Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion

Amazon.com

Drawing on the history of propaganda and modern research in social psychology, this book reveals mass persuasion in action -- not just the tactics, but why they work so well, and how we can protect ourselves from manipulation.

Book Description

Americans create 57% of the world's advertising while representing only 6% of its population; half of our waking hours are spent immersed in the mass media. Persuasion has always been integral to the democratic process, but increasingly, thoughtful discussion is being replaced with simplistic soundbites and manipulative messages.Drawing on the history of propaganda as well as on contemporary research in social psychology, Age of Propaganda shows how the tactics used by political campaigners, sales agents, advertisers, televangelists, demagogues, and others often take advantage of our emotions by appealing to our deepest fears and most irrational hopes, creating a distorted vision of the world we live in.This revised and updated edition includes coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, recent election campaigns, talk radio, teen suicide, U.F.O. abductions, the Columbine shootings, and novel propaganda tactics based on hypocrisy and false allegations.

Customer Reviews:

It's very informative .......2007-08-24

here are my notes

The successful persuasion tactic is one that directs and channels thoughts so that the target thinks in a manner agreeable to the communicator's point of view; the successful tactic disrupts any negative thoughts and promotes positive thoughts bout the proposed course of action.

Two routes to persuasion - peripheral and central
Peripheral - a message recipient devotes little attention and effort to processing a communication. Persuasion is determined by simple cues, such as the attractiveness of the communicator, whether or not the people around you agree with the position presented, the pleasure or pain associated with agreeing with the position, or whether a reason is given for complying with the request.
Central - a message recipient engages in a careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented. The person may actively argue against the message, may want to know the answer to additional questions, or may seek out new information. The persuasiveness of the message is determined by how well it can stand up to this scrutiny.
What determines which route to persuasion will be adopted? - the recipient's motivation to think about the message - the personal relevance of the issue. * we are cognitive misers, forever trying to conserve our cognitive energy, we adopt the strategies of the peripheral route for simplifying complex problems.

Rationalization trap = first intentionally arouse feelings of dissonance by threatening self esteem, for example, making the person feel guilty about something, by arousing feelings of shame or inadequacy, or by making the person look like a hypocrite or someone who does not honor his or her word. Next, offer a solution, one way of reducing this dissonance, by complying with whatever request the propagandist has in mind. The way to reduce that guilt, eliminate that shame, honor that commitment, and restore your feeling of adequacy is to give to that charity, buy that car, hate that enemy, or vote for that leader.

Almost every war in modern times has been accompanied by characterizations of the enemy as less than human. Dehumanization succeeds in resolving any dissonance that may be aroused by our cruelty toward our enemies. However, watch out; the more we justify our cruelty, the easier it becomes. The rationalization trap becomes an escalating spiral: "I committed an act of cruelty; I justified this act by believing that the victim deserved it. If the victim deserved that cruelty, well maybe they deserve more and maybe I am just the one to give it to them.

Four stratagems of influence
The first is to take control of the situation and establish a favorable climate for your message, a process we call pre-persuasion. Pre-persuasion refers to how the issue is structured and how the decision is framed. If fully successful, pre-persuasion establishes "what everyone knows" and "what everyone takes for granted" By cleverly establishing how an issue is defined and discussed, however, a communicator can influence cognitive responses and obtain consent without even appearing to be attempting to persuade us. Next, the communicator needs to establish a favorable image in the eyes of the audience. We call this stratagem source credibility. In other words, the communicator needs to appear likable or authoritative or trustworthy or possessed of any other attribute that would facilitate persuasion. The third stratagem is to construct and deliver a message that focuses the targets' attention and thoughts on exactly what the communicator wants them to think about - for example, by distracting the targets' attention on a vivid and powerful image, or even by inducing the target to persuade themselves. Finally, effective influence controls emotions of the target and follows a simple rule: Arouse an emotion that just happens to be the desired course of action. In such situations, the target becomes preoccupied with dealing with the emotion, complying with the request in hopes of escaping a negative emotion or maintaining a positive one.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world view and mental habits proper to the reader, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak have been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
Language, words, labels, categories organize our realities and serve to divide up the world into neat little packages and to imply the range of appropriate courses of action to take. Words have the power to pre-persuade. It defines our reality, our thoughts, our feelings, our imagination and thus influence our behavior.

