The NY Times and others published fake news stories claiming Iraq had WMDs in 2002, and the public mostly believed it. Propaganda works more than one might think.
Thank you for your comment. However, I don't think this is a good example, for three reasons. 1) the public probably had a decently high prior that Saddam Hussein, all around bad guy, would have wanted to develop WMD, and would have potentially succeeded 2) many members of the public were likely happy to have a reason for the US to wage this war anyway 3) the NYT is a very good source of information, with very few factually false claims, as far as I can tell. So people quite rationally accepted a piece of information, that likely didn't have much influence.
I left out a few facts. The US made nerve gas in large quantities in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The USSR made large quantities of nerve gas (somewhere). Nerve gas was actually invented by the Germans, but they never used it. There is a claim that nerve gas was used in the Yemen civil war in the 1960s.. There is a claim that Iran made and used chemical weapons in the Iraq/Iran war as retaliation against Iraq. A cult in Japan made nerve gas in small quantities (but still deadly).
"would have potentially succeeded" uses the wrong tense. Saddam succeeded long before the US invaded Iraq. Saddam tried to buy "pesticide" plants from the US. The American companies (correctly) suspected that Saddam intended to make nerve gas. The Germans were not so fastidious. Here is a tragic note (among many). Some of the nerve gas plants were built in Fallujah. Yes, that Fallujah.
By 2001, Iraq had a long record of making and using WMDs. Beyond that, most Iraqi's believed that Iraq had WMDs. After the war, many Iraqi generals were asked about WMDs. They all said "I don't have any chemical weapons, but the other generals do". Believing that Iraq had chemical weapons, wasn't some triumph of propaganda. It was based on a hard reality and history of Iraqi WMD manufacture and use. Even more seriously, Iraq (like Iran today) was getting nuclear weapons.
"You might find this apparent lack of impact surprising, given the extent to which fears about Russian influence have been discussed in the media."
Some might, but I certainly don't. There is no limit to the mendacity of the Clinton machine and their media allies. They came up with every excuse under the sun to explain her pathetic failure.
And, what Americans were saying about each other was worse than what the Russians could come up with.
Whether you approve or disapprove of it, the fact is that the US has a sophisticated propaganda machine raging from Voice of America to NGOs in foreign countries fronting for the CIA.
Here is an example of propaganda working. The US is systemically racist. A majority believe it even though it is patently false. A big lie that backs the neoracist ideology of woke.
The 'woke' don't need propaganda to believe that the US is systemically racist. They believe it because they think that it is true. A better model is that societies go crazy from time to time. Consider Lysenkoism in Russia in the 1930s. The Cultural Revolution in China in the 1960s/70s. The Anglo-sphere today. I read an article about the teaching of MM in New Zealand as 'science'. Totally crazy, but more crazy than the CR in China?
I don't disagree that the woke believe the US is systematically racist. They have been pumped with propaganda to make them believe it just like 1930s Germans were pumped with propaganda to make them believe Jews were oppressing other Germans. Those Germans believed it.
I disagree about China laughing at the CR. Chinese writers mention the CR from time-to-time. One character in the "Three Body Problem" is so upset by the CR, that she decides to exterminate all human existence. Her decision is described as reasonable and rational in the books. The author (Cixin Liu) is a strong supporter of the PRC (and they support him). By contrast, Jung Chang ("Wild Swans") is an opponent of the regime and is also a harsh critic of the CR.
In China today, you can criticize the CR in the harshest terms as long as you leave Mao out it.
I was a little surprised that the author focused so much on the kind of propaganda that some nations used against the citizens of other nations. That is certainly one kind, and it seems it's not that useful in changing the minds of the targeted nation's population.
But propaganda doesn't need to change minds. I'd always thought the Russian attempts in the US were intended to magnify existing divisions among us. At that they were spectacularly successful, without needing to change a single mind. We're still living with the fallout from that.
