? No. But it does offer and alternate realm of media available to us comsumers. And, for the most part, we interact very differently with the internet and typical media, ushering in an era of more active media consumers.