Propaganda

Speaker A: 00:00:00

olutely superb looking Soviet: 1930

Speaker B: 00:03:38

Well, all I have to say is stay home, protect the NHS, save lives. You know, arguably, there's one of the largest propaganda campaigns ever run and had massive impact success in terms of changing people's behaviour. And that was very, very recently. And it involved posters, and it involved TV adverts, and it involved big government speaky people standing up and saying things into microphones. So. Well, I didn't fall for it. And I've only had COVID twice. But equally, you know, you could look at anti-vaxxer propaganda as well as existing. So I think the idea that it doesn't exist now is definitely or very arguably not the case.

Speaker A: 00:04:35

he term comes apparently from: 1622

Speaker B: 00:05:32

Yes. And I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church is a highly neutral organisation.

Speaker A: 00:05:37

at the end of World War One,: 1918

Speaker B: 00:08:24

That's what we mean by propaganda. Chris. I was just going to add one more thing, I think, to the to the definition, which I think makes it propaganda. And that is probably I think most people's understanding is that it is some in some way supportive of a political cause. It's not, we don't think of marketing as propaganda, even though they share lots of the same techniques, approaches, psychology. Propaganda tends to be about a sort of political or possibly religious cause, but not trying to flog you something.

Speaker A: 00:09:04

Gotcha. That being the case, and you know, is propaganda dead then? Are we immune to it? And I don't know if this is too early to come on to you, Jordan. But if you're thinking of something very contemporary, let's say you're a 50 something Russian. I would argue that propaganda is definitely not dead. Although I don't know if anyone is actually arguing that I'm not sure. Because it's I mean, I think The Economist ran a really interesting article a few weeks ago, which is what does life look like in the day of a 50 something year old Russian. And they went through, you know, starting with the morning might listen to the radio and then, you know, catch something on the internet, and then maybe read a newspaper, all the way through to the evening talk show and stuff. And essentially, what was clear, and I was persuaded by what The Economist was saying is that, you know, constantly all day long, if you're the average Russian of that age, of how you access news, it is essentially you are being fed propaganda by, you know, an autocratic state. And so, you know, the political aims and misinformation of what's happening in Ukraine, looks really powerful and impactful. And it works. So certainly some, and that's it. But I think that suggests that propaganda can't act alone, it needs other things around it supporting

Speaker C: 00:10:21

it for his aim. I don't know if that's relevant or not. But anyway, do you want to pick that up, Jordan? In my research, I came across this concept called rewired propaganda. It was a term coined by Sarah Oates. And it basically it suggests that the it's concerning Russia, specifically. And it's it's, it's a theory that to understand political power in Russia. It's not so much who owns or controls the media, which is possibly what propaganda looked like in the past. But it's more about how information is constructed and disseminated to produce the most compelling narrative. And I think the tools that are used now, definitely rely on a digital media landscape, social media. And they're not so much top down models, but they're more sort of esoteric internet communities that can leverage misinformation and disinformation to basically construct narratives of truth. And I think that also sort of segues into other forms of modern propaganda, such as memes and internet culture. I recently saw a documentary called Feels Good Man. It was about the creator of the Pepe the Frog meme. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but it's quite a popular meme. And it's been, it's basically been co-opted by the far right in not just in America, but sort of globally. And the documentary follows this, the inventor of the cartoon, the Pepe the Frog cartoon, and how he basically just lost control of his cartoon as it just was shared and shared and shared by far right political activists on the internet and used for all sorts of messaging, political messaging that he didn't approve of, but had ultimately no control over because it was just being shared on different forums. So yeah, I think that's another way of how, it's not state sanctioned propaganda the way we used to think about it, but it's, it's just as influential and just as powerful. And, and I think it also shows that it can, we don't have so much control over it either these days, it can get sort of lost in, in all these different internet sort of vacuums.

