1. If either had been successful, we might be looking at a very different world - if the first has been successful, we might be living in Trump's 2nd term in office, in which (due to lack of support for Ukraine) Russia would have rolled over Ukraine and would be on the march in Eastern Europe. Distrust in elections (and therefore governmental institutions) would likely be even greater than it already is, among many other impacts. If the second had been successful, I think that would have plunged us into a constitutional crisis, in which (again) distrust in elections would be high, but I'm not sure how it would be resolved. Perhaps with more violence (a la January 6).
2. Transparency, or lack thereof, seems the key differentiator between the two. Reagan's speech, while slanted, was based in facts, while Trump's attempts were founded in lies. The source for the claims (of 2016 election interference by Ukraine, in the first example, and Georgia election irregularities in 2020, in the second example) were obscured and therefore hard to dispel quickly. So, we would be left with lingering doubts about the integrity of our elections.
3. If we doubt the integrity of our elections, then democracy will necessarily fall since the essence of democracy is representation through free and fair elections.
1. If he had succeeded in either example, the propaganda would have been normalized. It would have eroded the public faith in the media and crippled its role of investigating, exposing truth, and speaking to power.
2. Those three factors are intertwined. The audience and the purpose dictate the transparency – the tactic used. One tactic is the use of transparency or deception. Given that, I think transparency is the most important.
3. I think democracy thrives on white propaganda as long as it is more than one sided and open to debate. The dark, deceptive propaganda aims at society’s emotions in order to convince them the lies are in fact reality. The discussion is and becomes deeply one sided. Any debate, however tame, is classified as hostile. People feel it will all work out or get tired of fighting it and become quiet. That quiet allows the often-louder noise of lies to take up more space and eventually push democracy out of the picture.
Dec 8, 2022·edited Dec 9, 2022Liked by Asha Rangappa
A somewhat related follow up to today’s discussion of propaganda: Way back in the 1960’s or early 1970’s, Robert Allen and the actor, Lorne Greene, developed a game called Propaganda that was designed to teach players to recognize the various rhetorical techniques used in creating propaganda. That game has been ported to a web version at propagandagame.org. If you’re interested in learning more about propaganda techniques, check it out. [edit: fixed link]
1 If Trump's usage of dark propaganda had succeeded the media would have been guided by manipulated and self serving narratives. Due to the obvious falsehood of the information he wishes to assert, the outcome both nationally and internationally would be to desiminate widespread disinformation.
2. The differences between Regan's milder use of propaganda based in greater transparency, a coherent policy and mutual goals are quite striking. Trump's use of purposeful disinformation, self serving interests and lack of transparency clearly indicates a darker and more damaging use of propaganda.
3. The deep harm of sewing seeds of dark propaganda, based on falsehood clearly is evident as it erodes trust both in the media and society at large.
1. It sends chills down my spine when I think about what might have happened if Trump’s attempts at propaganda had been successful. I’m remembering how much controversy there was over whether Democrats should hold impeachment hearings on Ukraine — whether it was politically profitable. It’s remarkable to think of what our perceptions of Zelensky were then compared to now and how this individual that Trump and his enablers tried to turn into a pawn (and didn’t really see as significant in his own right) has emerged as one of the most important leaders of our time. Had Trump succeeded in that initial effort to paint Biden as corrupt, it could easily have turned the 2020 election. If Trump and his lackeys would have succeeded in casting doubt on the integrity of the 2020 election, it would have meant the end of our democracy. We are still not out of the woods. But I’m so thankful and impressed by Gen Z and I regularly tell my college-age children how proud I am of them and their peers for how they have stepped up for democratic values.
2. The three factors of transparency, audience, and purpose are important in helping assess what type of propaganda we're dealing with, though I’m not enamored with the white/black categorizations. It’s easy to say that Trump’s propaganda is “black” because he’s so clearly, both with Ukraine and the 2020 election, trying to manipulate people into grappling with manufactured issues while attempting to cover his tracks with post-it notes that say, “no tracks here!” With Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech, we might be tempted to categorize it as “white” propaganda (for so many reasons), but I want to call it gray propaganda. His audience and purpose are clear and he is transparent locally in the sense of how he’s representing himself and why he’s there. But in the broader context of the era, he elides the many struggles and contradictions in the U.S. and his own politics (collapse of the steel industry, his embrace of Nixon’s Southern strategy, support of South Africa’s apartheid government for starters). Which is I guess why I would say transparency is the most important factor. In contrast to either Reagan on Trump I would hold up Carter’s farewell speech as a model of transparency because he’s as unflinching about our societal shortcomings as he is hopeful about our strengths.
