How one can Know What’s Actually Propaganda

Peter Pomerantsev, a contributor at The Atlantic and writer of This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures within the Struggle In opposition to Actuality, is an professional on the methods data will be manipulated. For this particular episode, Megan talks with Peter concerning the function of propaganda in America and how one can be careful for it.

In search of extra nice audio from The Atlantic? Try Autocracy in America, hosted by Peter Pomerantsev and employees author Anne Applebaum. Subscribe wherever you hear.

Hear and subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts

The next is a transcript of the episode:

Megan Garber: Andrea, while you consider propaganda, what first involves thoughts?

Andrea Valdez: Mmm. Uncle Sam posters throughout the battle effort: , I need you. And Rosie the Riveter: , We will do it. And, um, battle posters from World Struggle II and World Struggle I, the place they’re asking individuals to purchase bonds or to ration meals. I imply, I believe even Looney Tunes had wartime cartoons that served as propaganda!

Garber: Ooh. Oh, wow. And it’s attention-grabbing; the historical past stuff is my first thought, too. These actually daring, visually pushed posters, mainly virtually like promoting billboards—besides the merchandise being offered are political causes.

Valdez: Proper.

Garber: Yeah, precisely. And I assume there’s something applicable about that, as a result of the individuals who’ve created propaganda traditionally discovered a few of their ways from the promoting business. And one of many core concepts in promoting is that when you’re in a method interesting to customers’ rationality, you’re additionally—and sometimes much more so—interesting to their feelings.

Valdez: Mm. And one of the vital elementary methods to attraction to feelings is de facto simply utilizing charged language. The platforms can change—posters, commercials, cartoons, social media—however one frequent denominator, all through all the historical past of propaganda, is using highly effective language.

Garber: Yeah. And it’s attention-grabbing, too, that each of us, after we take into consideration propaganda as language—simply the phrase propaganda—we went to the previous. As a result of, in fact, propaganda isn’t simply a component of the previous, proper? It’s very a lot part of our current actuality.

Valdez: Sure. And, , that will get to one of many core questions from our season, How one can Know What’s Actual. With regards to data, what’s actual? This query feels particularly pressing round our political realities. Proper now there’s a presidential election developing, and it appears like so many individuals, each right here and overseas, stay in their very own particular person political realities. Clearly, propaganda has performed a giant function right here.

Garber: Yeah. And that has me considering, too, about what makes sure sorts of messaging propaganda. And I assume how the methods it’s advanced and devolved would possibly instruct us, um, as we attempt to determine life on this second. The applied sciences individuals use to create propaganda and to unfold it would change, however its defining traits do keep the identical.

Garber: That’s Peter Pomerantsev. He’s an Atlantic contributor and the writer of a number of books—together with Nothing Is True and Every thing Is Potential, and This Is Not Propaganda. Peter’s work is very pressing proper now, I believe, as a result of he’s an professional on the methods data will be manipulated—traditionally, but in addition within the current. For this particular episode of How To, I talked with Peter concerning the methods on a regular basis individuals can take care of messaging that tries to skew our sense of actuality. However … we began with what propaganda really is.

—

Pomerantsev: The trendy utilization of the time period begins with the Counter-Reformation. And the Catholic Church is fearful concerning the unfold of Protestantism, saying, De propaganda fide: “Go and unfold the religion.” It’s not about data. It’s about persuasion. However it’s not a unfavorable time period. And one of many causes some historians suppose that we use the time period negatively is as a result of within the Protestant custom, something related to the Catholic Church is unfavorable. So propaganda turns into a unfavorable phrase in England and northern Europe, as a result of it’s about Catholics. So, that may be one of many root causes of this impartial time period getting a nasty identify.

Garber: So Peter, zooming out to the current second, the place propaganda does have this usually unfavorable connotation, I’m questioning in case you can assist delineate the way it’s totally different from different types of data switch. As a result of there are quite a lot of locations, exterior of politics but in addition inside it, the place the sort of persuasive data you’re describing—the brand new types of “spreading the religion,” virtually—is official.