Agenda setting is of great importance in maintaining power - by determining what issues will be discussed and when, what criteria will be used to resolve disputes, who will sit on what committees, and, which information will be widely disseminated and which will be selectively ignored.

Defining the issue as "losing something" was more persuasive than stating it in terms of a gain
Never ask a question for which you don't know the answer. Never ask a question that doesn't get the answer you want.

Card stacking - the order in which questions are asked and the order in which information is received can distort and bias the decision making process.
Question asking can be a powerful persuasion device because questions structure our decision making process. They do this by directing our thoughts about the issues at hand and by implicitly specifying the range of possible answers.

Context makes a difference, judgment is relative, not absolute. Depending on the context, objects and alternatives can be made to look better or worse. Often we do not pay much attention to the influence of context, must less question the validity of the alternatives presented.

One of the important tasks of media research is to keep tabs on the "reputation and credibility" of public figures. Advertisers want to know which figures are most believable, who is most liked by the public. The answers to such questions determine the figures value as a spokesperson for the advertiser's product. Credibility has become a commodity not only to be feigned but also to be bought and sold on the open market.

Advertisers know that we believe what we believe and buy what we buy in the service of self image. They imbue their products with a "personality". To claim the desired persona, all we need to do is to purchase and display the right products.

Communicators can make themselves seem trustworthy by apparently acting against their own self interest. If we are led to believe that communicators have nothing to gain and perhaps even something to lose by convincing us, we will trust them and they will be more effective.

When the message conflicted with their expectations, listeners perceived the communicator as being more sincere and they were more persuaded by his statement

Not only do we tend to take more notice to unexpected events, but we also attribute more credibility to speakers who appear to resist the pressures of their colleagues and who take stands in opposition to their backgrounds.

Another way of increasing the perception of credibility: The apparent trustworthiness of a person can be increased and the apparent bias of the message deceased if the audience is absolutely certain the person is not trying to influence them.

Specific advice for making yourself likable: say what the audience thinks (which you can find out through polling), make others feel comfortable, and control the atmosphere (the situation) for your best advantage.

For increasing credibility - set easy initial goals and then declare victory (this will create the perception that you are a strong leader); use setting to support image; choose the negatives that will be written about you; and understand how people see things, then appeal to what they prefer.
Float an idea without attribution (that is, circulate a rumor). If everyone likes the idea, then claim it as your own. If it gets shot down, then deny your campaign ever said it. In this manner, you can always be sure to say exactly what everyone wants to hear. Another piece of advice: make sure you appear consistent in the media. And the best way to do this? Just say a few things over and over again (that way, you don't contradict yourself)

Credibility is manufactured, not earned. Credibility is created by carefully managing the situation so that the communicator, looks just the way he or she is supposed to look - likeable, credible, strong, expert, or whatever image is needed at the time.

Models are effective for two primary reasons. First they teach new behavior. Second we behave like our model because we believe the rewards received by a model for a given behavior will also come to us. It serves as a cue to indicate that a certain behavior is legitimate and appropriate. It can shape and twist our understanding of what is right and wrong. A model is most effective when he or she is high in prestige, power, and status, is rewarded for performing the behavior to be learned, provides useful information on how to perform the behavior, and is personally attractive and competent in facing life's problems - the model is a credible and attractive source.

Confidence of the speaker - the more self assured and confident a communicator appears, the more likely that we well accept what is said - low rates of speech error, an authoritative tone of voice, and a steady body posture, are positively related to persuasion.

Load a speech with the "correct" symbols and buzzwords as a means of informing the recipient that the message is acceptable and worthwhile.

Heuristic - a simple cue or rule for solving a problem
Five conditions that are most likely to lead to heuristic rather than rational decision making
1 When we do not have time to think carefully about an issue
2 When we are overloaded with information that it becomes impossible to process fully
3 When we believe that the issues at stake are not very important
4 When we have little other knowledge or information on which to base a decision
5 When a given heuristic comes quickly to mind as we are confronted with a problem

Self generated persuasion - getting someone to role play an opponent's position, or by asking a person to imagine adopting a course of action - is one of the most effective persuasion tactics ever identified. It gains its power from providing subtle social cues and directions that ask the target of influence, in effect, to think up as many positive cognitive responses about the issue as you can and, if you do happen to come up with some counter arguments, to be ready to refute them. The resulting message will come from a source that you almost always consider credible, trustworthy, respected, and liked - yourself. The act of generating arguments is an act of commitment to the cause. After all, they're your ideas, aren't they?