3. Perhaps the biggest harm that propaganda causes to democracy is the way it erodes our consensus on demonstrable fact (forget about “truth” for the moment, it’s too loaded a term). Were all the votes counted or not? Were the votes in this community cast legally? Is there really a deadly virus? Can masks/social/distancing/vaccines protect us? Were those documents classified or magically unclassified? Is taking classified documents really illegal? By jettisoning a body of demonstrable fact we are left in a swirling flush of raw power that drains directly into the sewer of authoritarianism. (And that, my friends, is how you beat a metaphor to death!)
1. Although Trump failed to get Zelensky to read his bogus statement and the DOJ to help overturn Biden’s legitimate victory in Georgia, he has still succeeded in manipulating media coverage (Fox News, OAN, etc.) in his favor and the perception of tens of millions of Americans and the majority of Republicans in Congress that HE is still their best candidate for their party in 2024! In many other countries, Trump would have been arrested and imprisoned before sundown on January 6 for an attempted coup (e.g., today’s arrest of Peru’s president for the same); and in some places, he would have been tried and executed!!!
2. Reagan and Trump are polar opposites in most every way, including the former’s use of white propaganda intended to promote freedom for the oppressed countries of the old USSR and Eastern Bloc vs. the latter’s self-serving black propaganda ONLY in an attempt at reelection to office through outrageous lies and deception. Therefore, I believe the purpose of propaganda is most important, as well as the character of the person who delivers it.
3. Trump’s propaganda has clearly harmed our democracy for perhaps a generation or longer, as he repeatedly makes false statements about the integrity of the 2020 election, the 2022 election, and no doubt after he loses, the 2024 election. For proof of the severe damage Trump has caused to our democracy, look no further than the election of despicable MAGA Republicans such as MTG, Gaetz, and countless others to Congress, while “old party” Republicans including Bush, McCain, Cheney, and Romney are now considered enemies or RINOs!
I've had a really busy week, so I'm just getting to this lesson now.
1. Oy vey! You must realize that if the Georgia letter had happened it would be a different planet now, affecting not just "domestic political events". Ukraine would be history, for example. I mean, Trump might still be in the WH. (I know others have already said this).
2. The Letter scheme is so different than Reagan's speech that they're like two different species. In any case, the 3 factors mattered a whole lot more b4 Trump normalized out-and-out lying by a President. Now, with the polarization that exists in our media and country (how could 49% of Georgia voters cast a ballot for Walker?!), it's a very heavy lift for any politician to try to bring both sides together even with real transparency and unambiguous purpose. How does one convince others that they're being transparent? Or that their purpose is being fully disclosed? So, I'd have to conclude that *audience* becomes the most critical/significant factor. And that leads to question 3:
3. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without [liberty] being lost” - Thomas Jefferson, 1786 Propaganda is anathema to democracy and a truly free press because it prevents us from knowing what is factual and what isn't. Unfortunately our media is owned by fewer and fewer people and those people seem to have agendas other than supporting democracy or a free press. The media publishes and broadcasts propaganda made to appear serious and truthful. MSNBC is almost as slanted to the left as much as Fox is hard right. Thus, consumers will opt to consume "news that suits their views". This is a huge harm to democracy because it keeps the country divided and "the other" becomes suspect and mistrusted.
1. Since the electorate seemed very split on support or opposition to him, I think the success of Ukraine propaganda would not have changed the election outcome but may have resulted in increased political violence than we actually saw. I think the media would have covered it in the same way they had from 2017- inordinate 'both side-ism' that would have increased polarization. If the fake DOJ letter had succeeded in GA, I think Trump would have been re-elected but we'd now be several steps further on the path to autocracy.
2. Purpose is the most important. Reagan was persuading for the purpose of national policy, as well as freedom and open commerce. Trump's purpose was his own retention of power and personal interests to the detriment of political opponents and the ability of Americans votes being counted in a free and fair election.
3. Persuasion to a point a view when the argument is founded on facts and evidence is foundational for compromise in democracy. Black propaganda based on lies undermines the basis for rational consideration and discussion in democracy by engaging 'lizard brain' emotional responses and disengaging rational thought. Civic trust and efforts to work together for the common good are greatly eroded when truth becomes illusory to public perception.
It may be hard to even notice that at the top of this comments list in very light font you will probably see "Top First". If you click it, you'll get a dropdown list, the other choices being "New First" and "Chronological". In most comment sections, the default mode is "New First" so you don't miss a new comment.
(2) Purpose: I can imagine scenarios in which the ends justify the means, e.g., when the public good is threatened, prompt action is required, and the truth will not penetrate in time. Global warming might be a case in point.