The real danger, to me, is the use of propaganda by an authoritarian regime to craft a false narrative for its own citizens. The author mentions the Chinese 50 Cent Army, but not the Putin regime's relentless efforts to convince its own citizens that Russia is helping Ukraine, saving it, even.
We can't really get an accurate reading of Russian popular opinion on that, though. The effect of the firehose of disinformation may not change anyone's mind there, but it does something at least as perverse: instructs citizens in what the approved story is, and prompts them to publicly say only the right things. Given effective and pretty brutal enforcement now and then, and a proper authoritarian can get the people's support without needing much of their approval.
Maybe that's the article I was expecting, and I'm disappointed I didn't get it. But to me, the more limited argument about such a powerful tool seemed to miss some of the most relevant points.
If propaganda did not work, neither Joe Biden, John Fetterman or Katie Hobbs would have been elected. Propaganda is hyper-effective today because the voters have media piped into their heads 24x7x365. Repeat, repeat, repeat and the sheeple ingest it all as fact.
Russian propaganda did not work but US propaganda worked exceedingly well. Many still believe Trump colluded with Russia. Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, homegrown propaganda damaged Trump and our country extensively. Certainly it played an outsized role in the polarization.
I never thought that Bloomberg (must less Steyer) would enjoy any success (politically). They are not what Democratic voters actually want. They are political success stories only in their own minds.
Bloomberg got very lucky in 2001. But in his mind he was an extraordinary statesman destined for greatness and the presidency. NYC mayors all seem to suffer from this delusion, and end up humiliated on the presidential campaign trail.
One question that was not addressed by this opinion piece is when does inspirational national mythology become propaganda? A modern nation state needs national mythology to hold itself together. Any part of a nation's mythology may be factual or not, but national mythology is always what a nation wants to believe about itself - and wants others to believer about it - for good and sometimes not so good reasons.
The NY Times and others published fake news stories claiming Iraq had WMDs in 2002, and the public mostly believed it. Propaganda works more than one might think.
Thank you for your comment. However, I don't think this is a good example, for three reasons. 1) the public probably had a decently high prior that Saddam Hussein, all around bad guy, would have wanted to develop WMD, and would have potentially succeeded 2) many members of the public were likely happy to have a reason for the US to wage this war anyway 3) the NYT is a very good source of information, with very few factually false claims, as far as I can tell. So people quite rationally accepted a piece of information, that likely didn't have much influence.
I left out a few facts. The US made nerve gas in large quantities in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The USSR made large quantities of nerve gas (somewhere). Nerve gas was actually invented by the Germans, but they never used it. There is a claim that nerve gas was used in the Yemen civil war in the 1960s.. There is a claim that Iran made and used chemical weapons in the Iraq/Iran war as retaliation against Iraq. A cult in Japan made nerve gas in small quantities (but still deadly).
"would have potentially succeeded" uses the wrong tense. Saddam succeeded long before the US invaded Iraq. Saddam tried to buy "pesticide" plants from the US. The American companies (correctly) suspected that Saddam intended to make nerve gas. The Germans were not so fastidious. Here is a tragic note (among many). Some of the nerve gas plants were built in Fallujah. Yes, that Fallujah.
Not to mention they now seem to regurgitate uncritically everything the Ukrainian government says about the war.
By 2001, Iraq had a long record of making and using WMDs. Beyond that, most Iraqi's believed that Iraq had WMDs. After the war, many Iraqi generals were asked about WMDs. They all said "I don't have any chemical weapons, but the other generals do". Believing that Iraq had chemical weapons, wasn't some triumph of propaganda. It was based on a hard reality and history of Iraqi WMD manufacture and use. Even more seriously, Iraq (like Iran today) was getting nuclear weapons.
"You might find this apparent lack of impact surprising, given the extent to which fears about Russian influence have been discussed in the media."
Some might, but I certainly don't. There is no limit to the mendacity of the Clinton machine and their media allies. They came up with every excuse under the sun to explain her pathetic failure.
