The way to Know What’s Actually Propaganda

Peter Pomerantsev, a contributor at The Atlantic and creator of This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures within the Battle Towards Actuality, is an professional on the methods data will be manipulated. For this particular episode, Megan talks with Peter in regards to the function of propaganda in America and the best way to be careful for it.

On the lookout for extra nice audio from The Atlantic? Try Autocracy in America, hosted by Peter Pomerantsev and employees author Anne Applebaum. Subscribe wherever you pay attention.

Hear 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 battle effort: , I need you. And Rosie the Riveter: , We are able to do it. And, um, battle posters from World Battle II and World Battle I, the place they’re asking folks 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, mainly nearly 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 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 technique interesting to customers’ rationality, you’re additionally—and sometimes much more so—interesting to their feelings.

Valdez: Mm. And one of the basic 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 the usage of 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, 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, The way to Know What’s Actual. In the case of data, what’s actual? This query feels particularly pressing round our political realities. Proper now there’s a presidential election developing, and it seems 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 considering, 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 folks 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 creator of a number of books—together with Nothing Is True and The whole lot Is Attainable, and This Is Not Propaganda. Peter’s work is very pressing proper now, I feel, as a result of he’s an professional on the methods data 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 folks can take care of messaging that tries to skew our sense of actuality. However … we began with what propaganda truly is.

—

Pomerantsev: The trendy utilization of the time period begins with the Counter-Reformation. And the Catholic Church is frightened in regards to 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 destructive 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 destructive. So propaganda turns into a destructive phrase in England and northern Europe, as a result of it’s about Catholics. So, that could 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 typically destructive connotation, I’m questioning should you may help delineate the way it’s totally different from different types of data switch. As a result of there are a number of locations, outdoors of politics but additionally inside it, the place the form of persuasive data you’re describing—the brand new types of “spreading the religion,” nearly—is respectable.

Pomerantsev: Propaganda basically means types of mass persuasion—that’s, to the advantage of the individual doing it quite 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 folks receiving it. So, that doesn’t imply propaganda can’t profit the individuals receiving it, however it isn’t conceived with that purpose. It’s you attempting to get any person else to do what you need. Frankly, propaganda is often utilized in a destructive means, within the sense that it’s often in some way duplicitous; it’s in some way deceiving folks in regards to the true nature of its goals. So, the way in which it’s develop into used, , in society is with that sense. You’re attempting to get folks to do one thing that you really want them to do in a means that includes some form 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 predict 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 communicate Russian fluently. And I ponder in regards to the state of propaganda there—what does it really feel prefer to dwell in an data atmosphere 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 residing 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 principle, suspicion, with an purpose of constructing folks 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 are not any values, no fact, complete confusion, you want a powerful man to steer you thru the murk. You understand, it’s fairly weird transferring to America and discovering so many individuals who, echoing issues that I’d heard in Russia, had 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 understand, 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 at all times 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, nearly. Might you inform me a bit bit extra about how cynicism elements into propaganda?

Pomerantsev: Nicely, the form of propaganda that Putin places out is all about that. You understand, efficient propaganda at all times works with the grain of what folks really feel. There was a deep cynicism within the final form 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, form of. You flip it towards the world; you say, “Look, you could 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 form of corrupt right here, however everyone’s corrupt. However it’s additionally form of a humorous paradox that I feel, , it’s vital to understand. 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 may’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 must dwell in some form of framework, and a few form of means of understanding the world, some form of means of understanding which group you belong to, and a way of inserting your self on this planet. And it’s an actual paradox that to be able to be free and impartial, it’s a must to be a bit bit open-minded and trusting. Being tremendous cynical doesn’t make you free. It truly makes you extra depending on propaganda. In Russia, not less than, they’ve an excuse, form of: It’s an authoritarian nation the place the federal government controls all of the media. Right here, individuals are selecting to dwell on this form of house. And I’m but to grasp why they’ve made that call.

[Music.]

Garber: This concept that we’re form of selecting to be manipulated—so far as the U.S. is worried, 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 counsel that “superstar” and “chief” could be, successfully, the identical factor. So lots of our politics, today, 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, truly, was to work in leisure TV when actuality exhibits had been king. This was proper after college; early 2000s. And I feel 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, folks like [Vladislav] Surkov, form of Putin’s nice vizier of propaganda, would go to reality-show units to learn to form of create political theater primarily based on actuality exhibits.