Vivid messages affect our cognitive responses in at least four possible ways
Attracts attention - it helps the communication stand out in the message dense environment
It can make information more concrete and personal
Its appeal directs and focuses thought on the issues and arguments that the communicator feels are most important
It can make the material more memorable. This is especially important if we do not reach an immediate conclusion but base our later judgments on information that comes readily to mind.

Frequent repetition of an advertisement helps to meet multiple marketing objectives in a cost efficient manner. Repeatedly exposing consumers to an ad is a good way to introduce a new product or to remind customers of the value of an older brand. Often, repeat exposure is an unintended consequence of attempting to present an ad to multiple target audiences (the members of which may overlap). With the high cost of creating and producing new advertising ideas and slogans, its makes sense to stick with proven winners.

The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of intellectuals.

Advertisers know that repeated exposure can leas to what is known as "wear out" - when an ad loses its effectiveness because consumers find repeated exposures to be tedious and annoying. Wear-out effects are most likely to occur with ads that attract much attention, such as humorous ads and informational messages. Advertisers attempt to eliminate wear-out by using a technique known as "repetition with variation". In this technique, the same information or theme is repeated many times, but the presentation format is varied.

If you don't have anything to say, sing it. In other words, a mild distraction can disrupt counter arguing and increase the effectiveness of a persuasive message. A lively song can make us happy and thus help use think happy thoughts about a product. At other times the song may get stuck in our head, reminding us of the brand name. At still other times a catchy song or a big production number can attract our attention to the ad so that we don't change the channel or go to the bathroom and we at least hear the advertisers message.
The trick for the advertiser is to provide just enough of a distraction to disrupt counter arguing but not so much that it eliminates the reception of the message.
Distraction increases the effectiveness of weak arguments (because it disrupted counter arguing) but decreases the impact of strong arguments (because it disrupted the ability to pay close attention to the cogent argument being made).

People are less able to develop counter arguments to a time compressed message and that time compressing a message consisting of strong arguments reduced persuasion whereas it increases the persuasive impact of a message containing weak arguments.

Most of us have a strong desire to be correct - to have "the right" opinions and to perform reasonable actions. When someone disagrees with us, it makes us feel uncomfortable because it suggests our opinions or actions may be wrong or based on misinformation. The greater the disagreement, the greater the discomfort.
But this does not necessarily mean the members of an audience will change their opinion.
There are at least four ways in which the members of an audience can reduce their discomfort:
1 Change their opinion
2 Induce the communicator to change his or her opinion
3 Seek support for their original opinion by finding other people who share their views, in spite of what the communicator says
4 Derogate the communicator - convince themselves the communicator is stupid or immoral - and thereby invalidate that person's position.

One sided or two sided argument
If a communicator mentions the opposition's arguments, it might indicate that he or she is an objective, fair minded person; this could enhance the speaker's trustworthiness and thus increase his or her effectiveness. On the other hand, if a communicator so much as mentions the arguments on the other side of the issue, it might suggest to the audience that the issue is a controversial one; this could confuse members of the audience, make them vacillate, induce them to search for counter arguments, and ultimately reduce the persuasiveness of the communication.
It depends to some extend on how well informed the audience is and on the audience's initial opinions on the issue. The more informed the members of the audience are, the less likely they are to be persuaded by an argument that brings out the important opposing arguments and then attempts to refute them. This makes sense: a well informed person is more likely to know some of the counter arguments; when the communicator avoids mentioning these, the knowledgeable members of the audience are likely to conclude that the communicator is either unfair or unable to refute such arguments. On the other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of opposing arguments. If the counter argument is ignored, the less informed members of the audience are persuaded; if the counter argument is presented, they might get confused.
Another factor is the partisanship of the audience. If a member of the audience is already predisposed to believe the communicator's argument, a one sided presentation has a greater impact on his or her opinion than a two sided presentation. If, however, a member of the audience is leaning in the opposite direction, then a two sided refutation argument is more persuasive.
The more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely he or she is to take positive preventive action. Fear can be a powerful motivating psychological force, channeling all our thoughts and energies toward removing the threat so that we don't think about much else.