(3) The voice of the majority is only useful when the majority knows the true state of affairs, and to the extent that propaganda distorts the truth, it is destructive.
1. The immediate parallel for me is the Comey announcement in October of 2016, which became amplified through the GOP Committee who had requested an update when he last testified there, and most of the media who thrive on conflict and hints of corruption. I don’t believe the media learned much from that episode, (but we’ll know soon based on its coverage of the GOP House in 2023).
2. The purpose, it seems to me, will influence the transparency and audience. Trump’s purpose was to undermine his opponent but also advance a narrative that he would have then advanced further against all his real and perceived enemies.
3. Perhaps this is a lack of coffee, but what comes to mind immediately is a repudiation of “the people rule.” “No, you don’t” appears to be the answer offered by propagandists who seek to undermine faith in the democratic systems.
1. No change. American news media today is extremely hyperbolic. Go online and spend 10 minutes and watch France24, DW, or even Ajeerzara. The issue here is the messenger not the message. In Reagan's day, American news media served more of a filter of what was considered "news"..there was less shouting about whether Peter Jenning, or Ted Koppel more accurately reported what Reagan's goal actually was...Trump understands that the news media is about making profit via viewership that promotes ad revenue...It's the same with many of the celebrity news anchors...in Reagan's day, the salaries of frontline reporters were closer to the median pay of American workers...today that isn't the case....Again, Trump understands corruption probably better than most and he was just manipulating what was already there.
2. Transparency....but legacy media does not get it....
3. see 2....Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...How many Bay of Tonkin like events can happen before people become distrustful of whatever they see or read via the news media. There seems to be still a large number of people who intrinsically believe that "good" on its merits always triumphs over evil, and have over time resigned themselves to the idea that today's reporting is just the way things have evolved, but it don't matter because their fav. federal political party will save the day ultimately. The audience that the legacy media targets is the aforementioned and its utility for constructive change is probably permanently limited. It will continue to serve demagogues of all stripes as a vehicle promoting reactionary events (which promotes viewership hence ad revenue), but as a tool for shaping opinion via propaganda the battle has moved onto social media. Here we are today, reading and writing about current affairs as oppose to listening or reading Thomas Friedmen pontificate about how McDonald's is saving democracy.
I found Asha’s second question particularly thought provoking. One has to really think deeply about the difference between what Reagan and Trump engaged in. Let’s look at Reagan’s speech critically; it is unashamedly an attempt to influence the public opinion. Does it matter if it is for one’s ideas or one’s nation versus personal gain. One can psychologically theorise that Reagan could have been deluding himself into thinking what he was doing was for his nation and for freedom at large while it was possibly just fulfilling personal fantasies or biases against communist systems rather than the strength of democracies. The road to hell is paved with good intentions – so I must move the importance of purpose much lower. Purpose is very subjective, and history is written by the winners.
I take inspiration from the SEC’s laws on spread of misinformation here. There’s a great article on Forbes, authored by the famous short-seller Carson Block of Muddy Waters Research. Can The SEC Model Help Cure American Democracy? (forbes.com)
Quite simply, if a person or entity has knowingly spread information, they know to be false, with the intent of manipulating security prices – there are criminal consequences attached to it. He advocates expanding this to the broader 1A sphere. There is precedent of allowing judicial inquiry into the free speech and first amendment arena. He alludes to a 1944 supreme court case, U.S. v. Ballard, where the court ruled that that it was valid to determine whether one’s claimed religious beliefs were genuine regardless of actual truth to the matter.
While Donald Trump would have likely deluded himself into believing that Joe Biden Jr. was up to no good, and could have likely continued to make these statements, the SEC style framework would allow us to scrutinise the likes of Fox News or others who were in possession of information contradicting these statements or the DOJ or State Department. If we would or can force these entities into legal jeopardy for propagating lies they know to be false – that immediately puts a firebreak in the whole spread of information.
Therefore, I will conclude transparency, declaration of conflicts of interest and their underlying interests and motivation is much more important than purpose and audience in deciding what the fine line between acceptable propaganda is and what isn't. It may not be the answer many of us are looking for, but we have to operate in constrained optimisation problem sets and must also protect the first amendment's spirit while we are at it - or the great risk is - in fighting the Russian inspired propaganda, we ourselves set foot in the trojan horse of attacking the very core of our founding principles.
I am sorry for submitting my "homework" late!, but alas it is wedding season!
Let me immediately take a stab at the last question Asha poses with some theatrical props.