Speaker A: 00:12:54

Although that works, that fits nicely into, you know, what's happened to media in general, you know, that we've moved from a situation where producing media was expensive, and only a small number of organizations could do it. And therefore, if you wanted to influence people and have an information campaign, you would have to either be or have strong influence over one of those organizations to a situation where anyone could produce information. And, you know, you would expect that to have an impact on the way that propaganda works. And I think you might expect it to just be harder, like I suppose I did, you know, going back to my expectations about the internet, it would just be harder to do propaganda. But it seems like actually what's happened is it's mutated. And it's now, you know, you want perhaps to use people to amplify your message. You know, you're not, it's no longer that you you generate things on the internet, but that you perhaps generate them in a small way or have them promoted via, if you like, kind of fellow travelers who are inclined to share your viewpoint in the first place. And that's now the way to do it. It's not by spewing out the information, but by getting other people to share it for you. So it makes sense. It makes sense that that will be one way in which it's mutated. Yeah, because there's a lack of, I think it's what you said, a lack of control, right, over means of dissemination. So it's being a bit cleverer about it. But I think I just want to pick up something Jordan used, talked about disinformation and misinformation. I think it's quite a useful breakdown I found from Claire Wardle, which I think more or less it is sort of two axes. One is truth and one is harm. Now, obviously, harm is subjective. You might, the Russians might claim that truth is subjective as well. But let's, let's assume that truth is subjective. Not just the Russians. No, but I mean, let's, let's, let's at least sort of say that harm is something which harms us, right, whatever, whoever we are. So it might be actively helpful to someone else. But I mean, let's assume it's sort of designed to cause some effect which harms someone. So if you have information that's false, but not disseminated for any harmful reason, that's misinformation. When you have information that's false and with harmful intent, that's disinformation. But actually, there is an interesting category of malinformation, which is information that's true, but is still shared with the intent of causing harm. Yeah, what would be a good example of that? Well, it's difficult to talk about this without straying into into controversial territory, I think. But I mean, Go for it. Well, I, I suppose you could say you could say that, let's say that there's, I don't know, that there probably were some side effects from vaccinations, for example. And if I were to share some news stories to say, Oh, yeah, look at these side effects without putting them into context or without trying to, you know, think about the, you know, the sort of big statistical picture that could fall into that category, you know, that I'm okay, it's true. Technically, what I'm spreading is, is true. But it's still malinformation.

Speaker C: 00:16:16

Would bots and trolls also potentially fall into that category, like entities online that are designed to just plant fake stories?

Speaker A: 00:16:26

Well, if it's not, but this is, I suppose, this is quite a tricky, yeah. I mean, I heard someone recently say that the best trolling is actually true, is when you say something that's true, but kind of uncomfortable or, or controversial. Yeah, quite like the opposite of that as well, which is not true, but well intentioned.

Speaker B: 00:16:47

Of which there's plenty around. But I but I think that that's,

Speaker A: 00:16:50

That's my kind of thing. That's what I mean. Well, actually, we might want to touch on that. Because I was going to say one of the things you were talking about the all encompassing environment of propaganda where, you know, which is perhaps would only be familiar to someone who's lived in a country where that's the case, but where you know, your propaganda radar might go off a bit, but you but eventually everything you see, just is all pointing the same direction. And eventually, you just sort of think, well, some of this has to be true. Like, it can't all be lies. But but I think some people might say the same about, you know, the kinds of values that are promoted, eg by the BBC or bits in the to promote a certain sort of slightly more progressive set of values than perhaps the average person in the street might might have. And, you know, is that propaganda, even if it's well intentioned?

Speaker B: 00:17:47

and so forth. And in the year: 2014

Speaker A: 00:23:54

We need to start moving in a direction of a conclusion. I've definitely got a question I want to ask at the end. I think there's at least one or two areas we still need to cover. Well, I haven't really mentioned the concept of antibodies. Oh, before you do. Yeah. Just to say, Chris, I'm sure when you were talking about propaganda and Fox News, I'm sure you weren't suggesting that Fox News is some sort of propaganda machine. No. And highly objective TV media outlet. Exactly. Antibodies. Yeah. Yeah. Let's get, yeah, antibodies. This will be interesting. Well, no, it's more the, so it's the idea. I mean, the question of whether society can be sort of immunised against certain kinds of thing. But the idea, there's a term which is anti-inductive, which is sort of once you try something, it doesn't work again, is the idea. Which I think, well, I came across it in Slate Star Codex in an article called The Influenza of Evil, which is making the point that if you were going to get another fascist dictatorship, it couldn't really look like the Nazis. Because as soon as you have, you know. That looks too much like the Nazis. As soon as you've got, you know, black uniforms and red arm bands and scary music and imperialist architecture, people go, that's a bit scary. That looks like the Nazis. I'm not going to go along with that. But when the Nazis first appeared, people just thought, well, this is a good, a nice, healthy expression of German nationalism. Yeah, it's nice and organised. People didn't think that's it. And I guess we could say the same about, you know, propaganda from the olden days. So I think there's clearly, you know, something there, the idea that we acquire kind of cognitive or social antibodies against certain kinds of things. And I think I've seen that a little bit with clickbait, which I feel like it was. I mean, I'm only speaking from my own experience, but that, you know, I certainly was a victim of clickbait for quite a long time. It was very difficult to avoid. That's what's so good about clickbait. That's what was so effective, is that you still want to know what number seven is and why it's so surprising. You won't believe number seven in, yeah. And there's a pull now, but I feel completely immune to the extent that even if an article might be interesting, but if it even looks like clickbait, I won't click on it. And I, you know, clickbait's become a cliche. You know, people make jokes about that style of kind of headline. So I feel like, you know, clickbait has lost its power. It must have done to some extent compared to where it was, you know, 10 or 15 years ago. The question is whether we can acquire those kinds of antibodies to fake news and, you know, which is obviously slightly more insidious. Articles which, you know, look like news articles, but are actually entirely designed to make you think a certain way. And indeed, whether as individuals, whether we'd want to acquire immunity, because, you know, I really like reading articles about how, you know, crime is rising or something like that. It sort of reaffirms my sort of worldview. Given what you're talking about there and the evolution of propaganda and, you know, this question of immunities, are we ready to talk about the future? Is that what we want to move on to? Or is there anything?

Speaker B: 00:27:21

Just very briefly, that's true. And yet there are recurrent motifs in propaganda, like the same anti-Semitic tropes are being used today as were being used in the 20s and 30s. Really? Can you give me an example of a modern day one? Well, the depiction of a Jewish internationalist, you know, the actual artist, you know, the image of them is still the same demonic kind of figure, you know, and the very same sets of things are being said about them as well that, you know, they have no national ties and they're interested in commerce and they're controlling the world. And it's the same stuff and it's still there. Yes, within anti-Semitic, you know, communities within the Middle East and within the West, you know, where this stuff gets passed around. That's what it looks like. OK.

Speaker A: 00:28:23

If you look at any set of messages, right, whenever there's some kind of conflict or anything, you know, it's going to be the same, right? I mean, the message, the actual content is always about, you know, we're the good guys and you look at the Russian line on Ukraine, for example, it's not an invasion. It's a sort of necessary intervention to remove Nazis from, you know, from government and, you know, protect innocent people. I mean, it's very much exactly the sort of thing we would say, you know, you take something like, I don't know, the Falklands, strip out the Nazis or the Gulf War or anything. I mean, you know, there's a line which is that you're the good guys. We're the good guys. And that is never going to change. I think this is about style, isn't it? This is about the way that that is packaged in a way that is going to make it persuasive. And I think what we've said is that, you know, in the old days, you might have a poster campaign or make a film which, you know, pushes that line. And we've become immune to that. So now it's, you know, clickbait articles which support that viewpoint and, you know, and fake news. I think that that's what we're saying is the not that the messages have changed, but that the way that they're packaged. Okay. Which means just for the future, it's always going to be like that, because as you say, it's just the channel will change or the channels will change. But it's always going to be a similar, same sort of message. Right. Jordan, anything to add at this point?

Speaker C: 00:29:55

I think internet cultures and like communities of users online though, and the way that they might use propaganda is quite, it's substantially more subtle than what we're sort of talking about. Like to take memes, for example, like you can slightly, ever so slightly change a meme and create like a completely new meaning that maybe only like a small group of users might understand. And it's sort of like an in joke, for example, that then can get sort of, it can sort of snowball online and develop more and more followers. And it's not necessarily for a specific, it's not trying to be like, we're the good guys and you're the bad guys, but it's more sort of people that are in the know that understand the kind of connotations and the context of that meme that then can share it with other people that understand it. And then it will eventually sort of mean something, but only to a select group of people. So I think it's, I think propaganda, especially online and in internet communities is becoming much more subtle and delicate and almost like a bit more of an art form, I would say, than sort of really obvious propaganda that everyone will just immediately understand when they look at it.

Speaker A: 00:31:11

Yeah, but I don't think it seemed obvious. I mean, I would imagine that when people first saw Triumph of the Will, they thought, what a great film. They didn't think this is obvious propaganda. Same with things like Battleship Potemkin or other things that we now look at and go, well, that's obvious propaganda. Why would anyone have believed that crap?

Speaker B: 00:31:26

Well, look at the Marvel film franchise, for example, you know, obviously, you know, well, no, but most superhero culture arose from essentially pro-US sort of wartime propaganda.

Speaker C: 00:31:42

Yeah, it's still wartime. I think the difference with the internet stuff is you don't know what the purpose is necessarily, like even Triumph of the Will, it's still about national, it's still broad, like it's still kind of obvious what the themes are. But with a meme, the themes are not, they're very hidden, very disguised. I think it's much harder to detect the meaning.

Speaker A: 00:32:04

Okay, I've got a question I want to ask, but before I do, anything anyone needs me to move on to?

Speaker B: 00:32:09

Well, I think that's a point we can pick up on as we start to talk, you know, about the future, but that idea that it is less accessible. So propaganda initially had to be obvious and appeal to everybody because that was the media context, right? You put a film on, Pathé News sits at the cinema, everybody goes to the cinema, you've got to hit everybody with one little 10 minute clip, right? Whereas now, I think Jordan's point is you've got these tiny little subcultures and they've got their own propaganda and if I pick it up, I read it and I read it at face value and there's all this dog whistle stuff going on within it that you have to be, esoteric is the right word, you have to be a deep expert in whatever the hell it is those guys are going on about to know what it means. So the meaning is hidden, whereas the meaning of propaganda previously was obvious and overt.

Speaker A: 00:33:05

Although that's, hold on, sorry Nick, sorry. Although that's, I can see there's some truth in that. That does go, I think, in the opposite direction to what we were talking about, stay home, protect the NHS, where like I said, a big event and with a clear big message and you're being told this is a message. So there is still, so you can still have both maybe still. Sorry Nick, I was interrupting, I cut you off there. So I think there is something interesting about the things that Jordan was talking about, which that's just reminded me of, which is the fact that I think when you do have a small number of media organisations doing everything, there's a consciousness to, okay, this is propaganda, we're spinning, we're trying to convince people to do this thing that they wouldn't otherwise do and this is how we're going to do it. I think it is interesting that actually a lot of online, let's call it propaganda, but you know, is spread voluntarily by people who think it's the truth. That's like the people who come up with it might not believe it, but you know, once it's out there, it relies on the fellow travellers who actually believe it to promote it. So I was thinking about something like, I mean, obviously a lot of conspiracy theories I think fall into this kind of domain, but Pizzagate, for example, which is one of the most bizarre phenomena, I think, of the online environment. Is this the Prince Andrew thing? No, no, no, no.

Speaker B: 00:34:25

What is Pizzagate? I don't know. Hillary Clinton and child sex rings.

Speaker A: 00:34:30

ah, so during, I think it was: 2016

Speaker C: 00:35:42

I think believed it or thought it was funny. I think that's another key thing is like there's, there's a, humour plays a massive part, I think, in the sharing of this kind of messaging online is it like this kind of propaganda works really well with like the deep kind of irony and cynicism. Like birds or robots.

Speaker B: 00:35:59

Is that the, the, the American, where, where people are going around as a conspiracy theory. Birds aren't real. Birds aren't real. Right. Okay.

Speaker C: 00:36:08

I think, yeah, I think it just, these sort of the, these kinds of more sadistic or even darker kinds of things, they work really well online for people to sort of use as comedic devices.

Speaker A: 00:36:20

n of the UK mainland in what?: 1940

Speaker C: 00:40:05

Ridicules it.

Speaker A: 00:40:05

And I think if there was a competition between British and German propaganda, the point is that German propaganda took itself so seriously, so heavy handed, you know, it's all about the might of Germany and how, you know, the Western countries, all the Bolsheviks are all evil. And whereas our propaganda was all taking the Mickey out of, you know, the Germans, that's much more effective.

Speaker B: 00:40:28

Well, we all know about Hitler in the Albert Hall, don't we?

Speaker A: 00:40:31

Well, exactly. Let's have Jordan, then Chris, please.

Speaker C: 00:40:35

The one that comes to mind is like just the North Korean propaganda that comes out. It's like that heavily stylized, really sensationalist, like over the top glorification of the leader and denigration of like the United States and the West. And you just get little snippets sometimes of videos and like promotional material that they release online.

Speaker B: 00:40:56

And the famous newsreader. And then the famous newsreader.

Speaker C: 00:40:59

And I don't know, it's just quite... What was the famous newsreader? They were crying? Or no, or shouting?

Speaker B: 00:41:03

There's a sort of middle-aged North Korean woman newsreader who is sort of famed for this very, very strident and, you know, you have to watch it to sort of understand it properly. I think I've seen it, actually.

Speaker C: 00:41:22

At least she's like a big celebrity in North Korea, like a celebrated national hero.

Speaker A: 00:41:27

he kind of thing that said in: 1984

Speaker B: 00:41:39

ost of mine boils down to the: 1980

Speaker A: 00:43:24

Although I think the fact that you spotted it and no one took it seriously shows that it was already old hat in terms of a propaganda approach, I think. Yeah. And as we know from Chris's past confessions, it didn't work on him either about this whole...

Speaker B: 00:43:38

No, that's because I liked Skeletor. Yeah.

Speaker A: 00:43:42

Okay, nice, nice. I enjoyed that. I think we covered things pretty well there. Even if I say so myself. Maybe that's my own bit of propaganda. We'll stop there. Say it often enough and it turns true. Exactly. Thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Chris Wragg, Nick Hare and Jordan Fermanis of Aleph Insights. Until next time, goodbye.