The way to 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 info will be manipulated. For this particular episode, Megan talks with Peter in regards to the function of propaganda in America and be careful for it.

Searching for extra nice audio from The Atlantic? Take a look at Autocracy in America, hosted by Peter Pomerantsev and employees author Anne Applebaum. Subscribe wherever you pay attention.

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

The next is a transcript of the episode:

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

Andrea Valdez: Mmm. Uncle Sam posters through the warfare effort: , I would like you. And Rosie the Riveter: , We will do it. And, um, warfare 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 feel even Looney Tunes had wartime cartoons that served as propaganda!

Garber: Ooh. Oh, wow. And it’s fascinating; the historical past stuff is my first thought, too. These actually daring, visually pushed posters, principally virtually like promoting billboards—besides the merchandise being bought 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 realized a few of their techniques from the promoting trade. And one of many core concepts in promoting is that whilst you’re in a method interesting to shoppers’ rationality, you’re additionally—and sometimes much more so—interesting to their feelings.

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

Garber: Yeah. And it’s fascinating, 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, after all, 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, The way to Know What’s Actual. With regards to info, what’s actual? This query feels particularly pressing round our political realities. Proper now there’s a presidential election arising, and it appears like so many individuals, each right here and overseas, dwell in their very own particular person political realities. Clearly, propaganda has performed an enormous function right here.

Garber: Yeah. And that has me pondering, too, about what makes sure sorts of messaging propaganda. And I assume how the methods it’s developed and devolved would possibly instruct us, um, as we strive to determine life on this second. The applied sciences individuals use to create propaganda and to unfold it’d 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 part Is Doable, and This Is Not Propaganda. Peter’s work is particularly pressing proper now, I feel, as a result of he’s an professional on the methods info will be manipulated—traditionally, but additionally within the current. For this particular episode of How To, I talked with Peter in regards to the methods on a regular basis individuals can deal with messaging that tries to skew our sense of actuality. However … we began with what propaganda really is.

—

Pomerantsev: The fashionable utilization of the time period begins with the Counter-Reformation. And the Catholic Church is fearful in regards to the unfold of Protestantism, saying, De propaganda fide: “Go and unfold the religion.” It’s not about info. It’s about persuasion. But it surely’s not a detrimental 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 detrimental. So propaganda turns into a detrimental phrase in England and northern Europe, as a result of it’s about Catholics. So, that is likely to be one of many root causes of this impartial time period getting a nasty title.

Garber: So Peter, zooming out to the current second, the place propaganda does have this typically detrimental connotation, I’m questioning if you happen to may help delineate the way it’s completely different from different types of info switch. As a result of there are lots of locations, outdoors of politics but additionally inside it, the place the type of persuasive info you’re describing—the brand new types of “spreading the religion,” virtually—is professional.

Pomerantsev: Propaganda primarily means types of mass persuasion—that’s, to the good thing about the particular person doing it relatively than the particular person receiving it. In order that’s the way it’s completely different from public training. Public training is supposed, in precept, to be for the good thing about the individuals receiving it. So, that doesn’t imply propaganda can’t profit the individuals receiving it, however it’s not conceived with that goal. It’s you making an attempt to get someone else to do what you need. Frankly, propaganda is normally utilized in a detrimental manner, within the sense that it’s normally by some means duplicitous; it’s by some means deceiving individuals in regards to the true nature of its goals. So, the best way it’s change into used, , in society is with that sense. You’re making an attempt to get individuals to do one thing that you really want them to do in a manner that includes some type of dishonesty. I feel we now have to go by campaign-by-campaign exercise and determine: Is that this okay for democracy? Or do we expect this overstepped a line, which begins to mess up democracy?

Garber: I need to pivot, then, to considered 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 in regards to the state of propaganda there—what does it really feel wish to dwell in an info setting the place there’s a lot propaganda swirling round?

Pomerantsev: So look, it was a extremely 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 fact is misplaced as worth. A world of maximum doubt. I imply, Putin’s propaganda, not like Communist propaganda, is outlined not on a constructive: , some story in regards to the wonderful Communist future. It’s outlined by seeding doubt, conspiracy concept, suspicion, with an goal of constructing individuals so confused they don’t know what’s true and what’s not. Making them really feel completely passive and primarily saying, Look, on this world the place there are not any values, no fact, complete confusion, you want a powerful man to guide you thru the murk. You recognize, 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 may’t inform the distinction between fact and lies, you don’t know who’s mendacity, you may’t belief anyone anymore. You recognize, I don’t belief anyone. I simply go along 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 fact and falsehood, but additionally about this concept that fact can’t actually exist—the manipulations you’re describing resulting in a type of nihilism, virtually. Might you inform me a little bit bit extra about how cynicism components into propaganda?

Pomerantsev: Properly, the type of propaganda that Putin places out is all about that. You recognize, efficient propaganda all the time works with the grain of what individuals really feel. There was a deep cynicism within the final type 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 stream, and it’s weaponized, type of. You flip it towards the world; you say, “Look, you’ll have hoped for a democratic future, however democracy doesn’t exist anyplace. It’s all a sham. There’s only a deep state in America, and, , it’s simply elites controlling issues.”

