In light of these developments, propagandists are now at risk of being umasked by a more skeptical public. Thus, more subtle and sophisticated approaches to deception are employed. Borrowing from military tactics, deception can be carried out in four forms – namely…
Deceptive exterior – the propagandist wraps his messages with the impression of concern for society’s welfare. In reality, it means to assassinate a target’s character. The target can be made to look as if he’s a threat to a social policy or campaign. Political messages are often framed that way. Naturally, the public instinctively reacts with indignation towards the target. Elpidio Quirino greatly suffered from such media attacks – as with Filipino politicians of today.
Decoys – in military parlance, it’s using a fake target to divert an enemy’s attention to it. In propaganda, it’s unleashing an outrageously accusatory story that the target works to deflect. In the process, he gets to expose himself to other attacks. The nineteenth-century American businessman, Jason “Jay” Gould, was a master media manipulator. His media attacks either baited enemies to waste time refuting them (thus exposing themselves), or force them into moves that play to his advantage.
Camouflage – this attack is best carried out using the media – like social networking sites, as well as phone-in radio and TV opinion shows. As its name implies, propagandists have to be disguised to carry out offensives. By masquerading as ordinary citizens, their statements give the impression of a public supporting a propaganda message. The callers who phone in their opinions to radio or TV shows are an example. That approach provides the benefit of anonymity. It can be argued they give full contact details, making them legitimate. But the reality is that anything can be made up. Since the callers are mostly faceless (only their voices are heard), their identities are constantly doubted. Another variation is the use of surveys and trust ratings. A group can masquerade through it as a public displeased about a targeted personality or cause. But it’s common knowledge that statistical info in surveys are subject to deliberate human errors and statistical manipulation. The authoritative impression afforded by numbers lends it an air of objectivity. Yet, it alone can’t hide a naked truth: the numbers may be there, but it’s the humans behind its computation that’s the problem.
Planted information – this works best with credible reporters and journalists. It used to be that propagandists themselves would plant stories with a propagandistic slant. In the mid-1970s, an expose reported CIA covert press operatives planting pro-American stories in the foreign press. They were keeping in line then with the US aim of preventing communists to win elections in democratic countries. Now, a sinister variation would be relaying these to reputable broadsheets or TV networks. This is done anonymously or through relays kept ignorant of the true intent behind the delivery. It can be argued that that can be confused with the actions of corrupt media people. Yet, there are some who are idealistic: those with the established record of genuine objectivity. It’s exactly their reputation that makes them the ultimate couriers of fabrications. When they come across planted info, they get the impression of uncovering the truth. Their reputation further puts a sheen of credibility to it, casting aside all doubt.
Outright deception is easy to unmask though. Even a combination of deceptive techniques and approaches can still be uncovered. Furthermore, counter-propagandists can wield unmasked deceptions to their advantage – especially if the propagandist still believes they’re unaware of it yet. To solve that problem, propagandists strive to control the situation on the outset. They do so through the following principles:
Give no respite – before a counter-propagandist moves, his enemy makes an aggressive move to seize the initiative. Propagandists follow it up by applying relentless pressure. They know that chance and the unpredictable maneuvers of their foes can damage their strategy. Putting their counter-propagandist foes on the defensive can eventually demoralize them. Push them into the unknown – putting relentless pressure on counter-propagandists can force them into unfamiliar situations. The pressure forces them into efforts that unwarily expose weak points. Propagandists exploit these to put their foes in dilemmas they know not much to get out off.
Make enemies prone to errors – this naturally follows after the propagandist applies the first two principles. But a propagandist understands why this third principle is essential. His foes rely on a strategy that conforms to their strengths. Furthermore, any respite from his attacks gives the other side sufficient time to assess the situation. Mistakes happen when a foe is too focused on fending attacks of the moment. In such a state, a propagandist can gradually gain control of them.
Be in passive control – when a counter-propagandist realizes he’s being led to fight on the other side’s terms, he’ll act to stamp it out. Hence, subtlety is important to the propagandist. He must lead his foe to believe he still can refute attacks, without realizing that his counter-replies are leading to weaken himself. The pressure they apply is subtle. It is to prevent the obvious impression they’re leading on the other party.
As one can see, propagandists are highly resourceful. No law can ever discourage them to carry out their activities. The best front line defense against their messages is reasonable skepticism and awareness of their methods.
Thus, it pays to never take the news blindly.
No comments:
Post a Comment