And, what Americans were saying about each other was worse than what the Russians could come up with.
Whether you approve or disapprove of it, the fact is that the US has a sophisticated propaganda machine raging from Voice of America to NGOs in foreign countries fronting for the CIA.
Here is an example of propaganda working. The US is systemically racist. A majority believe it even though it is patently false. A big lie that backs the neoracist ideology of woke.
The 'woke' don't need propaganda to believe that the US is systemically racist. They believe it because they think that it is true. A better model is that societies go crazy from time to time. Consider Lysenkoism in Russia in the 1930s. The Cultural Revolution in China in the 1960s/70s. The Anglo-sphere today. I read an article about the teaching of MM in New Zealand as 'science'. Totally crazy, but more crazy than the CR in China?
China is laughing at CR. They use the derogatory term
"baizuo" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo
I don't disagree that the woke believe the US is systematically racist. They have been pumped with propaganda to make them believe it just like 1930s Germans were pumped with propaganda to make them believe Jews were oppressing other Germans. Those Germans believed it.
I disagree about China laughing at the CR. Chinese writers mention the CR from time-to-time. One character in the "Three Body Problem" is so upset by the CR, that she decides to exterminate all human existence. Her decision is described as reasonable and rational in the books. The author (Cixin Liu) is a strong supporter of the PRC (and they support him). By contrast, Jung Chang ("Wild Swans") is an opponent of the regime and is also a harsh critic of the CR.
In China today, you can criticize the CR in the harshest terms as long as you leave Mao out it.
I was a little surprised that the author focused so much on the kind of propaganda that some nations used against the citizens of other nations. That is certainly one kind, and it seems it's not that useful in changing the minds of the targeted nation's population.
But propaganda doesn't need to change minds. I'd always thought the Russian attempts in the US were intended to magnify existing divisions among us. At that they were spectacularly successful, without needing to change a single mind. We're still living with the fallout from that.
The real danger, to me, is the use of propaganda by an authoritarian regime to craft a false narrative for its own citizens. The author mentions the Chinese 50 Cent Army, but not the Putin regime's relentless efforts to convince its own citizens that Russia is helping Ukraine, saving it, even.
We can't really get an accurate reading of Russian popular opinion on that, though. The effect of the firehose of disinformation may not change anyone's mind there, but it does something at least as perverse: instructs citizens in what the approved story is, and prompts them to publicly say only the right things. Given effective and pretty brutal enforcement now and then, and a proper authoritarian can get the people's support without needing much of their approval.
Maybe that's the article I was expecting, and I'm disappointed I didn't get it. But to me, the more limited argument about such a powerful tool seemed to miss some of the most relevant points.
If propaganda did not work, neither Joe Biden, John Fetterman or Katie Hobbs would have been elected. Propaganda is hyper-effective today because the voters have media piped into their heads 24x7x365. Repeat, repeat, repeat and the sheeple ingest it all as fact.
Russian propaganda did not work but US propaganda worked exceedingly well. Many still believe Trump colluded with Russia. Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, homegrown propaganda damaged Trump and our country extensively. Certainly it played an outsized role in the polarization.
I never thought that Bloomberg (must less Steyer) would enjoy any success (politically). They are not what Democratic voters actually want. They are political success stories only in their own minds.
Bloomberg got very lucky in 2001. But in his mind he was an extraordinary statesman destined for greatness and the presidency. NYC mayors all seem to suffer from this delusion, and end up humiliated on the presidential campaign trail.
Why are there so many MAGA wackos commenting on this post?
One question that was not addressed by this opinion piece is when does inspirational national mythology become propaganda? A modern nation state needs national mythology to hold itself together. Any part of a nation's mythology may be factual or not, but national mythology is always what a nation wants to believe about itself - and wants others to believer about it - for good and sometimes not so good reasons.
If, as you claim, propaganda doesn’t work, then how do you explain the impact of Fox News?
Or CNN, MSNBC or NYT? Homegrown propaganda is alive and well.