Learn how to Know What’s Actually Propaganda

Peter Pomerantsev, a contributor at The Atlantic and writer of This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures within the Conflict Towards Actuality, is an knowledgeable on the methods data might be manipulated. For this particular episode, Megan talks with Peter in regards to the position of propaganda in America and the right way to be careful for it.

Searching 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, whenever you consider propaganda, what first involves thoughts?

Andrea Valdez: Mmm. Uncle Sam posters in the course of the conflict effort: you understand, I would like you. And Rosie the Riveter: you understand, We will do it. And, um, conflict posters from World Conflict II and World Conflict 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, mainly nearly like promoting billboards—besides the merchandise being offered are political causes.

Valdez: Proper.

Garber: Yeah, precisely. And I assume there’s something acceptable 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 shoppers’ rationality, you’re additionally—and infrequently much more so—interesting to their feelings.

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

Garber: Yeah. And it’s fascinating, too, that each of us, once 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, you understand, that will get to one of many core questions from our season, Learn how to 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 looks like so many individuals, each right here and overseas, stay in their very own particular person political realities. Clearly, propaganda has performed a giant position 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 advanced 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 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 part Is Potential, and This Is Not Propaganda. Peter’s work is particularly pressing proper now, I feel, as a result of he’s an knowledgeable on the methods data might 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 cope 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 data. It’s about persuasion. Nevertheless it’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, you understand that could be one of many root causes of this impartial time period getting a foul title.

Garber: So Peter, zooming out to the current second, the place propaganda does have this usually detrimental connotation, I’m questioning for those who may also help delineate the way it’s completely different from different types of data switch. As a result of there are plenty of locations, exterior 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 authentic.

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 completely different from public schooling. Public schooling 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 isn’t conceived with that purpose. It’s you making an attempt to get anyone else to do what you need. Frankly, propaganda is normally utilized in a detrimental means, within the sense that it’s normally someway duplicitous; it’s someway deceiving individuals in regards to the true nature of its goals. So, the way in which it’s grow to be used, you understand, 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 means that entails some type of dishonesty. I feel now we have to go by campaign-by-campaign exercise and resolve: Is that this okay for democracy? Or do we predict this overstepped a line, which begins to mess up democracy?

Garber: I need to pivot, then, to one among 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 wish to stay in an data atmosphere the place there may be 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 utmost doubt. I imply, Putin’s propaganda, in contrast to Communist propaganda, is outlined not on a constructive: you understand, some story in regards to the wonderful Communist future. It’s outlined by seeding doubt, conspiracy idea, suspicion, with an purpose of constructing 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 are not any values, no fact, complete confusion, you want a robust 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’ll be able to’t inform the distinction between fact and lies, you don’t know who’s mendacity, you’ll be able to’t belief anyone anymore. You recognize, I don’t belief anyone. I simply go together with my emotions.” Which is probably 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 of bit extra about how cynicism elements into propaganda?

Pomerantsev: Properly, the type of propaganda that Putin places out is all about that. You recognize, efficient propaganda at all times 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, you understand. It’s going with the circulation, and it’s weaponized, type of. You flip it towards the world; you say, “Look, you could 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, you understand, it’s simply elites controlling issues.”

Yeah, we’re form of corrupt right here, however all people’s corrupt. Nevertheless it’s additionally form of a humorous paradox that I feel, you understand, it’s essential to know. I feel everyone knows it from our personal experiences: that people who find themselves tremendous cynical—like, “Oh, you’ll be able to’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 a substitute. So there’s one thing in regards to the human thoughts that does have to stay in some type of framework, and a few type of means of understanding the world, some type of means 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 a view to be free and impartial, you must be a bit of bit open-minded and trusting. Being tremendous cynical doesn’t make you free. It really makes you extra depending on propaganda. In Russia, not less than, 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 stay on this type of area. And I’m but to know 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, specifically, which did a lot to launch the political profession of Donald Trump—to current him as each a celeb and a frontrunner. And to recommend that “celeb” and “chief” could be, successfully, the identical factor. So lots of our politics, lately, come within the type of—and appear like, and act like—leisure.