It is difficult to extrapolate accurately as to the impacts of the black propaganda that Trump aimed to employ. Some of these events would have happened regardless of specific actions that Mr. Trump undertook because of the extreme underlying polarisation in the United States, amplified by reiterative social media algorithms, simply looking for a scandal to fuel the flames. No doubt there are ways of ensuring we neutralise the flames before they metastasize into wildfires – and to the extent that the plan would have worked – candidate Biden would have likely been finished. Trump wanted another extremist on the democratic ticket – like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders – similar to the original Russian plan.
The original Russian plan didn’t particularly seem to focus on installing President Trump who they believed had low chances, according to the intelligence community accounts. They (the Russians) were playing a game of probabilities and their main agenda was chaos and long-term division and impairment of the US political system. They worked against Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and a few others of the republican centrist establishment. They did not particularly simply attack candidate Clinton because she had more of a hard-line position than candidate Trump on Russia. It is likely that a President Warren could have been much more hawkish with respect to Russia than a President Clinton. They simply didn’t care. In supporting the Bernie Sanders and Trumps of the world – the whole objective of Russian black propaganda was to lead to long term divisions between both US political parties. This results in extremists gaining more ground pushing out the voices of moderation within both parties, negotiations between the centrist elements becoming more unpalatable, and the US political system being forced in a forever conflict between the parties – resulting in a cold civil war of sorts that results in permanent damage.
The KGB mind behind this must have been for poetic revenge. They deeply resent the dissolution and breakdown of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe, something deeply painful on a personal basis. It reminds me of Michael Caine’s character Alfred advising Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight) about how to understand a particularly unique type of criminal, one they had never faced - the Joker.
“...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
The Russian objectives simply can be reduced to ensuring payback happens. They want to watch the United States dissolve and break-down – the same way their Soviet Empire did. That’s why this persistent propaganda is so damaging. The Russians cannot beat us economically, or militarily or diplomatically. But they don’t need to beat us, if their goal is just to see our implosion.
Later in the movie, The Dark Knight, the Joker creates a particularly twisted prisoner’s dilemma situation, arming 2 culturally and socio-economically different groups of people and just waiting for them to blow each other up. I always worry if the same situation happened in a post Trump world, we would really blow each other up.
What’s particularly disturbing about President Trump’s use of black propaganda, is normalisation of this kind of activity. The Russians have just given us the matchstick and the bombs. The extreme danger I see for our democracies is propaganda continues to light these constant fires that leads to long-term dysfunctionality of our system. This coupled with debt and other liabilities can and will result in an implosion of our system: Ironically the worst thing for President Trump’s grandchildren.
Constant propaganda empowers the Joseph Goebbels of the world, and kicks out those who might be worried for their grandchildren…
So here's my research contribution to this propaganda thing for what it's worth.
(I'm a let's get to the original source kinda girl)
Oxford Latin Dictionary
Edited by P.G.W. Glare
Oxford University Press
1988
propago —are—avi—atum
1. To reproduce ( a plant) by layers or slips
(in fig. phr.) ut religio —anda..est, ..sic superstitions stirpes omnes eligendae Cic. Div. 2.149
Quam ob rem, ut religio propaganda etiam est, quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae, sic superstitionis stirpes omnes eiiciendae (eligendae). Instat enim et urget et, quo te cumque verteris, persequitur, sive tu vatem sive to omen audieris, sive immolaris sive avem aspexeris, si Chaldaeum, si haruspicem videris, si fulserit, si tonuerit, si tactum aliquid erit de caelo, si ostenti simile nauta factumve quippiam; [p.538] quorum necesse est plerumque aliquid eveniat, ut numquam liceat quieta mente consistere.
Latin (C.F.W. Muller, 1915)
Wherefore, just as it is a duty to extend the influence of true religion, which is closely associated with the knowledge of nature, so it is a duty to weed out every root of superstition. For superstition is ever at your heels to urge you on; it follows you at every turn. It is with you when you listen to a prophet, or an omen; when you offer sacrifices or watch the flight of birds; when you consult an astrologer or a soothsayer; when it thunders or lightens or there is a bolt from on high; or when some so-called prodigy is born or is made. And since necessarily some of these signs [p.538] are nearly always being given, no one who believes in them can ever remain in a tranquil state of mind.
I'm sorry to be coming to this so late due to personal issues, but hope to make up for lost time. In 2016 I created the icon I'd almost stopped using, of Lincoln looking into the mirror and seeing Donald Trump. While I'm not using it elsewhere, it must be connected with my substack subscription. It seems appropriate here so I'll keep it for now.