Yeah, we’re type of corrupt right here, however everyone’s corrupt. But it surely’s additionally type of a humorous paradox that I feel, , it’s vital to know. I feel everyone knows it from our personal experiences: that people who find themselves tremendous cynical—like, “Oh, you may’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 in regards to the human thoughts that does have to dwell in some type of framework, and a few type of manner of understanding the world, some type of manner of understanding which neighborhood you belong to, and a way of inserting your self on the earth. And it’s an actual paradox that with the intention to be free and unbiased, 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, type of: It’s an authoritarian nation the place the federal government controls all of the media. Right here, persons are selecting to dwell on this type of house. And I’m but to grasp why they’ve made that call.

[Music.]

Garber: This concept that we’re type 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 pondering right here of The Apprentice, particularly, 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 “celeb” and “chief” is likely to be, successfully, the identical factor. So a lot of our politics, today, come within the type of—and appear like, and act like—leisure.

Pomerantsev: So actuality reveals are one thing that I’ve considered quite a bit, as a result of my first profession, really, was to work in leisure TV when actuality reveals have been king. This was proper after college; early 2000s. And I feel actuality reveals 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, type of Putin’s nice vizier of propaganda, would go to reality-show units to learn to type of create political theater primarily based on actuality reveals.

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

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

However I feel now we’ve acquired to some extent the place we’re very aware of what we’re doing, and I’m unsure we’re stopping. Take American presidential debates, they’re designed how we used to design actuality reveals. They’re designed in a strategy to get individuals to assault one another within the lowest doable manner. 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 guts of the battle, and also you dominate the collection. It’s all about you. By giving debates the identical logic as we gave actuality reveals, we’re doing every part to additional a political tradition the place reality-show stars are going to win and carry on profitable.

Garber: When it comes to the place we’re at within the U.S. proper now—what may 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 by means of.” Yeah, it’s nonetheless a contest. You’re nonetheless forcing individuals to compete, which—we wish competitors. We need to see who’s higher, however you’re setting a totally completely different set of challenges. I don’t know; we’d should check it out. We now have to check out whether or not it may nonetheless be entertaining. Um, I feel that, , individuals do have a need to look at imply conflicts. We do all take pleasure in that, however we additionally wish to see individuals collaborating collectively for a better goal. I’m some social analysis in the meanwhile about which bits of historical past People admire essentially the most. And it’s issues like, effectively, the civil-rights motion clearly comes up on high. 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 goal. So there’s additionally a pleasure in collaboration and reaching issues collectively. And if you happen to’re creating TV that’s really each entertaining and for the general public good, then that’s the type of problem you should clear up.

Garber: In your observations, whether or not in a broader international context or within the U.S., have you ever seen issues which have labored with regards to preventing again towards 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. Images 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 a few of the biggest photographers of the age, which have change 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 fantastic instance of how you utilize communication for one thing constructive, as a result of nonetheless you’re feeling in regards to the particulars of the New Deal, the very fact is, you might be establishing empathy. So I feel propaganda within the detrimental 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 dwell in a tradition the place we do humanize one another. And I feel that you just do try this by means of tradition. You try this by means of movies, by means of motion pictures, by means of images. You recognize, we speak about identification quite a bit, in a poisonous identification politics, the place it’s all about “my tribe” and “the opposite tribe is evil.” But it surely doesn’t should be like that. You recognize, you may 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 feel you must defeat fascists. However, if we’re speaking about, , a society managing to dwell 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 may transfer on to the following section, 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 feel, democratic discourse—and the way it’s completely 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, by means of 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 change into coverage. So it’s all these phases—and I feel immediately we actually have to suppose by means of about how we’re gonna get there.

You recognize: What’s the function of films? 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? When you don’t have these pictures initially, if you happen to 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 considerations 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 immediately, it causes large ruptures. So we’re clearly in a section 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 commonplace for that career. However when one thing has gone mistaken in our societies, when individuals can not belief one another sufficient to speak with one another, when hate has change into normalized, when violence has change into normalized, I feel 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 pondering of one other very well-known media theorist named Neil Postman. Postman had an essay known as “Propaganda” that he revealed within the 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 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 dangerous. It’s malleable.

Gabrer: Mmm, and that’s such an vital manner of issues. Partially as a result of it highlights the challenges we’re going through, or at the very least one of many challenges, with regards to propaganda in our personal political lives. It will be a lot simpler if propaganda have been clear lower and straightforward to outline—virtually like these posters you talked about in the beginning of this episode, with their blunt messages and actually apparent goals. However propaganda doesn’t appear like that all the time, and particularly now. The brilliant colours are literally grey areas.

[Music.]

Valdez: Megan, our season of The way to 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 known as Autocracy in America.

Garber: I’m actually enthusiastic about this present—it’s a five-part collection, and in contrast to lots of protection proper now, it’s not only a warning. It’s about how America is already reworking, partially as a result of varieties of psychological manipulation we’ve been speaking about.

Valdez: Anne and Peter discover how the latest 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 collection is an effort to mark what’s altering in America and to acknowledge what we’re shedding earlier than it’s too late. Comply with the present now, wherever you pay attention.