A media manager influences the public’s consciousness
through his presentation of images and statements. But that doesn’t solely mean
one person is designated with the task. A group can also be engaged in media
managing – and any of its members, even the lowliest subordinate, is considered
a media manager (i.e. radio, TV and print media company employees – like
reporters, journalists, etc.) An advertiser is an example of a media manager
(i.e. copywriters, etc.). The ads he creates – especially infomercials –
influences the public to clamor for the product or service presented (or
readily accept beliefs, in the case of political ads). One can conclude that
media managing is also the business of persuasion. Their profession is seen in
a positive light when their creations are factual. They become mind managers
once their creations influence the public to accept a falsehood as truth. But
mind managers can serve a positive purpose – like in times of war. Then again,
it depends on the circumstances…
Social Judgment and Social
Reality
The key to fully understand how black propaganda
influences the public lies in two key sociology concepts: social judgment and social
reality. A persuasion theory presented by social psychologists, Muzaker
Sherif and Carl Hovland, social judgment explains how people readily embrace an
idea presented to them.
From
childhood, the average person acquires social beliefs – either by
unquestioningly accepting those taught or heard from others; or having
experiences that reinforce those beliefs. At some point in his life, those
would be challenged by exceptions. When in comparing the new idea (presented by
the exception) he finds it more compelling and more logical over his beliefs,
he comes to accept them until another exception convinces him to replace it.
Otherwise, the next circumstance might cause him to revert to his original
beliefs. To comprehend that passage, let’s take as an example how beliefs about
stereotypes influence the Filipino consciousness – especially regarding
Muslims. (A stereotype is an erroneous view that the traits of a group or race
are represented by its individual member.) How one interacts with a Muslim
largely depends on his past personal experiences or knowledge about them. If
the knowledge or experience was positive, he expects the same with the next
Muslim he meets. More instances of positive experiences would reinforce his personal
perception or social judgment of them. Otherwise, a negative experience would
change all that; or give him an alternative belief that it’s not the
ethnic/religious affiliation that’s the problem but the individual. It’s also
possible for one to tenaciously cling onto his existing beliefs, believing it
compromises supporting beliefs, or forfeit him the benefits gained in
reinforcing them. Though one is aware that blindly stereotyping Muslims is an
immature and idiotic thought, would it also mean he is in favor with some of
their religious practices that he is personally against? Some Filipinos are reluctant to advocate
against prejudice towards Muslims since it gives the impression to the
uninformed majority that he’s in favor of polygamy (having more than one wife),
among other “immoral” practices (from a solely Christian point of view, that
is). To openly advocate against prejudice would mean social ostracization for
others or for some, a conflict of principles. That expounds the definition of
the social judgment theory: when a person
decides what he will believe, he compares the new idea with what he already
wants to believe and then decides whether to reject the idea (Charles
Pearson). Rejecting or adopting a new idea largely depends on the accompanying circumstances
that affect a person. That can very much determine the social reality perceived
by society about an issue - but, what is social reality?
We learned that one’s social judgment serves as the
basis on what would be the truth to him. Reinforcing that are two or more
people who share a similar view. From that, we can define social reality – a
set of social judgments that a group of people share about an issue or the
like. The following example can help to understand that: the issue over cousin
romances or marriages.
Filipinos
were taught that being romantically involved with a cousin is bad – the reason
that it confuses family roles or bear deformed children for cousins who
eventually marry and raise a family. One group of people clings to this belief
because of personal experiences that validate them. Since each share the same
belief (i.e. collective view), all are led to believe that their views are true
– their numbers serving to reinforce it. Their collective view then forms a
“social reality” of potential influence. Some would go to the extent of
ridiculing people they know who do it – labeling them as “perverts”, etc. Here
then arrives another group to the defense of the ridiculed – offering a social
reality opposite the former. They could be a support or advocacy group of
married cousins, who bore physically, and mentally fit children, and whose
union was seen as permissible by their families. They also form their own
reality about the issue, reinforced by their own collective view. Both groups
insist their claims as true over the other, but of course they are – in
relation to their respective collective view, that is.
How would this all fit into waging black propaganda?
When a propaganda message (allegedly) successfully influences a favorable
social judgment from a large number of people, their collective view forms a
social reality ready to influence others. Often, the sheer number of believers
of that reality is enough to compel others to blindly accept the truth; without
them bothering to probe further. As they would think, “if the majority believes
it, it must thence be true.” Hence, a collective social judgment on an issue
forms a social reality that eventually influences a negative/positive public
opinion towards it.
And it is thus that mind managers generate lies and
half-truths to market as genuine truth. They would even go to the extent of
engineering events or actions to drive home the point.
Taking
Garfield’s experience as example, the forged letter was made with the memory of
the 1877 anti-Chinese riots still fresh in the public’s mind. A two-decade long
economic depression made many white Californians jobless. They blamed their
unemployment woes on Chinese workers, who didn’t mind getting low wages. As a
result, they incited two riots – the first, in Los Angeles in 1871 then another
in San Francisco in 1877. Garfield’s rival wanted Americans to believe the
letter was real (the social reality they intended). That would ultimately
convince them that he was undermining the job security of all Americans. If
only they had been more meticulous of the details…
And this is where Schiller lays down an essential law
for successful manipulation: the manipulator must always keep his hands clean.
When a lie is exposed, not only does it lose its power, it exposes the
perpetrator as well. (To be continued…)
No comments:
Post a Comment