1. If either had been successful, we might be looking at a very different world - if the first has been successful, we might be living in Trump's 2nd term in office, in which (due to lack of support for Ukraine) Russia would have rolled over Ukraine and would be on the march in Eastern Europe. Distrust in elections (and therefore governmental institutions) would likely be even greater than it already is, among many other impacts. If the second had been successful, I think that would have plunged us into a constitutional crisis, in which (again) distrust in elections would be high, but I'm not sure how it would be resolved. Perhaps with more violence (a la January 6).
2. Transparency, or lack thereof, seems the key differentiator between the two. Reagan's speech, while slanted, was based in facts, while Trump's attempts were founded in lies. The source for the claims (of 2016 election interference by Ukraine, in the first example, and Georgia election irregularities in 2020, in the second example) were obscured and therefore hard to dispel quickly. So, we would be left with lingering doubts about the integrity of our elections.
3. If we doubt the integrity of our elections, then democracy will necessarily fall since the essence of democracy is representation through free and fair elections.
1. If he had succeeded in either example, the propaganda would have been normalized. It would have eroded the public faith in the media and crippled its role of investigating, exposing truth, and speaking to power.
2. Those three factors are intertwined. The audience and the purpose dictate the transparency – the tactic used. One tactic is the use of transparency or deception. Given that, I think transparency is the most important.
3. I think democracy thrives on white propaganda as long as it is more than one sided and open to debate. The dark, deceptive propaganda aims at society’s emotions in order to convince them the lies are in fact reality. The discussion is and becomes deeply one sided. Any debate, however tame, is classified as hostile. People feel it will all work out or get tired of fighting it and become quiet. That quiet allows the often-louder noise of lies to take up more space and eventually push democracy out of the picture.
A somewhat related follow up to today’s discussion of propaganda: Way back in the 1960’s or early 1970’s, Robert Allen and the actor, Lorne Greene, developed a game called Propaganda that was designed to teach players to recognize the various rhetorical techniques used in creating propaganda. That game has been ported to a web version at propagandagame.org. If you’re interested in learning more about propaganda techniques, check it out. [edit: fixed link]
1 If Trump's usage of dark propaganda had succeeded the media would have been guided by manipulated and self serving narratives. Due to the obvious falsehood of the information he wishes to assert, the outcome both nationally and internationally would be to desiminate widespread disinformation.
2. The differences between Regan's milder use of propaganda based in greater transparency, a coherent policy and mutual goals are quite striking. Trump's use of purposeful disinformation, self serving interests and lack of transparency clearly indicates a darker and more damaging use of propaganda.
3. The deep harm of sewing seeds of dark propaganda, based on falsehood clearly is evident as it erodes trust both in the media and society at large.
1. It sends chills down my spine when I think about what might have happened if Trump’s attempts at propaganda had been successful. I’m remembering how much controversy there was over whether Democrats should hold impeachment hearings on Ukraine — whether it was politically profitable. It’s remarkable to think of what our perceptions of Zelensky were then compared to now and how this individual that Trump and his enablers tried to turn into a pawn (and didn’t really see as significant in his own right) has emerged as one of the most important leaders of our time. Had Trump succeeded in that initial effort to paint Biden as corrupt, it could easily have turned the 2020 election. If Trump and his lackeys would have succeeded in casting doubt on the integrity of the 2020 election, it would have meant the end of our democracy. We are still not out of the woods. But I’m so thankful and impressed by Gen Z and I regularly tell my college-age children how proud I am of them and their peers for how they have stepped up for democratic values.
2. The three factors of transparency, audience, and purpose are important in helping assess what type of propaganda we're dealing with, though I’m not enamored with the white/black categorizations. It’s easy to say that Trump’s propaganda is “black” because he’s so clearly, both with Ukraine and the 2020 election, trying to manipulate people into grappling with manufactured issues while attempting to cover his tracks with post-it notes that say, “no tracks here!” With Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech, we might be tempted to categorize it as “white” propaganda (for so many reasons), but I want to call it gray propaganda. His audience and purpose are clear and he is transparent locally in the sense of how he’s representing himself and why he’s there. But in the broader context of the era, he elides the many struggles and contradictions in the U.S. and his own politics (collapse of the steel industry, his embrace of Nixon’s Southern strategy, support of South Africa’s apartheid government for starters). Which is I guess why I would say transparency is the most important factor. In contrast to either Reagan on Trump I would hold up Carter’s farewell speech as a model of transparency because he’s as unflinching about our societal shortcomings as he is hopeful about our strengths.
