[Abood]

Watch this documentary about the Public Relations industry called Toxic Sludge Is Good For You:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5



Most of what you think is news is nothing but public relations. The PR industry invests millions of dollars on what is rightfully called propaganda... And this is how the PR firms carry out their "engineering of consent", to quote Edward Bernays.

[Shannonnn]

Started watching the first one, and it's good. I'll watch them all tonight when I get home and I'm not doing other things around the house. I wish it was mandatory for all people to see this.

[HoniSoit]

Got to go to uni now - will be back watching it tonight.

Thanks for the links, Abood.

[HoniSoit]

By the way, I think this is related and would be interesting to watch too. It is about how marketing strategies are used in presidential campagins in Bolivia to brand the candidate and manipulate public opinions which led to quite a bit of diaster.

OUR BRAND IS CRISIS
For decades, US strategists-for-hire have been quietly moulding the opinions of voters and the messages of candidates in elections around the world. They have worked for presidential candidates on every continent (in Britain, Israel, India, Korea, South Africa, Venezuela and Brazil). This documentary is a look at one of these campaigns and its aftermath. With access to think sessions, media training and the making of smear campaigns, we watch how the consultants' marketing strategies shape the relationship between a leader and his people. Recently Bolivia's New Leftist president, Evo Morales, has put the country back in the news. Morales, previously a leader of the Coca Leaf-Growers' Union, became the nation's first indigenous leader in December. According to this documentary the situation in Bolivia is one example of the consequences of US marketing strategies to spread “the American brand of democracy”. (From Bolivia, in English and Spanish, English subtitles) M (A,V) CC WS

[kami321]

So far watched only the first part, so I'll post a quick comment.
The good thing: it's not a total conspiracy theory, it tries to present the objective facts and some important details without flashy images or way far-reaching conclusions.
The bad thing: I haven't yet seen them establish a firm link between government and business. This is an important link here, without explaining it properly and throughly, a person wouldn't understand how this whole thing works. Second of all, like many other sources which I've encountered, they attempt to trace the beginning of PR industry to early 20th century. Why? Why not look earlier? United States claimed to be a democracy for all the time since its creation, yet it was always able to lead the people into any war and make them approve any decision long before the 20th century. They need to try harder here, and look for more fundamental things.

Edit: watched the whole thing. Nope, still no firm connections between government and corporate media. It is implied between the lines that the actions of the government are manipulated by the lobbyists and the government policies reach the media through costly campaigns to sway the press funded probably from the federal budget. This is partly true, of course, but it is far far less than what they need to say. Why not talk anout elections? Why not elaborate on how politicians are sold to the public just like products? Why not examine the cash flow withinin and involving political parties? And a bunch more stuff. Bascially, they need to talk about the details of corporate-government relation more, in order to make their point.

[HoniSoit]

Second of all, like many other sources which I've encountered, they attempt to trace the beginning of PR industry to early 20th century. Why? Why not look earlier? United States claimed to be a democracy for all the time since its creation, yet it was always able to lead the people into any war and make them approve any decision long before the 20th century. They need to try harder here, and look for more fundamental things.

It is true that people generally date the beginning of modern PR industrying back only to the early 20th century. But that's for a good reason, namely, the appearence of mass media, radio, television, film and newspapers etc. that either previously did not exist or were not widely accessable to the population. So the use of mass media was really taking propaganda to a new level that was unimaginable in an earlier period. But I certainly agree with you that one should look back further - for example, I came across a book (tho haven't got the chance to read it) on Propaganda and the British Empire which starts from 1880s.

Nope, still no firm connections between government and corporate media. It is implied between the lines that the actions of the government are manipulated by the lobbyists and the government policies reach the media through costly campaigns to sway the press funded probably from the federal budget. This is partly true, of course, but it is far far less than what they need to say.

Why not talk anout elections? Why not elaborate on how politicians are sold to the public just like products? Why not examine the cash flow withinin and involving political parties? And a bunch more stuff. Bascially, they need to talk about the details of corporate-government relation more, in order to make their point.

Their focus point is on PR industry, and its ubiquitous role in controlling the information people get. Sure they should deal with all these things, but you don't expect it to be done in one documentary. Look for example the documentary I was referring to 'Our Brand is Crisis' which does focus on, as you sugggested, how politicians are being sold as products, to give as little and accurate information as possible about the candidates.

[kami321]

But that's for a good reason, namely, the appearence of mass media, radio, television, film and newspapers etc. that either previously did not exist or were not widely accessable to the population.

The newspapers have existed for quite a long time actually, and before them there were books written by king's scribes. But the situation with state media is pretty obvious and isn't worth much interest, it's private media that we're talking about here, and private newspaper publishing guilds started appearing some time in the 18th century IIRC.

So the use of mass media was really taking propaganda to a new level that was unimaginable in an earlier period.

Sure, but it seems like the old "imaginable" level of propaganda was enough to keep American politics in a similar shape to what they are today.