I feel it’s essential to grasp: When do actuality exhibits emerge? They emerge within the Nineties, at this level when politics, submit–Chilly Battle politics, turns into bled of any ideological which means. You’ve 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 character, quite than concepts. That is the second the place the fact present emerges as our definitive leisure style. You’ve got 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 exhibits, 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 ways: Who’s going to outsmart the opposite—Clinton or Gingrich? It’s a sport, ? So politics turns into about ways, quite 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 feel it simply is the second the place character clashes substitute coverage debates.

However I feel now we’ve acquired to some extent the place we’re very acutely 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 exhibits. They’re designed in a strategy to get folks to assault one another within the lowest attainable means. Now, everyone who’s a member of a actuality present is aware of that the way in which you get to dominate the present is: You assault somebody. They usually’ll assault you again. And also you guys, you’re the center of the battle, and also you dominate the collection. It’s all about you. By giving debates the identical logic as we gave actuality exhibits, we’re doing every little thing to additional a political tradition the place reality-show stars are going to win and carry on profitable.

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 drawback; present us the way you’re going to work collectively and the way you’re going to work with the opposite facet to get this via.” Yeah, it’s nonetheless a contest. You’re nonetheless forcing folks 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. Now we have to check out whether or not it might nonetheless be entertaining. Um, I feel that, , folks do have a want to observe imply conflicts. We do all take pleasure in that, however we additionally prefer to see folks collaborating collectively for a higher purpose. I’m some social analysis in the meanwhile about which bits of historical past People admire essentially the most. And it’s issues like, properly, 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 Battle and the Normandy landings. As a result of all of them present folks working collectively for a higher purpose. So there may be additionally a pleasure in collaboration and reaching issues collectively. And should you’re creating TV that’s truly each entertaining and for the general public good, then that’s the form of problem you have to resolve.

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 in terms of combating again towards propaganda? Have there been methods which have confirmed profitable?

Pomerantsev: So I educate 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 Despair. Images that each American is aware of of; , the heart-wrenching pictures of individuals left destitute by the Nice Despair. And these had been pictures by a number of the best photographers of the age, which have develop into utterly iconic within the American creativeness, which had been sponsored by, , the federal government to be able to promote the necessity for a New Deal. And I requested my college students: Is that this propaganda or not? However that could be a fantastic instance of how you utilize communication for one thing constructive, as a result of nevertheless you’re feeling in regards to the particulars of the New Deal, the very fact is, you’re organising empathy. So I feel propaganda within the destructive 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 simply do try this via tradition. You try this via movies, via motion pictures, via pictures. You understand, we speak about id quite a bit, in a poisonous id politics, the place it’s all about “my tribe” and “the opposite tribe is evil.” However it doesn’t must be like that. You understand, you may have a way more open-ended id, 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 way in which. I actually 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 predict proof is. Yeah? It’s not about agreeing on the info, however can we not less than agree what counts as proof? After which lastly, I feel, 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 folks aren’t simply screaming into the abyss, or screaming at one another, via Twitter. They’re truly getting someplace, yeah? We’re truly affecting one thing. And after we have a look at theories of a democratic public sphere, that’s what makes it particular. It’s folks debating, gathering proof, after which coming to selections that develop into coverage. So it’s all these levels—and I feel right now we actually must suppose via about how we’re gonna get there.

You understand: 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? When you don’t have these pictures at the beginning, should 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 at all times lied. That there’s at all times 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 now, it causes large ruptures. So we’re clearly in a section like that—, on-line applied sciences have produced unimaginable pleasure, however they’ve additionally produced large alternatives for individuals who want to unleash destruction and violence. So, um, I’m not alarmed when a politician is mendacity. That’s, , pretty normal for that career. However when one thing has gone incorrect in our societies, when folks can not belief one another sufficient to speak with one another, when hate has develop into normalized, when violence has develop 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 considering 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 maybe 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 means of issues. Partially as a result of it highlights the challenges we’re going through, or not less than one of many challenges, in terms of propaganda in our personal political lives. It will be a lot simpler if propaganda had been clear lower and simple to outline—nearly 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 at all times, and particularly now. The intense 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 a number of protection proper now, it’s not only a warning. It’s about how America is already reworking, partially because of the sorts of psychological manipulation we’ve been speaking about.

Valdez: Anne and Peter discover how the current consolidation of energy, and the way in which we allow secrecy in politics, makes democracy ever extra weak. And the way some of our different vulnerabilities had been truly 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. Observe the present now, wherever you pay attention.