People who had a reasonably good opinion of themselves were the ones most likely to be moved by high degrees of fear arousal. People with low opinions of themselves were the least likely to take immediate action when confronted with a communication arousing a great deal of fear - but after a delay, they behaved very much like the subjects with high self esteem. People who have a low opinion of themselves may have difficulty coping with threats to themselves. A high fear communication overwhelms them and makes them feel like crawling into bed and pulling the covers up over their heads. Low or moderate fear is something they can more easily deal with at the moment they experience it. But, given time - that is, if it is not essential they act immediately - they will be more likely to act if the message truly scared the hell out of them.

If the recipients of fear appeal perceive that there is no way to cope effectively with the threat, they are not likely to respond to the appeal but will just bury their heads in the stand.

In sum, a fear appeal is more effective when
It scares the hell out of people
It offers a specific recommendation for overcoming the fear arousing threat
The recommended action is perceived as effective for reducing the threat
The message recipient believes that he or she can perform the recommended action
The recipient's attention is first focused on the painful fear. In such a frightened state it is difficult to think about anything other than getting rid of the fear. Next, the propagandist offers a way to get rid of that fear - a simple, doable response that just happens to be what the propagandist wanted you to do all along.

Creating granfalloons - proud and meaningless association of human beings.
People acted as if those who shared their meaningless label were their good friends and close kin. They indicated that they liked those who shared their label. They allocated more money and reward to those group members who shared their label and did so in a competitive manner.
What makes a granfalloon tick - two psychological processes, one cognitive and one motivational. The knowledge that "I'm in this group" is used to divide up and make sense of the world. Differences between groups are exaggerated, whereas similarities among members of the granfalloon are emphasized in the secure knowledge that "this is what our type does." One serious consequence is that out group members are dehumanized; they are represented in our mind by a simple, often derogatory label, as opposed to unique individuals. It is a lot easier to abuse an abstraction. Second, social groups are a source of self esteem and pride. To obtain the self esteem the group has to offer, members come to defend the group and adopt its symbols, rituals, and beliefs.
Herein lies the secret to the persuasiveness of the granfalloon. If the professional persuader can get us to accept his or her granfalloon, then we have a ready made way to make sense of our lives - the propagandist's way - and as our self esteem becomes increasingly linked to these groups, we have a strong motivation to defend the group and to go to great lengths proudly to adopt its customs. What the propagandist is really saying is: "You are on my side (never mind that I created the teams); now act like it and do what we say."
Sometimes granfalloons come ready made. Each group is associated with a certain self image and lifestyle. Products are given a "personality" that fits the image of the target market; this advertising then goes on to create further the image of each granfalloon by specifying what needs to be done to maintain a certain image.
Shared emotion and feeling can also create a granfalloon. A sense of oneness with others can be produced by sharing a fun time, a sad situation, or a harrowing experience.

Co option tactic - subtly to change a person's granfalloon - corporation gives active critic a new position, often highly visible but without real power within the organization. Gradually, the critic becomes increasingly isolated from old "activist" friends and increasingly dependent on the corporation for material resources and a sense of identity. The opposition is defused as ties with the old granfalloon are dissolved.

Guilt - the feeling that we are responsible for something wrong whether real or imaginary - leads to compliance
Why it works
Sympathy, or feeling sorry for the victim
Restitution, or feeling the need to compensate for the wrongdoing
Generalized guilt, or the desire to repair a self image tarnished by a transgression
When we feel guilty we typically pay little attention to the cogency of an argument, to the merits of a suggested course of action. Instead, our thoughts and actions are directed to removing the feeling of guilt - to somehow making thing right or doing the right thing. We fall into the rationalization trap.

Commitment can be self perpetuating, resulting in an escalating commitment to an often failing course of action. Once a small commitment is made, it sets the stage for ever increasing commitments. The original behavior needs to be justified, so attitudes are changed; this change in attitudes influences future decisions and behavior. The result is a seemingly irrational commitment to a poor business plan, a purchase that makes no sense, a war that has no realistic objectives, or an arms race gone out of control.

When made to feel like a hypocrite, these people found the one sure way to restore their feelings of integrity: to begin to practice what they were preaching. If we are not made starkly aware of our hypocrisy, we all share the tendency to push the hypocritical behavior out of sight and do nothing about it.