Pomerantsev: Propaganda basically means types of mass persuasion—that’s, to the advantage of the individual doing it slightly than the individual receiving it. In order that’s the way it’s totally different from public training. Public training is supposed, in precept, to be for the advantage of the individuals receiving it. So, that doesn’t imply propaganda can’t profit the individuals receiving it, however it’s not conceived with that intention. It’s you attempting to get any person else to do what you need. Frankly, propaganda is often utilized in a unfavorable approach, within the sense that it’s often in some way duplicitous; it’s in some way deceiving individuals concerning the true nature of its goals. So, the best way it’s develop into used, , in society is with that sense. You’re attempting to get individuals to do one thing that you really want them to do in a approach that entails some kind of dishonesty. I believe we have now to go by campaign-by-campaign exercise and resolve: Is that this okay for democracy? Or do we expect this overstepped a line, which begins to mess up democracy?

Garber: I wish to pivot, then, to certainly one of your areas of experience, which is Russia. You’ve not solely studied propaganda in Russia, however you’ve lived in Russia, and also you converse Russian fluently. And I’m wondering concerning the state of propaganda there—what does it really feel wish to stay in an data surroundings the place there may be a lot propaganda swirling round?

Pomerantsev: So look, it was a very distinctive expertise till I moved to the U.S. and noticed a lot of the identical stuff right here. Um, you’re dwelling in a world the place reality is misplaced as worth. A world of utmost doubt. I imply, Putin’s propaganda, in contrast to Communist propaganda, is outlined not on a optimistic: , some story concerning the wonderful Communist future. It’s outlined by seeding doubt, conspiracy principle, suspicion, with an intention of creating individuals so confused they don’t know what’s true and what’s not. Making them really feel completely passive and basically saying, Look, on this world the place there aren’t any values, no reality, whole confusion, you want a robust man to steer you thru the murk. You already know, it’s fairly weird shifting to America and discovering so many individuals who, echoing issues that I’d heard in Russia, have been like, “Oh, you possibly can’t inform the distinction between reality and lies, you don’t know who’s mendacity, you possibly can’t belief anyone anymore. You already know, I don’t belief anyone. I simply go together with my emotions.” Which is essentially the most manipulable factor.

Garber: So I’d like to ask you about this concept that propaganda isn’t all the time nearly reality and falsehood, but in addition about this concept that reality can’t actually exist—the manipulations you’re describing resulting in a type of nihilism, virtually. May you inform me a little bit bit extra about how cynicism components into propaganda?

Pomerantsev: Effectively, the kind of propaganda that Putin places out is all about that. You already know, efficient propaganda all the time works with the grain of what individuals really feel. There was a deep cynicism within the final kind of 30 years of the Soviet Union, um, when nobody actually believed in Communism, however nonetheless pretended that they did. So, that cynicism is inspired, . It’s going with the circulation, and it’s weaponized, kind of. You flip it in opposition to the world; you say, “Look, you’ll have hoped for a democratic future, however democracy doesn’t exist wherever. It’s all a sham. There’s only a deep state in America, and, , it’s simply elites controlling issues.”

Yeah, we’re sort of corrupt right here, however everyone’s corrupt. However it’s additionally sort of a humorous paradox that I believe, , it’s necessary to understand. I believe everyone knows it from our personal experiences: that people who find themselves tremendous cynical—like, “Oh, you possibly can’t belief the media, and you’ll’t belief the politicians”—they don’t find yourself free. They really find yourself believing in loopy conspiracies as an alternative. So there’s one thing concerning the human thoughts that does must stay in some kind of framework, and a few kind of approach of understanding the world, some kind of approach of understanding which group you belong to, and a way of inserting your self on this planet. And it’s an actual paradox that with the intention to be free and impartial, it’s important to be a little bit bit open-minded and trusting. Being tremendous cynical doesn’t make you free. It really makes you extra depending on propaganda. In Russia, at the very least, they’ve an excuse, kind of: It’s an authoritarian nation the place the federal government controls all of the media. Right here, persons are selecting to stay on this kind of house. And I’m but to grasp why they’ve made that call.

[Music.]

Garber: This concept that we’re kind of selecting to be manipulated—so far as the U.S. is anxious, I consider one thing like actuality TV, for instance, and the way it shapes American politics. I’m considering right here of The Apprentice, specifically, which did a lot to launch the political profession of Donald Trump—to current him as each a celeb and a pacesetter. And to recommend that “superstar” and “chief” may be, successfully, the identical factor. So a lot of our politics, nowadays, come within the type of—and seem like, and act like—leisure.

