Propaganda theory. Chapter 6
Two tricks that can be used in propaganda or PR to define the public opinion even in the time of open discussion in the media or on social platforms.
In the previous five chapters there were already discussed the major theory under propaganda techniques, different approaches to content writing , strategy options and the tactical choices for public opinion control during crisis and universal methods that can be used quite effectively in many situations and for many purposes, doesn’t matter based on actual facts or on the staged performances or fake stories. Here are two tactic moves that can help to reform the public opinion or to set it in the first place, also to change the focus to less important issues and to make an opponent the worst person or company in the eyes of the public.
The God of Commentary
It’s one of the most effective methods to shape public opinion by using an opinion leader, a celebrity or an expert. The purpose is to make a context and to give an explanation to the event, campaign, or a product. It can be propaganda or it can be PR, even advertising where the speaking head is a star uses the same effect on the target audience. It’s a trustworthy source of information or an example.
The commentator becomes the most important part of the campaign. His movements, looks, voice, selection of words and style of his speech - everything is calculated to get the maximal effect. But the logic of the text, the angle of it - that has nothing to do with the personal choice of the person. His message, even if it was written and designed by the speaker is strictly codified, has a firm structure that serves not just for sharing the point of view but for proving the other views are wrong, dangerous or nonsense.
That is the key difference between selection of different stories and their versions, that leave the viewers with all sorts of information that they can interpret and analyse, and the propaganda and PR (promotional, reputational) materials, where the only resolution is the one and only spoken for the audience by an expert or the experts selected for the purpose. There’s no alternative thinking, no doubts, no “but”, no parallel opinions allowed. The aim is to call aloud the statement and to solidify the logic that leads to it and makes it legit.
Examples are easy to find. All propagandists’ media base their shows, news programs and interviews on that approach to the speakers. If the person wasn’t prepared for the interview, the journalist or the show’s host will shape the conversation by asking the “right” questions.
Let’s look at the pro-choice and anti-abortion campaigns after the leaked draft of Supreme Court decision about Roe vs. Wade was published. American society is now divided on the issue like it was never before. The pro-choice activists go out to protest, sometimes they do it quite agressively and at the homes of those Justices. Democratic leaders and the media expressed their anger and restarted the “education” campaigns for the public. They are trying to show how dangerous is the decision to let the states to rule their abortion regulations independently and connect it to the polical agenda of the Republicans rather than to the people’s choice or religion, traditions or legal matters.
In the video above you can hear as CNN host carefully work out the main idea of the former anti-abortion propagandist’s opinion: he regrets about his past, he thinks that only selfish rich white young people, like he was at the time, can’t understand the weight of the resposibility laying on parents, that originally Evengelists were pro-choice but politians made them look at the idea from other angle when they bought them or made them popular in the right period of time in American history when the Republicans needed to gain votes of the pro-Democrates audience. So anti-abortion campaigns are not about the women or beliefs but about gaining the power by political force.
Anti-abortionists’ point of view is promoted on Fox News. As you see the direction the discussion is taken (it’s not really a discussion because there’s only one opinion presented and developed) is based on the argument that the leak itself undermines the law system, that the case Roe vs. Wade wasn’t legit, that everything should be decided by the people, and people have more control over the law in their states, not on the federal level. And that the great American tradition and majority of Americans’ opinion is more important than what Democrats stand for, including their socialism revoking initiatives and immoral and aggressive behaviour, and the most important is that “only 6% of Americans support late abortions”. So the focus is switched from the subject of abortion and reasons and so on, to the legal mechanics that were disrupted and that as well as the case itself makes the whole issue off the discussion. It’s not the question of rights, it’s a question of a betrayed system that represents the highest values of the USA. So just stay at home, let the justice work out as it is supposed to, America is ok, nothing to be worried about other than aggression of Democrats and their bullies.
Why did I choose those two channels and their programmes? Because no pure journalism will allow to direct the discussion so obviously, no one will use only one point of view as the only thrustful and would show openly that that point of view supports the vision of the host. That part is really important, because TV-hosts have their own circle of influence and their opinions are as valuable as their guests, especially when they are multiplied in importance by them.
“Catch that thief!”
That’s the scream that by itself will make people around to act in belief that they are running after the robber, not thinking if there’s really one. Usually that trick works when the initiator of the noise is the criminal himself or the active side in something ugly and unacceptable by the public. It’s the perfect way to direct the attention of the audience away from the sensible subject to things maybe more obvious but less important at that very moment.
On the state level it usually starts as an active campaign against the “common enemy” better abroad or can be inside the country, meanwhile there’s ongoing unpopular reform or when an economic crisis is about to become uncontrollable. On the level of corporate public relationships that can be leaked emails about racial comments someone in the head office allowed themselves to send to each other meanwhile the company burns their unsold stock in the middle of the ecological initiative that shaped their ongoing fashion collection, for example.
Everything is a matter of importance. In commerce the easiest way out of the worst crisis is to find another loud but less harmful for the business process reason for customer’s disapprovement. Or if the company has an active conflict with someone it’s easier to call out the opponent and turn their side into the guilty or dirty one only by making the statement first. Leave them in the state when they need to defend themselves, meanwhile winning time and saving resources for the management of the actual problem or hiding it from the public.
If we look at the Ukrainian-Russian relationships as they are seen in the press, leaders from all the sides of the conflict, including “the helpers” of Ukraine, time to time make announcements about planned provocations by the Russians or by the Ukrainians, by the Americans, by the Syrians, by the IGIL terrorists and so on. That’s exactly the way to attract attention to those news changing the focus that before was on the question of war crimes investigations, financial or military help negotiations and so on.
Or like in the examples above - inventing the different focuses around the abortion theme that would make people look in other side from the problem. Or these 2 pieces on the future elections:
Republicans Are Officially the ‘Stop the Steal’ Party Now (The New York Times)
Border patrol union boss says Biden is helping Dems win elections with open borders (USA Today)
That’s how the accusation strategy looks like, it’s enough to point the finger.
That’s all for today.
For the first time I don’t need to close the chapter for the free subscribers. So you know I need to use the paywall in cases when I talk about Russian politics or propaganda as part of it. I try to keep my content open as often as possible and think about the payment fee as about your support and the way to crowdfund my blog.
I really appreciate your participation in my work. Your money helps me to write on subjects that are not open right now for discussion in my native country, and in general I can write more and to support my family in the very difficult times of sanctions and economic crisis in Russia. I need such support badly. It’s not a secret. There’re also personal reasons.
So thank you for your trust.
If you decide to subscribe, you can do it after login into your account on Substack after you click on the button, or you can ask for my credits and pay directly, if for some reason you can’t pay online.
My platforms
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zakharova_kaetano
Twitter: https://twitter.com/olga_kaetano
Telegram: https://t.me/f_simulacrum
Tumblr: https://fashionistaru.tumblr.com
If you like F! Simulacrum and want to help make it even better, give me feedback, point out factual errors or typos, or send me news subjects you want to describe. My email: o.zakharova@adlifestudio.ru
Substack says you can now read my F! Simulacrum in the new Substack app for iPhone. And it will be easier and more comfortable.