3. Perhaps the biggest harm that propaganda causes to democracy is the way it erodes our consensus on demonstrable fact (forget about “truth” for the moment, it’s too loaded a term). Were all the votes counted or not? Were the votes in this community cast legally? Is there really a deadly virus? Can masks/social/distancing/vaccines protect us? Were those documents classified or magically unclassified? Is taking classified documents really illegal? By jettisoning a body of demonstrable fact we are left in a swirling flush of raw power that drains directly into the sewer of authoritarianism. (And that, my friends, is how you beat a metaphor to death!)
1. Although Trump failed to get Zelensky to read his bogus statement and the DOJ to help overturn Biden’s legitimate victory in Georgia, he has still succeeded in manipulating media coverage (Fox News, OAN, etc.) in his favor and the perception of tens of millions of Americans and the majority of Republicans in Congress that HE is still their best candidate for their party in 2024! In many other countries, Trump would have been arrested and imprisoned before sundown on January 6 for an attempted coup (e.g., today’s arrest of Peru’s president for the same); and in some places, he would have been tried and executed!!!
2. Reagan and Trump are polar opposites in most every way, including the former’s use of white propaganda intended to promote freedom for the oppressed countries of the old USSR and Eastern Bloc vs. the latter’s self-serving black propaganda ONLY in an attempt at reelection to office through outrageous lies and deception. Therefore, I believe the purpose of propaganda is most important, as well as the character of the person who delivers it.
3. Trump’s propaganda has clearly harmed our democracy for perhaps a generation or longer, as he repeatedly makes false statements about the integrity of the 2020 election, the 2022 election, and no doubt after he loses, the 2024 election. For proof of the severe damage Trump has caused to our democracy, look no further than the election of despicable MAGA Republicans such as MTG, Gaetz, and countless others to Congress, while “old party” Republicans including Bush, McCain, Cheney, and Romney are now considered enemies or RINOs!
I've had a really busy week, so I'm just getting to this lesson now.
1. Oy vey! You must realize that if the Georgia letter had happened it would be a different planet now, affecting not just "domestic political events". Ukraine would be history, for example. I mean, Trump might still be in the WH. (I know others have already said this).
2. The Letter scheme is so different than Reagan's speech that they're like two different species. In any case, the 3 factors mattered a whole lot more b4 Trump normalized out-and-out lying by a President. Now, with the polarization that exists in our media and country (how could 49% of Georgia voters cast a ballot for Walker?!), it's a very heavy lift for any politician to try to bring both sides together even with real transparency and unambiguous purpose. How does one convince others that they're being transparent? Or that their purpose is being fully disclosed? So, I'd have to conclude that *audience* becomes the most critical/significant factor. And that leads to question 3:
3. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without [liberty] being lost” - Thomas Jefferson, 1786 Propaganda is anathema to democracy and a truly free press because it prevents us from knowing what is factual and what isn't. Unfortunately our media is owned by fewer and fewer people and those people seem to have agendas other than supporting democracy or a free press. The media publishes and broadcasts propaganda made to appear serious and truthful. MSNBC is almost as slanted to the left as much as Fox is hard right. Thus, consumers will opt to consume "news that suits their views". This is a huge harm to democracy because it keeps the country divided and "the other" becomes suspect and mistrusted.
1. Since the electorate seemed very split on support or opposition to him, I think the success of Ukraine propaganda would not have changed the election outcome but may have resulted in increased political violence than we actually saw. I think the media would have covered it in the same way they had from 2017- inordinate 'both side-ism' that would have increased polarization. If the fake DOJ letter had succeeded in GA, I think Trump would have been re-elected but we'd now be several steps further on the path to autocracy.
2. Purpose is the most important. Reagan was persuading for the purpose of national policy, as well as freedom and open commerce. Trump's purpose was his own retention of power and personal interests to the detriment of political opponents and the ability of Americans votes being counted in a free and fair election.
3. Persuasion to a point a view when the argument is founded on facts and evidence is foundational for compromise in democracy. Black propaganda based on lies undermines the basis for rational consideration and discussion in democracy by engaging 'lizard brain' emotional responses and disengaging rational thought. Civic trust and efforts to work together for the common good are greatly eroded when truth becomes illusory to public perception.
It may be hard to even notice that at the top of this comments list in very light font you will probably see "Top First". If you click it, you'll get a dropdown list, the other choices being "New First" and "Chronological". In most comment sections, the default mode is "New First" so you don't miss a new comment.
(1) I shudder to think
(2) Purpose: I can imagine scenarios in which the ends justify the means, e.g., when the public good is threatened, prompt action is required, and the truth will not penetrate in time. Global warming might be a case in point.
