Weapons of Mass Communication

Recently I visited an exhibition in Imperial War Museum, called Weapons of Mass Communication: War posters, comprising time period from the British recruitment campaign of 1914 right up to 2003 with a poster from the coalition in Iraq warning against terrorism. It is an amazing exhibition giving an insight of how posters, as one of the most popular “weapons of mass communication”, in this case, propaganda, are different in approaches and similar in objectives. In WWII, this tendency is even more remarkable. While the Nazis used powerful Art Deco Aryan-eulogising approach, the Soviets exploited images of the worker and the Red Flag. East and West, communism and fascism, Cold War…History is full of examples of propaganda. Centuries ago it was used to influence opinions and beliefs on religious issues, particularly during the split between the Catholic Church and Protestants. In the 20th century propaganda’s role dramatically increased with the growing number of communication tools and political conflicts and gained more negative shade. Propaganda has become more common in political context, in particular referring to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups and parties.
In its attempt to manipulate and influence propaganda is negatively compared with PR more than often. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Theorist Sheryl Tuttle Ross argues that propaganda should be considered as a threefold communication model of Sender-Message-Receiver. “Propaganda involves the one who is persuading (Sender), the target for such persuasion (Receiver) and the means of reaching that target (Message).”There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade. As well, propaganda is sent on behalf of a sociopolitical institution, organization, or cause. Next, the recipient of propaganda is a socially significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is an epistemic struggle to challenge other thoughts.” I think this is exactly what sets propaganda against to Public Relations.

Media, as one of the strongest communication tool, along with other forms of art and literature can dramatically change attitude and perception of the public. During the Gulf war journalists criticized the way in which access to information was controlled by the Coalition Forces. And if any controlling of the media's activities can be related to propaganda, does it mean that the reported and documented facts may not be objective or untrue? In connection with this there are many other raising questions, as, for instance, is any untruth a deception and lie? Could untruths have good intentions? Finally, how far can we go to persuade and change public’s perception?