When we discover that a commodity is scarce or may be unavailable, one of first inferences is that is must also be desirable. Why else would it be so rare? We tend to use a simple rule, or heuristic: If it is rare, if it is unavailable, then it must be valuable.
Scarcity and unavailability can do more than just make an object appear more desirable. When a phantom alternative is present, it can also result in a change in the perception, evaluation, and ultimate choice of the available options.
The presence of an attractive phantom made the other options look less attractive - a contrast effect similar in nature to, but opposite in direction from, that found with decoys. Second a phantom changed the relative importance given to the criteria for making a decision. Specifically, the attribute on which the phantom was superior was rated as most important for making the decision.
Owning an object that is scarce for or unavailable to everyone else is a means of defining one's self: "I am unique and special because I won something that no one else (or at least not many) has been able to obtain." Just hearing about a phantom may induce worry and concern: "If they bring out a better product, I'll be stuck with this thing. Maybe I should wait."
Phantom trap - fixation - focus attention on the scarce or unavailable item By concentrating on the scarce or unavailable, we may forget or overlook the possible. The presence of an attractive but currently unavailable object can focus our attention and resources on obtaining the desired prize. Settling for less than the phantom becomes a conflict that can only be resolved by "strength of willpower," a test that many of us often fail.
In many cases, phantom fixation can be a waste of time and energy, especially when the phantom is really a "red herring" of sorts - a truly unavailable option.
Consumer catch 22 carousel - obtaining a scarce and rare product adds to one's self image as a unique and special person. Manufacturers know this and design and market their products accordingly. If the marketer does a good job of creating a perception of the product as unique, then you desire and acquire it. But the catch is, so does everyone else; suddenly you are no longer an original. Instead of acquiring a product that makes you unique, you have obtained one that makes you just like everyone else. This further heightens the need for uniqueness, and off we go in an endless pursuit of the next faddish phantom. Once we begin using material goods to define ourselves, we are doomed to be on an endless treadmill of dissatisfaction.

Selectivity of news - without some form of censorship, propaganda is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo environment that he thinks wise or desirable. For while people who have direct access can misconceive what they see, no one else can decide how they shall misconceive it, unless he can decide where they shall look, and at what.

Everyday news - selection of news
News reporters typically work beats - they are assigned a group of institutions to cover. This immediately injects one source of bias into news coverage - something that happens off or between beats has a lower chance of being covered unless it is a major disaster or other spectacular event. Off beat stories rarely are covered and aren't considered news.
Most reporters are on a deadline; they must prepare a given number of stories by a certain time regardless of what is happening. In order to meet their deadlines, reporters place a premium on sources that can be easily contacted and trusted. This also creates bias in at least two ways. First, the reporter develops a routine for covering a story - ignoring potentially relevant avenues of investigation. Second, the reporter's routine results in the same type of people appearing on the news repeatedly.
Increasingly, reporters work for a corporation. This concentration of ownership results pressure on the reporter; certain stories are encouraged or not encouraged depending on their implications for the parent corporation. More subtly, however, corporate ownership biases programming and coverage.
As difficult as these pressures may seen, the journalist faces one more pressure that may mean her or his livelihood - the ability of the news story to hold the audience's attention. All television programming, including the evening news, must strive for profits - and that translates into securing ratings and viewers that will attract advertising dollars. And what induces people to watch the news concludes that most viewers want to be amused and diverted; being informed is only a secondary motive for watching. To guarantee high ratings and revenues, mass media content tends to be agreeable and to require little effort on the part of consumers, while still being arousing, emotionally engaging, and above all entertaining.
What makes a great news story? Stories that
Are new and timely
Involve conflict or scandal
Concern strange and unusual happenings
Happen to familiar or famous people
Are capable of being made dramatic and personal
Are simple to convey in a short space or time
Contain visual elements
Fit a theme that is currently prominent in the news or society
The result of this itch for entertainment is sound bite and photo op news - a montage of brief visual images that play to the crowd. Each event and every idea must be part of a dramatic story amply illustrated with visual displays. Stories that are easily dramatized and visualized are readily covered. More complex issues receive little attention unless they can be made concrete and visual.