(3) The voice of the majority is only useful when the majority knows the true state of affairs, and to the extent that propaganda distorts the truth, it is destructive.
1. The immediate parallel for me is the Comey announcement in October of 2016, which became amplified through the GOP Committee who had requested an update when he last testified there, and most of the media who thrive on conflict and hints of corruption. I don’t believe the media learned much from that episode, (but we’ll know soon based on its coverage of the GOP House in 2023).
2. The purpose, it seems to me, will influence the transparency and audience. Trump’s purpose was to undermine his opponent but also advance a narrative that he would have then advanced further against all his real and perceived enemies.
3. Perhaps this is a lack of coffee, but what comes to mind immediately is a repudiation of “the people rule.” “No, you don’t” appears to be the answer offered by propagandists who seek to undermine faith in the democratic systems.
1. No change. American news media today is extremely hyperbolic. Go online and spend 10 minutes and watch France24, DW, or even Ajeerzara. The issue here is the messenger not the message. In Reagan's day, American news media served more of a filter of what was considered "news"..there was less shouting about whether Peter Jenning, or Ted Koppel more accurately reported what Reagan's goal actually was...Trump understands that the news media is about making profit via viewership that promotes ad revenue...It's the same with many of the celebrity news anchors...in Reagan's day, the salaries of frontline reporters were closer to the median pay of American workers...today that isn't the case....Again, Trump understands corruption probably better than most and he was just manipulating what was already there.
2. Transparency....but legacy media does not get it....
3. see 2....Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...How many Bay of Tonkin like events can happen before people become distrustful of whatever they see or read via the news media. There seems to be still a large number of people who intrinsically believe that "good" on its merits always triumphs over evil, and have over time resigned themselves to the idea that today's reporting is just the way things have evolved, but it don't matter because their fav. federal political party will save the day ultimately. The audience that the legacy media targets is the aforementioned and its utility for constructive change is probably permanently limited. It will continue to serve demagogues of all stripes as a vehicle promoting reactionary events (which promotes viewership hence ad revenue), but as a tool for shaping opinion via propaganda the battle has moved onto social media. Here we are today, reading and writing about current affairs as oppose to listening or reading Thomas Friedmen pontificate about how McDonald's is saving democracy.
I found Asha’s second question particularly thought provoking. One has to really think deeply about the difference between what Reagan and Trump engaged in. Let’s look at Reagan’s speech critically; it is unashamedly an attempt to influence the public opinion. Does it matter if it is for one’s ideas or one’s nation versus personal gain. One can psychologically theorise that Reagan could have been deluding himself into thinking what he was doing was for his nation and for freedom at large while it was possibly just fulfilling personal fantasies or biases against communist systems rather than the strength of democracies. The road to hell is paved with good intentions – so I must move the importance of purpose much lower. Purpose is very subjective, and history is written by the winners.
I take inspiration from the SEC’s laws on spread of misinformation here. There’s a great article on Forbes, authored by the famous short-seller Carson Block of Muddy Waters Research. Can The SEC Model Help Cure American Democracy? (forbes.com)
Quite simply, if a person or entity has knowingly spread information, they know to be false, with the intent of manipulating security prices – there are criminal consequences attached to it. He advocates expanding this to the broader 1A sphere. There is precedent of allowing judicial inquiry into the free speech and first amendment arena. He alludes to a 1944 supreme court case, U.S. v. Ballard, where the court ruled that that it was valid to determine whether one’s claimed religious beliefs were genuine regardless of actual truth to the matter.
While Donald Trump would have likely deluded himself into believing that Joe Biden Jr. was up to no good, and could have likely continued to make these statements, the SEC style framework would allow us to scrutinise the likes of Fox News or others who were in possession of information contradicting these statements or the DOJ or State Department. If we would or can force these entities into legal jeopardy for propagating lies they know to be false – that immediately puts a firebreak in the whole spread of information.
Therefore, I will conclude transparency, declaration of conflicts of interest and their underlying interests and motivation is much more important than purpose and audience in deciding what the fine line between acceptable propaganda is and what isn't. It may not be the answer many of us are looking for, but we have to operate in constrained optimisation problem sets and must also protect the first amendment's spirit while we are at it - or the great risk is - in fighting the Russian inspired propaganda, we ourselves set foot in the trojan horse of attacking the very core of our founding principles.
Hi everyone,
I am sorry for submitting my "homework" late!, but alas it is wedding season!
Let me immediately take a stab at the last question Asha poses with some theatrical props.