[HoniSoit]

The newspapers have existed for quite a long time actually

I didn't disagree with you actually. Here is what I wrote 'newspapers etc. that either previously did not exist or were not widely accessable to the population'. Very simplified, but largely correct:

Newspapers developed around from 1605, with the first example in English in 1620; but they took until the nineteenth century to reach a mass-audience directly.

During the 20th century, the growth of mass media was driven by technology that allowed the massive duplication of material. Physical duplication technologies such as printing, record pressing and film duplication allowed the duplication of books, newspapers and movies at low prices to huge audiences. Radio and television allowed the electronic duplication of information for the first time.

Sure, but it seems like the old "imaginable" level of propaganda was enough to keep American politics in a similar shape to what they are today.

I don't quite get the point you are trying to make, Kami. But from what I understand, firstly the American politics is not quite in a simiar shape than it was a century ago for example - I agree the basic insitutions didn't change much, but the extent to which these instituions require public support has changed.

For instance, a century ago the US government could have used extreme violence to crush labour movement and popular protests, and very easily jail those who voiced opposition to wars - which they could no longer do to that extent now. The reason is apparently that there is more visiable and stronger popular opposition to it. In other words, propaganda didn't need to play as much an important role as it does today.

It was because of popular struggles that the US has been made more democratic than it was 100 years ago, that is, government's actions are more liable to public scrutiny, and thus resorting to coersion in most cases is simply not viable anymore - which is partly why new propaganda techniques are devised in order to engineer consents in democracies.

The other obvious reason that gave rise to modern PR industry is of course the rise of corporations in the US to an increasingly dominant role in society, and along with it the commercialisation. You simply cannot sell products to people by means of coersion - it will never work - rather, you need to *persuade* them even they don't need the product, or it is harmful to their health.

[kami321]

For instance, a century ago the US government could have used extreme violence to crush labour movement and popular protests, and very easily jail those who voiced opposition to wars - which they could no longer do to that extent now.

I draw a different conclusion out of this. It seems to me from judging this example, that before the appearance of mass media the US government was more powerful than it is now, when mass media is in existance. Something seems wrong here: if the mass media has such bigger role today than a long time ago, why could the earlier US government convince the population that using force to crush certain opposition was OK, thus without suffering any consequences of public reprisal, but can't do it so well now?

[Kylie]

For decades, US strategists-for-hire have been quietly moulding the opinions of voters and the messages of candidates in elections around the world.

Karl Rove is a master at this. How do you think that Bush got into office? He knew the Republican constinguency (sic), and he also knew of the people who haven't voted in a while; the Evangelical Christian Right. The Jerry Falwell follower types. He *knew* exactly what to say, and he also knew this was an untapped market for people to vote for his guy. I can see why other countries would hire the same types of spin doctors to work for their election campaigns. Amazing!

[HoniSoit]

Something seems wrong here: if the mass media has such bigger role today than a long time ago, why could the earlier US government convince the population that using force to crush certain opposition was OK, thus without suffering any consequences of public reprisal, but can't do it so well now?

I don’t see anything wrong with it. The simplfied answer is it was not an absolute requirement for the earlier governments to convince the population - nor did they have either the means (mass media), or the skills (the modern public relation industry). Remember that women didn’t have the voting rights until 1920s and African-Americans until 1960s. In other words, the government was firmly in the hands of a very small minority of propertied white males which were not particularly responsive to public opinions.

On the other hand, it was the growth of democracy, as the result of popular struggles to extend political, social and economic rights, that rendered the government to be more responsive to popular opinions. Subsequently, the government as well as the corporate power have to shift their strategy to begin to manipulate public opinions as proved very successful, for instance, in mobilising public support for US’s entry into WW1 (e.g. Committee on Public Information). It is also simply far more effective than coercion.

[Verv]

I have a question:

if the opinions of voters can be so easily molded, is democracy ever acceptable? Aren't we then just in a situation where people are molded by nearly whatever is in front of them?

How would one ever achieve an objective democracy, then?

[HoniSoit]

If the opinions of voters can be so easily molded, is democracy ever acceptable? Aren't we then just in a situation where people are molded by nearly whatever is in front of them? How would one ever achieve an objective democracy, then?

First, I don't think spending billions of dollars annually to mold public opinions can be qualified as 'easily'. But it is easy in the sense the major source of information, namely the media, are (controlled by) corporations that not surprisingly disseminate informations in accordance to their interests. Second, despite such efforts, opinion polls often gives evidence to the fact that public opinions are not always successfully molded - commonsense and commonse decency often prevail. As for democracy, I personally favor the kind of democracy that is organised from bottom up and is decentralised in order to prevent concentration and monoplisation of power that cause much of the problems today.

[QatzelOk]

if the opinions of voters can be so easily molded, is democracy ever acceptable?

If you were to hold a gun up to someone's temple, and whisper to them, "Vote for whoever you want to, but if you vote for me, I won't blow your brains out."

Is this still democracy?

What if you use a psycho-social gun to the temple?