Disinformation campaigns have also changed over the years. And that’s why it’s so hard to get rid of them
By Angela R. PASHAYAN
Propaganda has taken on a new character in recent years. The effects of this character will reverberate well into the distant future. And to understand how, it is worth taking a look at the influences over time. In World War I, propaganda was used to shape public opinion through the press. Especially during the First World War, books, newspapers, cartoons, slogans, theater. Even postage stamps were common machinery for both sides to spread favorable information.
FEAR INJECTION
Propaganda kept the public on its side and boosted the ranks and morale of armies. In World War II, however, propaganda changed, and films in particular were used to instill fear. There were still the usual posters to mobilize soldiers, but they had more of a negative effect than a positive one. “Stop this monster that will stop at nothing,” one of them read. In 1947, a publisher in St. Paul, Minnesota, published a comic book with a scary red title: “Is This Tomorrow; America Under Communism!”
The animated cover featured a burning American flag as a backdrop to black and white U.S. soldiers being brutally attacked by communist soldiers. In this case, the propaganda crossed racial lines to ensure that all Americans, regardless of color, could identify with the need to support and enlist in the military in the fight against communism at all costs. It enlightened the public through symbolism and generic personalities, such as soldiers, whom all citizens respected and could relate to.
PROMOTION OF IDEOLOGY, DEMONIZATION OF PERSONALITIES
During the Cold War, propaganda combined both methods: the promotion of ideologies and the demonization of personalities. In Cuba, in 1956, the social revolution and the strategy of propaganda turned the collective consciousness of the Cuban people towards the personality of Fidel Castro. Castro was born into a wealthy family, but he hated the elite, a feeling welcomed among those fighting for a dignified life. Castro personally represented this struggle. Like other revolutionary heroes in history, such as Lenin or Trotsky, Mao, Haiti’s Louverture, Algeria’s Fanon and Mexico’s Emiliano Zapata, American propaganda used images and caricatures of Castro to demonize everything he stood for.
However, the propaganda backfired, as Castro’s ideologies resonated with the spirit of black America in the areas of injustice and socio-economic inequality. Moreover, his appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1959 only strengthened his sudden appeal as a triumphant rebel with a seductive guerrilla with Che Guevara in its ranks. Ideological propaganda and the demonization of personalities as tools failed to achieve their goal. Citizens began to use their intelligence to determine what and who should be excluded in foreign affairs.
INTERNET MISUSE
The “Arab Spring” uprisings of 2010 to 2015 marked a boom in the use of the internet for propaganda. However, instead of being strategically positioned by a war office, images and footage were being posted by average citizens. Unlike previous propaganda, the focus was on populist struggle. People were fed up with the repression of poverty and inequality, exemplified by Mohammed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old who publicly set himself on fire in Tunisia as a final protest against misery.
After this action, which sparked the uprisings, citizens took propaganda into their own hands via social media. Thus, the propaganda of the “Arab Spring” movement aimed to communicate inequalities and the rise of populism.
On the heels of the “Arab Spring” the “Islamic State” arose, and with it the repetition of propaganda, this time with the clear vision of uprooting Western values with Islam. A major deviation in the machinery for promotion differentiates this propaganda from years past. The creation of social media with a worldwide reach turned into the primary means of propaganda for the “Islamic State”. Platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube, were used to broadcast highly effective, recorded and real-time videos that infiltrate psychology visually and intellectually.
TODAY’S FORM OF GUERRILLA WARFARE
This level of propaganda serves as cognitive manipulation, often unrecognized until the dire consequences of violent actions are faced, or a change in one’s identity is noted. More effective than posters, postage stamps, and action movies, cyber propaganda is today’s most dangerous form of guerrilla warfare.
Russia’s cyber propaganda in the United States over the past four years has helped divide the country ideologically to the point of an uprising of radical Trump supporters. Indeed, its manifestation, easily promoted through social media in the form of advertisements, YouTube videos and Twitter chatter, fanned the flames of hate and conspiracy theories. They affected millions of Americans.
Linking revolutionary movements, author Jeff Goodwin offers a key reason why small numbers of insurgents can be successful in their missions: “One possible explanation is that insurgencies that are ‘racial’ or ethnic in nature, as well as rooted in socioeconomic or class resentments are unlikely to be traced, while uprisings based primarily on strata are more easily defeated or co-opted.”
Russian propaganda in the United States included messages that preyed on the multiple ideological differences within the nation’s fabric. They promoted messages of fear of job losses due to immigrants and the violation of Second Amendment rights. They spread misinformation about excessive federal control, and the need for more police control to curb crime.
Given the problems at the heart of those messages—the economic decline of white citizens in states that once benefited from the free labor of black slaves, coupled with the industrial revolution that crippled their industries—it’s likely that Trump’s supporters will to continue mobilizing. Russia’s use of the age-old power of propaganda may have laid the groundwork for the January 6 riots in the US Capitol, but quelling domestic strife is in America’s hands. (Foreign Policy)
(The author is a doctoral candidate in political science at Howard University)