As one's confidence is weakened, a person becomes less prone to listen to arguments against his or her beliefs. Thus the very people you most want to convince and whose opinion might be the most susceptible to being changed are the ones least likely to continue to expose themselves to a communication designed for that purpose.

People tend to acquire information mostly about things that they find of interest and tend to avoid information that does not agree with their beliefs. Should someone find that they have been unavoidably exposed to uninteresting and disagreeable information, a common response is to distort and reinterpret that information, thus ignoring its implications for updating beliefs and attitudes.

The use of entertaining programs to disseminate a point of view has been successful in achieving high audience ratings and in changing people's attitudes and behaviors. Not appearing to be explicit attempts at persuasion, they should arouse little resistance, inhibiting the formation of counter arguments by distracting the audience. Most importantly, people will probably watch them without switching channels.

Information campaigns can succeed if they follow these simple rules:
Make the program entertaining
Do not directly attack a viewer's attitude and beliefs

Effective propaganda relies on heuristics and appeals to the emotions.
Its propaganda's effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and to a very limited degree at the so called intellect. We must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, by their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

AND much more. Its very informative. I highly recommend this book.

I can't recommend this book enough..........2006-12-16

I am writing a thesis for a my master's on myths, and relating that to propaganda, which led me to this book.
I can't say enough great things about this book. I relates all of the ideas to everyday occurances common to the "layman".
This book is great for research, and also just to learn how the world is really ran.
Get it.

Propaganda exposed!.......2006-05-06

I agree with the critics that this book is not all that scientific in its study of propaganda. That aside the book illustrates a 'real world' approach. The authors reveal everyday propaganda by contrasting debunked stats and figures(+ satire). There are a lot of opinionated theories which should be taken with a pinch of salt. Keep in mind that you won't get any reasons for why people react the way they do to propaganda, you'll only find demonstrations of propaganda at large. This is in part due to the authors dissection of the pop-cultural and not the psychological aspect of propaganda.

Securing Your Compliance = No Great Hurdle.......2005-12-06

"Age of Propaganda" spells out in plain terms [contrary to another reviewer's finding of the book as being too "wordy"] how mass media is as a leveraging tool used by those in positions of power to coerce "decision by persuasion."

To quote the authors, "the goal of modern propaganda is not to inform and enlighten but rather to move the masses toward a desired position or point of view...these appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions...[and that]...the most important determinant is the thoughts running through one's head as a persuasive communication is seen and heard[and]in general, we humans seek to conserve our cognitive energy by taking mental short-cuts whenever we can, and we attempt to rationalize our thoughts and behavior so that they appear reasonable to ourselves and others. Most propaganda appeals attempt to take advantage of these two human tendencies."

Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson really put together a humdinger here. I'd like to offer a personal thanks to them as their book had a profound influence on me. In the early 90s I was working as a janitor at a college and found a stack of "free for all" books, and, being a reader, rummaged through and came up this dandy heavy hitter. Although, say, much like Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick's in depth documentary on dissident Noam Chomsky and media propaganda, "Manufacturing Consent," also from that era, some of the info has in a short time span become not so much obsolete as it's become more dire and omnipresent in governmental/corporate policy and application.

For instance, if I recall, at the time when "Manufacturing Consent" was released, there were some forty parent corporate giants controlling mass media worldwide, as where now power has been consolidated, and that number is around five or six. That in itself should deeply concern everyone, yet most people probably aren't aware of it, and would only give you a blank stare if you brought it to their attention. And that's precisely why "Age of Propaganda" is such a useful book; it simplistically lays out the historical foundation of propaganda, and how and why it's used against us. The statistics presented to show how many mass media messages are consumed annually by the average person alone is quite disturbing and offers a clear example - hopefully to those who refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of the process - of how the power of persuasion works.

As of 1992, the U.S. spent four-hundred million per year on propaganda {imagine what it must be now!}. 1-4 headings are taken from the book, the explanations aren't.

1)"The message must attract the recipient's attention."

Often this is the classic Problem/Reaction/Solution ruse: government *creates* the dilemma, misdirects and places blame elsewhere, uses the media to exploit the public's fears over the dilemma, and as the public demands resolution, even if they're truly in the dark as to how/why the dilemma came about, then government can implement draconian measures to "solve" the problem, when in reality, their "fix" is merely Big Brother's way of further stacking the odds in power's favor over democratic interference.