It is difficult to extrapolate accurately as to the impacts of the black propaganda that Trump aimed to employ. Some of these events would have happened regardless of specific actions that Mr. Trump undertook because of the extreme underlying polarisation in the United States, amplified by reiterative social media algorithms, simply looking for a scandal to fuel the flames. No doubt there are ways of ensuring we neutralise the flames before they metastasize into wildfires – and to the extent that the plan would have worked – candidate Biden would have likely been finished. Trump wanted another extremist on the democratic ticket – like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders – similar to the original Russian plan.
The original Russian plan didn’t particularly seem to focus on installing President Trump who they believed had low chances, according to the intelligence community accounts. They (the Russians) were playing a game of probabilities and their main agenda was chaos and long-term division and impairment of the US political system. They worked against Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and a few others of the republican centrist establishment. They did not particularly simply attack candidate Clinton because she had more of a hard-line position than candidate Trump on Russia. It is likely that a President Warren could have been much more hawkish with respect to Russia than a President Clinton. They simply didn’t care. In supporting the Bernie Sanders and Trumps of the world – the whole objective of Russian black propaganda was to lead to long term divisions between both US political parties. This results in extremists gaining more ground pushing out the voices of moderation within both parties, negotiations between the centrist elements becoming more unpalatable, and the US political system being forced in a forever conflict between the parties – resulting in a cold civil war of sorts that results in permanent damage.
The KGB mind behind this must have been for poetic revenge. They deeply resent the dissolution and breakdown of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe, something deeply painful on a personal basis. It reminds me of Michael Caine’s character Alfred advising Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight) about how to understand a particularly unique type of criminal, one they had never faced - the Joker.
“...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
The Russian objectives simply can be reduced to ensuring payback happens. They want to watch the United States dissolve and break-down – the same way their Soviet Empire did. That’s why this persistent propaganda is so damaging. The Russians cannot beat us economically, or militarily or diplomatically. But they don’t need to beat us, if their goal is just to see our implosion.
Later in the movie, The Dark Knight, the Joker creates a particularly twisted prisoner’s dilemma situation, arming 2 culturally and socio-economically different groups of people and just waiting for them to blow each other up. I always worry if the same situation happened in a post Trump world, we would really blow each other up.
What’s particularly disturbing about President Trump’s use of black propaganda, is normalisation of this kind of activity. The Russians have just given us the matchstick and the bombs. The extreme danger I see for our democracies is propaganda continues to light these constant fires that leads to long-term dysfunctionality of our system. This coupled with debt and other liabilities can and will result in an implosion of our system: Ironically the worst thing for President Trump’s grandchildren.
Constant propaganda empowers the Joseph Goebbels of the world, and kicks out those who might be worried for their grandchildren…
So here's my research contribution to this propaganda thing for what it's worth.
(I'm a let's get to the original source kinda girl)
Oxford Latin Dictionary
Edited by P.G.W. Glare
Oxford University Press
1988
propago —are—avi—atum
1. To reproduce ( a plant) by layers or slips
(in fig. phr.) ut religio —anda..est, ..sic superstitions stirpes omnes eligendae Cic. Div. 2.149
Quam ob rem, ut religio propaganda etiam est, quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae, sic superstitionis stirpes omnes eiiciendae (eligendae). Instat enim et urget et, quo te cumque verteris, persequitur, sive tu vatem sive to omen audieris, sive immolaris sive avem aspexeris, si Chaldaeum, si haruspicem videris, si fulserit, si tonuerit, si tactum aliquid erit de caelo, si ostenti simile nauta factumve quippiam; [p.538] quorum necesse est plerumque aliquid eveniat, ut numquam liceat quieta mente consistere.
Latin (C.F.W. Muller, 1915)
Wherefore, just as it is a duty to extend the influence of true religion, which is closely associated with the knowledge of nature, so it is a duty to weed out every root of superstition. For superstition is ever at your heels to urge you on; it follows you at every turn. It is with you when you listen to a prophet, or an omen; when you offer sacrifices or watch the flight of birds; when you consult an astrologer or a soothsayer; when it thunders or lightens or there is a bolt from on high; or when some so-called prodigy is born or is made. And since necessarily some of these signs [p.538] are nearly always being given, no one who believes in them can ever remain in a tranquil state of mind.
English (William Armistead Falconer, 1923)
Cicero
De Divinatione
Bk 2
Section 149
(perseus.tufts.edu)
I'm sorry to be coming to this so late due to personal issues, but hope to make up for lost time. In 2016 I created the icon I'd almost stopped using, of Lincoln looking into the mirror and seeing Donald Trump. While I'm not using it elsewhere, it must be connected with my substack subscription. It seems appropriate here so I'll keep it for now.