He describes, "Libya happens to be the one country where motives, financial capabilities, and mineral geography could have smoothly converged to make the Pakistani project feasible" In addition to linking Pakistan with terrorist nations, there was a desire to also link it with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. The need, from a propagandistic point of view, is one in the same.
That is, there was a desire to expand the ideology by mentioning almost every United States enemy surrounding Pakistan. Although there was virtually no political connection between Pakistan and the former Soviet Union at the time , Jones was able to make the connection through another avenue of thought:. If proliferation in the region furthers divisiveness and political instability, the Soviet Union will be impelled to make the best of it, and the net consequence of that over the long term are likely to be adverse for the West.
In short, although nuclear proliferation as a general matter is contrary to the interests of both superpowers, it is arguably less damaging to the superpower that ultimately prefers fundamental changes in the structure of world politics than to the one that favors evolutionary change in the world order Therefore, Jones used three approaches to linking Pakistan with American enemies: 1. Creating political ties by suggestions that one is another through similarity by association with another pre-established norm as with the reference to Iran.
Creating religious ties of labels and dehumanization of the Islamic Bomb 3. Creating external relationships playing on social proof and paranoia in which there was a passage where he described how Pakistan would indirectly help the former Soviet Union whether they wanted to or not, since their control of nuclear technology would upset the current balance of power in the area.
The media will present the reader of viewer with information, but specific propaganda tactics help shape the presentation of the information to be more effective and help persuade people to think about the topic in a certain context. We will explore another example of how the facts are tinted using propaganda tactics with a focus on how the American media portrays the stability of Pakistan. As with the tactics that link Pakistan to nations that are considered enemies of the United States, the key will be to focus on how the factual information is presented, in what context, to serve what purpose.
By media displaying Pakistan as an unstable nation while discussing nuclear technology, it will persuade the public to fear Pakistan. This tactic which is Enemy as Barbarian: threat to culture is intended to create an enemy, by creating a sense that Pakistan is a country that is not worthy of nuclear technology.
The idea behind enemy as barbarian is to portray the subject as rude, crude, uncivilized, and animalistic. Thus the media describe Pakistan in terms that will establish it as a global threat because of their instability. It read as follows: "I am one of the kindest persons in Pakistan.
I feed the birds, I feed ants in the morning. I feed monkeys that come down the mountain" "Quote of the Day" Although the Post acknowledges the accomplishments of Khan as an engineer, they clearly represent Pakistan in a way that is far from establishing it as an advanced country technically.
The rural feel of "monkeys that come down the mountain" is enough to make any reader question the reliability of nuclear technology in a country that appears to be far from modern. In fact, this propagandistic tactic is highly subtle, since the connection to nuclear weapons is not directly made in the quote. It is not until the reader read the last two lines that the connection is made:.
By connecting the speaker with the nuclear weapons, the Post was able to thus connect the rural feeling created by the quote to the nuclear technology. Since one does not imply the other, there is a sense of uneasiness created in the mind of the reader. The critical point is that although the quote is correct factually, the context in which it is presented, the specific form and placement of labels, is what makes it propaganda.
In another article in the Los Angeles Times describing nuclear technology in Pakistan, the reference to the instability of the nation was more direct:. The article continues by explaining that "Myron Weiner, a sociologist and South Asia expert at MIT, is one of the many analysts who say they are concerned that if Pakistan is pushed to the brink of financial ruin This tactic relies on authority of an expert testimony which is explained in the introduction as a heuristic that when someone credible and in this case by title of an expert, a person will automatically believe the information to be correct.
To media uses this tactic to help establish the ideologue that the unstable region of Pakistan can only cause problems with their nuclear technology. In effect, the purpose of the propaganda will be to ensure that French nuclear technology appears non-threatening. In order to achieve this goal, the media had to take the focus of nuclear technology away from the military implications and focus it elsewhere.
- Your Birthday, your way?
- The Coming Automation of Propaganda.
- Perfect Chemistry (Perfect Chemistry, Book 1).
- Transportation Planning: State of the Art.
- Handbook of International Economics, Volume 3 (Handbooks in Economics).
- Intergovernmental Transfers for Environmental Infrastructure Lessons from Armenia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Many articles that came out in newspapers across America after France exploded their first atomic bomb on February 13, shifted the focus toward more political themes. This is a clear example of the Dune affect, which states that those who control the media control the opinions of the people. Subjectively, the media focuses on shifting the focus from something bad to something good when it serves the ideology they wish to spread. Furthermore, it is possible for this to be work because this exploits a well-known principle of human behavior which says, "people simply like to have reasons for what they do" Cialdini 3.
