Wasburn and Burke (1997)

[John E Richardson]

hi all,

I'm definitely with Anne on this one. - Not to dismiss the views of the
mystery emailer of course; I realise that authoritarian oppression was
rife in the Soviet era, and the propaganda (and outright terror) was
used to buoy up the system. However, I found his/her knowledge of
journalism under capitalism to be slight. For instance, I found this
excerpt from his/her email particularly interesting:

'The scale of propaganda is also completely different between Russia/the
Eastern bloc and the US. I find it extremely uncomfortable and
misleading to use the word propaganda for both. One emerged out of a
regime which explicitly and deliberately set out to deceive the public.
The other emerged from a system which explicitly and deliberately made
efforts not to.' 

On reading this, I found myself asking: well which one is which? Does
the capitalist or the comunist regime 'explicitly and deliberately set
out to deceive the public'? Well, both would be my answer. The feature
common to both is power - specifically an inequality of power and
privelage and the material interests of those already in power to retain
their position. We do well to remember that already by the 1920s, the
seminal theorists of American media studies were quite open in their
desire to use the mass media in the interests of American ruling elites
and against the mass of the public. As Lasswell stated, propaganda
should be employed 'to keep the uninformed citizenry in agreement with
what the specialized class had determined was in their best interests.'
Sounds a little fascist, n'est pas? Well it was; and in my opinion
(without getting shrill) it still is. 
Some people - notably Chomsky - have argued that propaganda is more
frequently used & observable in democracies than in dictatorships or
other forms of totalitarian authoritarian rule. I think that this is a
convincing argument. If we assume that propaganda is the systematic
propagation of political beliefs, then in a system in which the views of
the polis can have some bearing on who is selected to rule - that is, in
systems based in whole or part on voting - then you would expect to see
a greater attempt to shape what people think. Authoritarian systems rely
to a greater extent on force - you tell people what to do/think, and if
they don't do this, you lock them up or kill them. Quoting from my entry
on propaganda (please forgive me!..):
As Taylor (1995: 4) explains, “In pluralistic democracies, which purport
to exist on the basis of consensus rather than coercion, persuasion [
]
becomes an integral part of the political process.” More critically,
political discourse in Western democracies demonstrates that “[t]he less
the state is able to employ violence in defence of the interests of
elite groups that effectively dominate it, the more it becomes necessary
to devise techniques of ‘manufacture of consent’” (Chomsky, 1986: 19) to
help propagate expedient public opinion.

best
John


> Well--I certainly appreciate the response below--especially the
perspective
> on the origin of 'propaganda.' I must, though, toward the sentiment in
> general, say that it smacks  of sterotyping to say that "americans don't
> expect propaganda from their media." In our current political climate,
(can
> you tell I live in the us? ; ) the mainstream media is extremely
careful to
> kow-tow to an aggressive presidential regieme run by a man borne of an
> aggressive, multigenerational dynasty whose financial success dates
back to
> business deals with the Nazis--a regieme that politically centrist and
> liberal ((please remember that the true 'left' was run out of the US
by the
> McCarthy witch trials in the 50s)) individuals fear and, I believe, abhor,
> the news we get is very specifically focused. New of major events that
might
> lessen support for the current administration are suppressed ((not
reported
> on)) and events that hold the regieme in a good light are shown over and
> over and over. Our 'propeganda' in the US may be different than in
> Russia--but, I would argue, due to its hegemonic tenor amplified by
> repetitive broadcases--in the absence of dissenting views--that propeganda
> is alive and well in the US. And, further, that many people here feel
quite
> strongly that the mainstream media is bought and paid for. 
> 
> My .02, too.  ; ] 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CDA-DISCUSS Discussion List
> [mailto:CDA-DISCUSS at listserv.linguistlist.org] On Behalf Of Linnea
Micciulla
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:31 PM
> To: CDA-DISCUSS at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: Wasburn and Burke (1997)
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I received a response to the Wasburn and Burke posts from someone who
wants
> to remain anonymous - I thought it contained quite a bit of food for
> thought, so I asked for permission to re-post it here:
> 
> ********************
> Incidentally I just saw the interesting question on the discourse list
about
> Russians expecting propaganda in their media while Americans don't. I'm
> pretty shy about expressing opinions publicly so I'm not going to
post, but
> I'll privately offer what I think is a very likely answer. In Russia
(as in
> most of the Eastern Bloc), there is a long history of explicit propaganda
> that existed during the communist regime. This mistrust of the media was
> very well founded and is hard to completely overturn in the relatively
short
> period of time that communism has been absent. The scale of propaganda is
> also completely different between Russia/the Eastern bloc and the US.
I find
> it extremely uncomfortable and misleading to use the word propaganda for
> both. One emerged out of a regime which explicitly and deliberately
set out
> to deceive the public. The other emerged from a system which
explicitly and
> deliberately made efforts not to. Of course the best laid plans.and all
> that. But I think that in practical terms, the historical difference has a
> huge effect. In one case all media was government regulated and there were
> severe penalties for deviating from the government agenda. In the
other case
> there are many media sources, some push some agendas, others push other
> agendas, and we're free to choose, to read between the lines, to look
> elsewhere for information . with no penalties. That's a huge difference to
> me. I realize I'm describing a time that has passed, but again, I
think this
> historical relationship between media and society is very relevant and
> changes slowly. 
> 
> Just my two cents. 
> 
> ********************
> 
> 

John E Richardson
Dept of Social Sciences
Loughborough University
www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjer/