Peter Pomerantsev, a contributor at The Atlantic and creator of This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures within the Struggle In opposition to Actuality, is an knowledgeable on the methods info may be manipulated. For this particular episode, Megan talks with Peter in regards to the function of propaganda in America and easy methods to be careful for it.
On the lookout 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.
Pay attention and subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts
The next is a transcript of the episode:
Megan Garber: Andrea, while you consider propaganda, what first involves thoughts?
Andrea Valdez: Mmm. Uncle Sam posters in the course of the conflict effort: you recognize, I need you. And Rosie the Riveter: you recognize, We will do it. And, um, conflict posters from World Struggle II and World Struggle 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, principally nearly like promoting billboards—besides the merchandise being bought 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 trade. And one of many core concepts in promoting is that when you’re in a technique interesting to customers’ rationality, you’re additionally—and infrequently much more so—interesting to their feelings.
Valdez: Mm. And probably the most basic methods to attraction to feelings is basically simply utilizing charged language. The platforms can change—posters, commercials, cartoons, social media—however one frequent denominator, all through the entire 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, in fact, propaganda isn’t simply a component of the previous, proper? It’s very a lot part of our current actuality.
Valdez: Sure. And, you recognize, that will get to one of many core questions from our season, The right way to Know What’s Actual. In terms of info, what’s actual? This query feels particularly pressing round our political realities. Proper now there’s a presidential election arising, and it seems like so many individuals, each right here and overseas, dwell in their very own particular person political realities. Clearly, propaganda has performed a giant function right here.
Garber: Yeah. And that has me considering, too, about what makes sure sorts of messaging propaganda. And I assume how the methods it’s developed and devolved may 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.
Peter Pomerantsev: I truly known as my second e book This Is Not Propaganda after which just about by no means use the phrase within the e book, as a result of I assumed, This phrase has change into so polluted and contentious that it’s pointless.
Garber: That’s Peter Pomerantsev. He’s an Atlantic contributor and the creator of a number of books—together with Nothing Is True and All the things 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 info may 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 truly is.
—
Pomerantsev: The fashionable utilization of the time period begins with the Counter-Reformation. And the Catholic Church is frightened in regards to the unfold of Protestantism, saying, De propaganda fide: “Go and unfold the religion.” It’s not about info. It’s about persuasion. But it surely’s not a destructive time period. And one of many causes some historians assume that we use the time period negatively is as a result of within the Protestant custom, something related to the Catholic Church is destructive. So propaganda turns into a destructive phrase in England and northern Europe, as a result of it’s about Catholics. So, you recognize 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 typically destructive connotation, I’m questioning should you can assist delineate the way it’s completely different from different types of info switch. As a result of there are numerous locations, outdoors of politics but additionally inside it, the place the form of persuasive info you’re describing—the brand new types of “spreading the religion,” nearly—is legit.
Pomerantsev: Propaganda primarily means types of mass persuasion—that’s, to the advantage of the individual doing it relatively 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 intention. It’s you making an attempt to get someone else to do what you need. Frankly, propaganda is often utilized in a destructive manner, within the sense that it’s often by some means duplicitous; it’s by some means deceiving individuals in regards to the true nature of its goals. So, the best way it’s change into used, you recognize, 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 manner that entails some kind 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 expect this overstepped a line, which begins to mess up democracy?
Garber: I need to pivot, then, to one in all 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’m wondering in regards to the state of propaganda there—what does it really feel wish to dwell in an info setting 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 recognize, some story in regards to the wonderful Communist future. It’s outlined by seeding doubt, conspiracy idea, suspicion, with an intention of creating individuals so confused they don’t know what’s true and what’s not. Making them really feel completely passive and primarily saying, Look, on this world the place there are not any values, no fact, whole confusion, you want a robust man to steer you thru the murk. You already know, it’s fairly weird transferring to America and discovering so many individuals who, echoing issues that I’d heard in Russia, have been like, “Oh, you possibly can’t inform the distinction between fact and lies, you don’t know who’s mendacity, you possibly can’t belief anyone anymore. You already know, I don’t belief anyone. I simply go together with my emotions.” Which is essentially the most manipulable factor.
Garber: So I’d like to ask you about this concept that propaganda isn’t all the time 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 just a little bit extra about how cynicism elements into propaganda?
Pomerantsev: Properly, the kind of propaganda that Putin places out is all about that. You already know, efficient propaganda all the time works with the grain of what individuals really feel. There was a deep cynicism within the final kind 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 recognize. It’s going with the movement, and it’s weaponized, kind of. You flip it in opposition to 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 recognize, it’s simply elites controlling issues.”
Yeah, we’re form of corrupt right here, however all people’s corrupt. But it surely’s additionally form of a humorous paradox that I feel, you recognize, it’s necessary to know. I feel everyone knows it from our personal experiences: that people who find themselves tremendous cynical—like, “Oh, you possibly can’t belief the media, and you’ll’t belief the politicians”—they don’t find yourself free. They really find yourself believing in loopy conspiracies as an alternative. So there’s one thing in regards to the human thoughts that does have to dwell in some kind of framework, and a few kind of manner of understanding the world, some kind of manner of understanding which neighborhood you belong to, and a way of inserting your self on the planet. And it’s an actual paradox that as a way to be free and impartial, you must be just a little bit open-minded and trusting. Being tremendous cynical doesn’t make you free. It truly makes you extra depending on propaganda. In Russia, a minimum of, they’ve an excuse, kind of: It’s an authoritarian nation the place the federal government controls all of the media. Right here, persons are selecting to dwell on this kind of area. And I’m but to grasp why they’ve made that call.
[Music.]
Garber: This concept that we’re kind of selecting to be manipulated—so far as the U.S. is worried, I consider one thing like actuality TV, for instance, and the way it shapes American politics. I’m considering right here of The Apprentice, specifically, which did a lot to launch the political profession of Donald Trump—to current him as each a star and a frontrunner. And to recommend that “superstar” and “chief” could be, successfully, the identical factor. So a lot of our politics, nowadays, come within the type of—and appear to be, and act like—leisure.
Pomerantsev: So actuality reveals are one thing that I’ve considered so much, as a result of my first profession, truly, 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 crucial. America had a president and might need a president very quickly once more, who was a reality-TV-show star. In Russia, individuals like [Vladislav] Surkov, kind of Putin’s nice vizier of propaganda, would go to reality-show units to discover ways to form of create political theater primarily based on actuality reveals.
I feel it’s crucial to grasp: When do actuality reveals emerge? They emerge within the Nineties, at this level when politics, submit–Chilly Struggle politics, turns into bled of any ideological that means. You’ve got the emergence of those politicians—Tony Blair, Invoice Clinton—who don’t actually have any robust ideology, however they’re actually good at showmanship. Politics turns into all about character, relatively than concepts. That is the second the place the truth present emerges as our definitive leisure style. You’ve got 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 fully 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 recreation, you recognize? So politics turns into about ways, relatively 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 substitute coverage debates.
However I feel now we’ve bought to a degree the place we’re very acutely aware of what we’re doing, and I’m undecided we’re stopping. Take American presidential debates, they’re designed how we used to design actuality reveals. They’re designed in a solution to get individuals to assault one another within the lowest doable manner. Now, all people who’s a member of a actuality present is aware of that the best way 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 every little thing to additional a political tradition the place reality-show stars are going to win and carry on profitable.
Garber: When it comes to the place we’re at within the U.S. proper now—what might 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 aspect to get this via.” 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. Now we have to check out whether or not it might nonetheless be entertaining. Um, I feel that, you recognize, individuals do have a want to look at imply conflicts. We do all take pleasure in that, however we additionally wish to see individuals collaborating collectively for a better intention. I’m some social analysis in the intervening time about which bits of historical past People admire essentially the most. And it’s issues like, properly, 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 Struggle and the Normandy landings. As a result of all of them present individuals working collectively for a better intention. So there may be additionally a pleasure in collaboration and attaining issues collectively. And should you’re creating TV that’s truly each entertaining and for the general public good, then that’s the kind of problem you have to resolve.
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 relating to preventing again in opposition to propaganda? Have there been methods which have confirmed profitable?
Pomerantsev: So I educate 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 Despair. Pictures that each American is aware of of; you recognize, the heart-wrenching pictures of individuals left destitute by the Nice Despair. And these have been pictures by a few of the best photographers of the age, which have change into fully iconic within the American creativeness, which have been sponsored by, you recognize, the federal government as a way 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 employ communication for one thing constructive, as a result of nonetheless you’re 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 destructive 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 dwell in a tradition the place we do humanize one another. And I feel that you just do do this via tradition. You do this via movies, via motion pictures, via images. You already know, we discuss id so much, in a poisonous id politics, the place it’s all about “my tribe” and “the opposite tribe is evil.” But it surely doesn’t need to be like that. You already know, you possibly can have a way more open-ended id, the place you understand that truly, you recognize, we’re all related, depending on one another, and so forth and so forth. Now, I don’t imply something fluffy, by the best way. I actually don’t assume you must hug fascists. I feel you must defeat fascists. However, if we’re speaking about, you recognize, a society managing to dwell collectively, it begins with overcoming that dehumanization. That’s Step No. 1.
Garber: What’s Step No. 2?
Pomerantsev: When you’ve finished that, you possibly can transfer on to the following section, which is agreeing on what we expect proof is. Yeah? It’s not about agreeing on the info, however can we a minimum of 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 resolution making and political change. So individuals aren’t simply screaming into the abyss, or screaming at one another, via Twitter. They’re truly getting someplace, yeah? We’re truly 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 change into coverage. So it’s all these levels—and I feel right now we actually have to assume via about how we’re gonna get there.
You already know: What’s the function of films? What’s the function 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? When you don’t have these pictures initially, should you don’t have the humanization course of, nothing else is feasible.
Garber: I’d like to know what you say to individuals who may say that issues about propaganda are overblown—that, you recognize, politicians have all the time lied. That there’s all the time been misinformation. That nothing’s actually new about this second. How would you reply to these arguments?
Pomerantsev: Every time a brand new expertise emerges, whether or not it’s the printing press or radio or the web and social media right now, it causes large ruptures. So we’re clearly in a section like that—you recognize, on-line applied sciences have produced unimaginable pleasure, however they’ve additionally produced large alternatives for many who want to unleash destruction and violence. So, um, I’m not alarmed when a politician is mendacity. That’s, you recognize, pretty commonplace for that career. However when one thing has gone flawed in our societies, when individuals can not belief one another sufficient to speak with one another, when hate has change into normalized, when violence has change into 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 occasions. Your dialog with Peter has me considering 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 probably essentially the most mischievous.” I really like this definition of the phrase. It actually will get at what Peter was speaking about. That propaganda may be many issues to many individuals. It’s not inherently good or unhealthy. It’s malleable.
Gabrer: Mmm, and that’s such an necessary manner of issues. Partly as a result of it highlights the challenges we’re dealing with, or a minimum of one of many challenges, relating to propaganda in our personal political lives. It could be a lot simpler if propaganda have been clear lower and simple 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 to be that all the time, and particularly now. The brilliant colours are literally grey areas.
[Music.]
Valdez: Megan, our season of The right way 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 numerous protection proper now, it’s not only a warning. It’s about how America is already reworking, partially because of the sorts of psychological manipulation we’ve been speaking about.
Valdez: Anne and Peter discover how the current consolidation of energy, and the best way we allow secrecy in politics, makes democracy ever extra susceptible. And the way some of our different vulnerabilities have been truly 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.