Thus, the media only needs to give a reason for their message despite its validity in order for it to be accepted. Thus the reader becomes interested the diplomacy that comes with the nuclear technology instead of the implications for destruction. To strengthen this effect of the shift of emphasis, the Tribune article moves to discuss the effects of the nuclear weapons of "restoring French grandeur and influence Effectively turning the emphasis from war to de Gaulle and French diplomacy relies heavily on the persuasive techniques in reprogramming which allows the author to shift the focus and begin making greater speculations.
Twisting the focus degrees, from the destructive technology, to diplomacy, to disarmament talks, the article was able to spin the truth or reality because it served the purpose of the propagandist who had control of the media.
Similarly, the New York Times published an article a week after the test in which it emphasized the impact of the French nuclear technology on NATO instead of war: "By joining the atomic club, de Gaulle hopes to gain a voice in big power disarmament decisions and to increase the influence of French diplomacy" Sulzberger And so the propaganda tactic of giving any justification because people simply like to have reasons for what they do comes into play as the article persuades the reader to focus on the non-threatening nature of the technology.
This persuasion comes across the strongest when the article explains that the French nuclear technology was designed "to increase the influence of French diplomacy," since this goal encompasses no aggressive intentions on the part of the French. The article continues by stating that "Eventually it would be sensible to give the French certain nuclear arms in return got promises to use such weapons as NATO requires" Sulzberger Since the article began by suggesting that France is worthy of nuclear weapons, since they will not use them for ill deeds, the idea of giving them nuclear technology would now seem logical.
I run a programme at a London university that researches the newer breeds of malign influence campaign across the world — and tries to find ways to combat them. But the language, ideals, tactics and stories that sustained the struggle for democracy in the 20th century are now used by the very forces they were meant to fight.
Consider the Philippines. Today Manila greets you with sudden gusts of rotting fish and popcorn smells, wafts of sewage and cooking oil. Soon you start noticing the selfies. Everyone is at it: the sweaty guy in greasy flip-flops riding the metal canister of a bus; the Chinese girls waiting for their cocktails in the malls. Glenda Gloria remembers the Marcos years. Her boyfriend had been arrested for running a small independent printing press and had had electrodes connected to his testicles.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Propaganda Exhibit
With technology. Experienced journalists like Gloria and editor-in-chief Maria Ressa hired year-olds who knew about social media. When Duterte decided to stand in the presidential election of he and Rappler seemed made for each other. A mayor from a provincial town with a reputation for being tough on drug offences, Duterte got relatively little TV time and so focused on social media. When Rappler hosted a Facebook presidential debate, he was the only candidate to turn up. It was an overwhelming success.
His message — to vanquish drug crime — was catching on. When jokes are used by the weak to poke fun at the powerful, they can bring authority figures back down to earth. But when such language is used consistently by men of real power to degrade those who are weaker, this humour grows into something menacing: it lays the linguistic path to humiliating victims in other ways as well, to a space where norms disappear. Human rights organisations estimate 12, — the government claims 4, At one point an average of 33 people were being killed a day, by police and vigilante gangs riding around on motorcycles.
There is little due process to ascertain if the murdered were guilty. Shame on you! The government launched a court case against her. She walked around town with bail money on her. As soon as one case was thrown out another would appear. International human rights groups call them politically motivated. After several months of this onslaught, the Rapplers dedicated themselves to making sense of the attacks. First to catch their eye were the Korean pop stars.
They kept appearing in their online community, commenting on how great Duterte was. How likely was it that Korean pop stars would be interested in Filipino politics? When they checked out the comments the pop stars were making they matched one another word for word: obviously fake accounts, most likely controlled from the same source.
They ran a program that scoured the internet to see who else was using the same language. They found other accounts repeating the same phrases. These looked more realistic, claiming to be real Filipinos with real jobs. The Rapplers began researching each one individually, calling their purported places of employment. No one had heard of them.
P set up a series of local Facebook groups, each focused on local events and news. Once they had all grown to about , members, he started to post one local crime story each day. Underneath each story his staff — posing as ordinary people — would post comments linking the crime to drugs. P steadily increased the number of crime stories. Soon enough, drug crime became a key election topic. But this is not just a tale about the rule of strongmen and those fighting back.
The new information war is being fought online, particularly on social media, in democracies like ours, too. Still, the link between disinformation and the rise of autocracy is clear.