We are in the season of propaganda. Lies, distortions, manipulation, half-truths, huge adjectives attempting to get you to hate somebody or something. It’s all over the television airwaves and endemic to social media. You can only escape by turning it all off.
Even if you take that track, it is still hard to ignore. Flyers are sent to your mailbox attacking someone running for office. You read it and wonder.
One of the greatest French philosophers of the 20th century, Jacques Ellul, wrote the book, “Propaganda” in 1973. As part of my communications/journalism college background, the book was required reading in one of my classes. We read, discussed and analyzed the book as part of the course to understand how opinions are formed.
At the time Ellul wrote the book, public opinion was studied more from the perspective of “mass communication.” Today, that has become targeted disinformation. But, the concept Ellul put forth still applied -- that tools are used to make you think a certain way and push you in a particular direction so you believe what the propagandist wants you to believe.
Our current political climate, driven massively by advertising and social media, allows everyone to say anything they want. Ads aren’t fact-checked. Social media isn’t tethered to reality or the truth. People say and do whatever they want, no-holds-barred. And the targeted publics get bombarded repeatedly.
As discussed by Ellul (and other experts on the subject,) say something often enough, and with a sense of urgency, and people start to wear down. They stop questioning. Their defenses drop. They begin to believe.
Ellul sees propaganda as a direct threat to democracy. If you don’t have accurate information, how does the individual make an informed decision?
And when a significant portion of the population gets its information through sources espousing a position using distorted or misleading data, the decisions they make in the voting booth aren’t connected to reality. People go opinion-shopping. They align with their preconceived notions of the world.
I feel extremely fortunate that while in college, I took two courses (the aforementioned and an editorial writing class), where the professor mandated we read magazines from all political persuasions, and write editorials contrary to our personal beliefs. He forced us to take the position of our enemies (a political or public issue where we didn’t believe the narrative). We had to research the other side, then defend it.
This, along with the course on how opinions are formed, was quite enlightening. Everything is pretty much defendable. Anyone who has been in a debate club realizes this. It’s how you choose to defend your position that determines whether others follow and agree with you.
That’s where we are today in the U.S. Who do you believe? What do you believe? What are their sources? Where did they get their information?
We all need to dig deep. As citizens, we need to challenge ourselves.
Last week, I went to see our U.S. Senate candidate and watched as he chose figures to support his narrative, figures that as a person in the audience I couldn’t counteract. Some of his facts sounded phony or highly inaccurate or disturbingly misleading. I would have needed to take notes on everything he said, then go out and research those statements afterwards to determine their veracity – something beyond the scope of most voters.
I wish I had better advice to offer. Each of us needs to think about where we’re getting our information, what the sources are, and how it is presented to us. Ads and social media are useless. Discard them. Do your best to follow the facts.
Even if you take that track, it is still hard to ignore. Flyers are sent to your mailbox attacking someone running for office. You read it and wonder.
One of the greatest French philosophers of the 20th century, Jacques Ellul, wrote the book, “Propaganda” in 1973. As part of my communications/journalism college background, the book was required reading in one of my classes. We read, discussed and analyzed the book as part of the course to understand how opinions are formed.
At the time Ellul wrote the book, public opinion was studied more from the perspective of “mass communication.” Today, that has become targeted disinformation. But, the concept Ellul put forth still applied -- that tools are used to make you think a certain way and push you in a particular direction so you believe what the propagandist wants you to believe.
Our current political climate, driven massively by advertising and social media, allows everyone to say anything they want. Ads aren’t fact-checked. Social media isn’t tethered to reality or the truth. People say and do whatever they want, no-holds-barred. And the targeted publics get bombarded repeatedly.
As discussed by Ellul (and other experts on the subject,) say something often enough, and with a sense of urgency, and people start to wear down. They stop questioning. Their defenses drop. They begin to believe.
Ellul sees propaganda as a direct threat to democracy. If you don’t have accurate information, how does the individual make an informed decision?
And when a significant portion of the population gets its information through sources espousing a position using distorted or misleading data, the decisions they make in the voting booth aren’t connected to reality. People go opinion-shopping. They align with their preconceived notions of the world.
I feel extremely fortunate that while in college, I took two courses (the aforementioned and an editorial writing class), where the professor mandated we read magazines from all political persuasions, and write editorials contrary to our personal beliefs. He forced us to take the position of our enemies (a political or public issue where we didn’t believe the narrative). We had to research the other side, then defend it.
This, along with the course on how opinions are formed, was quite enlightening. Everything is pretty much defendable. Anyone who has been in a debate club realizes this. It’s how you choose to defend your position that determines whether others follow and agree with you.
That’s where we are today in the U.S. Who do you believe? What do you believe? What are their sources? Where did they get their information?
We all need to dig deep. As citizens, we need to challenge ourselves.
Last week, I went to see our U.S. Senate candidate and watched as he chose figures to support his narrative, figures that as a person in the audience I couldn’t counteract. Some of his facts sounded phony or highly inaccurate or disturbingly misleading. I would have needed to take notes on everything he said, then go out and research those statements afterwards to determine their veracity – something beyond the scope of most voters.
I wish I had better advice to offer. Each of us needs to think about where we’re getting our information, what the sources are, and how it is presented to us. Ads and social media are useless. Discard them. Do your best to follow the facts.