Pomerantsev: So actuality exhibits are one thing that I’ve thought of quite a bit, as a result of my first profession, really, was to work in leisure TV when actuality exhibits have been king. This was proper after college; early 2000s. And I believe actuality exhibits are very essential. America had a president and may need a president very quickly once more, who was a reality-TV-show star. In Russia, individuals like [Vladislav] Surkov, kind of Putin’s nice vizier of propaganda, would go to reality-show units to discover ways to sort of create political theater based mostly on actuality exhibits.

I believe it’s essential to grasp: When do actuality exhibits emerge? They emerge within the Nineties, at this level when politics, publish–Chilly Struggle politics, turns into bled of any ideological which means. You have got the emergence of those politicians—Tony Blair, Invoice Clinton—who don’t actually have any robust ideology, however they’re actually good at showmanship. Politics turns into all about persona, slightly than concepts. That is the second the place the fact present emerges as our definitive leisure style. You have got the rise of politicians who’re nearly persona, with little substance—and politics turns into all about persona clashes. And you’ve got the rise of actuality exhibits, that are all about clashing personalities.

The media, which is definitely utterly complicit on this course of, begins to cowl politics as a sequence of ways: Who’s going to outsmart the opposite—Clinton or Gingrich? It’s a recreation, ? So politics turns into about ways, slightly than about insurance policies. Like a actuality present. Everybody’s complicit in it. I don’t wish to blame the reality-show producers. I don’t wish to blame the media. I don’t know. I believe it simply is the second the place persona clashes exchange coverage debates.

However I believe now we’ve obtained to some extent the place we’re very aware of what we’re doing, and I’m undecided we’re stopping. Take American presidential debates, they’re designed how we used to design actuality exhibits. They’re designed in a technique to get individuals to assault one another within the lowest attainable approach. Now, everyone who’s a member of a actuality present is aware of that the best way you get to dominate the present is: You assault somebody. And so they’ll assault you again. And also you guys, you’re the center of the battle, and also you dominate the sequence. It’s all about you. By giving debates the identical logic as we gave actuality exhibits, we’re doing every part to additional a political tradition the place reality-show stars are going to win and carry on successful.

Garber: By way of the place we’re at within the U.S. proper now—what might we even do at this level to withstand that?

Pomerantsev: So let’s say it was options oriented, like, “Here’s a coverage downside; present us the way you’re going to work collectively and the way you’re going to work with the opposite aspect to get this via.” Yeah, it’s nonetheless a contest. You’re nonetheless forcing individuals to compete, which—we would like competitors. We wish to see who’s higher, however you’re setting a very totally different set of challenges. I don’t know; we’d must try it out. We’ve to check out whether or not it might nonetheless be entertaining. Um, I believe that, , individuals do have a need to observe imply conflicts. We do all get pleasure from that, however we additionally wish to see individuals collaborating collectively for a better intention. I’m some social analysis in the mean time about which bits of historical past Individuals admire essentially the most. And it’s issues like, effectively, the civil-rights motion clearly comes up on prime. However past that, it’s issues just like the moon touchdown and the Hoover Dam and bits of, like, successes within the Chilly Struggle and the Normandy landings. As a result of all of them present individuals working collectively for a better intention. So there may be additionally a pleasure in collaboration and attaining issues collectively. And in case you’re creating TV that’s really each entertaining and for the general public good, then that’s the kind of problem you’ll want to clear up.

Garber: In your observations, whether or not in a broader world context or within the U.S., have you ever seen issues which have labored in relation to preventing again in opposition to propaganda? Have there been methods which have confirmed profitable?

Pomerantsev: So I train a course about propaganda at Johns Hopkins. And one of many issues we have a look at is, we have a look at pictures from the Nice Melancholy. Pictures that each American is aware of of; , the heart-wrenching pictures of individuals left destitute by the Nice Melancholy. And these have been pictures by among the biggest photographers of the age, which have develop into utterly iconic within the American creativeness, which have been sponsored by, , the federal government with the intention to promote the necessity for a New Deal. And I requested my college students: Is that this propaganda or not? However that may be a great instance of how you utilize communication for one thing optimistic, as a result of nonetheless you are feeling concerning the particulars of the New Deal, the actual fact is, you might be organising empathy. So I believe propaganda within the unfavorable sense—and in its most vile sense, and in its most excessive sense, and its most harmful sense—is about dehumanizing the opposite. So the very first thing is to begin to stay in a tradition the place we do humanize one another. And I believe that you just do do this via tradition. You do this via movies, via motion pictures, via pictures. You already know, we discuss identification quite a bit, in a poisonous identification politics, the place it’s all about “my tribe” and “the opposite tribe is evil.” However it doesn’t must be like that. You already know, you possibly can have a way more open-ended identification, the place you understand that really, , we’re all related, depending on one another, and so forth and so forth. Now, I don’t imply something fluffy, by the best way. I definitely don’t suppose you must hug fascists. I believe you must defeat fascists. However, if we’re speaking about, , a society managing to stay collectively, it begins with overcoming that dehumanization. That’s Step No. 1.