Pomerantsev: So actuality reveals are one thing that I’ve thought of loads, 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 form of create political theater primarily based on actuality reveals.

I feel it’s essential to know: When do actuality reveals emerge? They emerge within the Nineteen Nineties, at this level when politics, put up–Chilly Conflict politics, turns into bled of any ideological which means. You may 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, quite than concepts. That is the second the place the truth present emerges as our definitive leisure style. You may 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 ways: Who’s going to outsmart the opposite—Clinton or Gingrich? It’s a sport, you understand? So politics turns into about ways, quite 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 bought 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 option to get individuals to assault one another within the lowest potential means. Now, all people 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 reveals, we’re doing all the things 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 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 facet to get this by means of.” Yeah, it’s nonetheless a contest. You’re nonetheless forcing individuals to compete, which—we would like competitors. We need to see who’s higher, however you’re setting a very completely different set of challenges. I don’t know; we’d need to check it out. We’ve to check out whether or not it may nonetheless be entertaining. Um, I feel that, you understand, individuals do have a want to observe imply conflicts. We do all get pleasure from that, however we additionally wish to see individuals collaborating collectively for a larger purpose. I’m some social analysis for the time being about which bits of historical past Individuals admire probably 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 Conflict and the Normandy landings. As a result of all of them present individuals working collectively for a larger purpose. So there may be additionally a pleasure in collaboration and reaching issues collectively. And for those who’re creating TV that’s really each entertaining and for the general public good, then that’s the type of problem you want to 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 combating 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 take a look at is, we take a look at pictures from the Nice Melancholy. Pictures that each American is aware of of; you understand, the heart-wrenching pictures of individuals left destitute by the Nice Melancholy. And these have been pictures by among the best photographers of the age, which have grow to be utterly iconic within the American creativeness, which have been sponsored by, you understand, the federal government with a view 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 are feeling in regards to the particulars of the New Deal, the very fact is, you might be organising 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 stay in a tradition the place we do humanize one another. And I feel that you just do do this by means of tradition. You do this by means of movies, by means of motion pictures, by means of pictures. You recognize, we speak about identification loads, in a poisonous identification politics, the place it’s all about “my tribe” and “the opposite tribe is evil.” Nevertheless it doesn’t need to be like that. You recognize, you’ll be able to have a way more open-ended identification, the place you notice that truly, you understand, 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 need to hug fascists. I feel you need to defeat fascists. However, if we’re speaking about, you understand, 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 carried out that, you’ll be able to transfer on to the following part, 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 completely different from in a dictatorship like Russia—is that this results in determination 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 once we take 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 selections that grow to be coverage. So it’s all these phases—and I feel right this moment we actually have to suppose by means of about how we’re gonna get there.

You recognize: What’s the position of flicks? What’s the position 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? In the event you don’t have these pictures at first, for those who 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, you understand, 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 know-how emerges, whether or not it’s the printing press or radio or the web and social media right this moment, it causes big ruptures. So we’re clearly in a part like that—you understand, on-line applied sciences have produced unimaginable pleasure, however they’ve additionally produced big alternatives for many who want to unleash destruction and violence. So, um, I’m not alarmed when a politician is mendacity. That’s, you understand, pretty normal for that career. However when one thing has gone unsuitable in our societies, when individuals can not belief one another sufficient to speak with one another, when hate has grow to be normalized, when violence has grow to be 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 maybe probably the most mischievous.” I like this definition of the phrase. It actually will get at what Peter was speaking about. That propaganda might be many issues to many individuals. It’s not inherently good or dangerous. It’s malleable.

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

[Music.]

Valdez: Megan, our season of Learn how 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 plenty of protection proper now, it’s not only a warning. It’s about how America is already reworking, partially because of the varieties of psychological manipulation we’ve been speaking about.

Valdez: Anne and Peter discover how the latest consolidation of energy, and the way in which 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 dropping earlier than it’s too late. Observe the present now, wherever you pay attention.