Garber: What’s Step No. 2?

Pomerantsev: When you’ve completed that, you possibly can transfer on to the following part, which is agreeing on what we expect proof is. Yeah? It’s not about agreeing on the info, however can we at the very least agree what counts as proof? After which lastly, I believe, democratic discourse—and the way it’s totally different from in a dictatorship like Russia—is that this results in resolution making and political change. So individuals aren’t simply screaming into the abyss, or screaming at one another, via Twitter. They’re really getting someplace, yeah? We’re really affecting one thing. And after we have a look at theories of a democratic public sphere, that’s what makes it particular. It’s individuals debating, gathering proof, after which coming to choices that develop into coverage. So it’s all these phases—and I believe right this moment we actually must suppose via about how we’re gonna get there.

You already know: What’s the function of flicks? What’s the function of on-line platforms and the way we design on-line platforms? After which, what’s the connection of all these discussions to political change? For those who don’t have these pictures in the beginning, in case you don’t have the humanization course of, nothing else is feasible.

Garber: I’d like to know what you say to individuals who would possibly say that issues about propaganda are overblown—that, , politicians have all the time lied. That there’s all the time been misinformation. That nothing’s actually new about this second. How would you reply to these arguments?

Pomerantsev: At any time when a brand new expertise emerges, whether or not it’s the printing press or radio or the web and social media right this moment, it causes large ruptures. So we’re clearly in a part like that—, on-line applied sciences have produced unbelievable pleasure, however they’ve additionally produced large alternatives for many who want to unleash destruction and violence. So, um, I’m not alarmed when a politician is mendacity. That’s, , pretty customary for that occupation. However when one thing has gone incorrect in our societies, when individuals can not belief one another sufficient to speak with one another, when hate has develop into normalized, when violence has develop into normalized, I believe we’re in a really harmful place.

[Music.]

Valdez: Megan, on this previous season, you invoked the media theorist Marshall McLuhan a few instances. Your dialog with Peter has me considering of one other very well-known media theorist named Neil Postman. Postman had an essay referred to as “Propaganda” that he printed within the Nineteen Seventies. And in it, he wrote, “of all of the phrases we use to speak about speak, propaganda is probably essentially the most mischievous.” I really like this definition of the phrase. It actually will get at what Peter was speaking about. That propaganda will be many issues to many individuals. It’s not inherently good or unhealthy. It’s malleable.

Gabrer: Mmm, and that’s such an necessary approach of issues. Partially as a result of it highlights the challenges we’re dealing with, or at the very least one of many challenges, in relation to propaganda in our personal political lives. It might be a lot simpler if propaganda have been clear minimize and simple to outline—virtually like these posters you talked about at the start of this episode, with their blunt messages and actually apparent goals. However propaganda doesn’t seem like that all the time, and particularly now. The intense colours are literally grey areas.

[Music.]

Valdez: Megan, our season of How one can Know What’s Actual is over, however Peter, together with employees author Anne Applebaum, would be the new hosts of a brand new podcast coming from The Atlantic referred to as Autocracy in America.

Garber: I’m actually enthusiastic about this present—it’s a five-part sequence, and in contrast to quite a lot of protection proper now, it’s not only a warning. It’s about how America is already remodeling, partially because of the varieties of psychological manipulation we’ve been speaking about.

Valdez: Anne and Peter discover how the current consolidation of energy, and the best way we allow secrecy in politics, makes democracy ever extra susceptible. And the way some of our different vulnerabilities have been really baked into the American system by the founders.

Garber: The sequence is an effort to mark what’s altering in America and to acknowledge what we’re dropping earlier than it’s too late. Observe the present now, wherever you hear.