2)"The arguments in the message must be understood and comprehended."

This one's a no-brainer, just play off of the public's general ignorance and lack of knowledge and awareness. Dumb the message down and exploit the public's fears while simultaneously making the them feel better, stronger, for believing the lies. If you have a whole bunch of idiots all believing the same lies, the collective ignorance and adhered-to unreality is in turn reinforced. ...*pssst,* this is truly a BAD, SCARY thing, k?

3)"The recipient must learn the arguments contained in the message and come to accept them as true."

People have been culturally trained to watch TV. They generally believe what TV instructs them to believe, even though such psychological gymnastics aren't cast in stone, and most people would voice the opinion that TV lies. So, in order to get around that, the powers that be, through media "de-regulation" policies {go look it up yourself!} forged a stronghold within mainline media over the past twenty years in order to help shift public opinion to their Rightist, lunatic position. This explains the "need" for 24/7 cable "news," talk radio, and even the allowance of an illusory "lefty" democratic party which works to establish the Right's agenda by calling itself "moderate." The repetition of lies and propaganda leads to mass acceptance of lies and propaganda as "truth." Plus, a handful of scoundrel's make big money from the chaos, misery and war profiteeering.

Which in turn leads to 4)"We act on this learned knowledge and beliefs when there is incentive to do so."

The incentive is obvious: IT MUST BE REAL IF IT'S ON TV! Strength in numbers, that is, United We FALL. So, people give up civil liberties for the illusion of security.

Security from whom, exactly? Those who ordered NORAD and the FAA to stand down for ninety minutes during the attacks of 9/11?

And that, unfortunately, is the dark heart of the matter.
In an illusory democracy, if Big Daddy Boss Goliath wants to further decimate poor little David, then Goliath will need to justify doing so, right? Which, given the grotesque military and economic discrepencies between the two, which should be an obvious elementary truth, is going to require A LOT of persuasion on Goliath's part to convince everybody that David does indeed pose a terminal threat.
And if, say, Goliath doesn't just have his deadly sights set on David, but on many other people too, well then, the "justification" and deceptive staging of David and Co. as 'Hitler's' and 'Satan's' is going to have to be utmost convincing. Repetition of lies, right? And since the factual reality of the situation could easily be picked apart, then the agenda-setting media need be tucked securely in Goliath's pocket to shut out reality, and a violent, devestating, emotional shock would certainly be helpful in clouding everyone's instincts and moral judgement ...wouldn't it?

"One of the most important determinants of learning is incentive; a persuasive message is learned and accepted if it is rewarding to so." ~ from "Age of Propaganda"

In this age of unprecedented social change and cultural and political upheavals, of mind boggling numbers of unwary, uninformed people who have bought into our government's phony "war on terror," who've ignored the perilous, unconstitutional, 'Orwellian' surveilance system which has permeated our world like a bad rash, now more than ever do people need to educate themselves as to how propaganda works and why those in positions of power use it against us.

The primary dilemma people have with discerning and acknowledging propaganda is that Establishment Power has naturally adopted the refutation of it as one of its main talking points. The socio/political fabric of America's environment is so utterly dense with Right wing propaganda that many can't see beyond mainstream media's criterion, although, as an institution that cannot afford to completely ignore the rising tide of dissenting voices, it's collectively been forced to "allow" various "framed" criticisms. However, these criticisms, framed as such, only serve as further misdirection while making cosmetic attempts at democratic appeasement by setting up the straw man to be torn apart by the Right.

Psychologically, the Right's agenda is rooted in imputing to all opponents of its unconstitutional, theocratic state-bound, treasonous, war-profiteering agenda, that which it collectively is most guilty of itself. What's happened here is actually far worse than any mere "conspiracy;" we exist in an age where most of us have unprecedented access to oodles of information, yet, according to our actions, or more revealing, our lack-of-proper-reaction-to, this country is laboring under a heavy toll of a spiritual and mental illness that has enabled millions to believe Goliath's monumental B.S. ...and not just to believe it, but for many to actually cheer on the debauchery. Wowzer bowzer.

In my copy of "Age," I count twenty-one reference pages, so to answer the reviewer, "sportsguy," who boasted that this book isn't sourced and that its authors used it as a vehicle to smear republicans, the reviewer, if he even read the book, should note that it was written on the tail end of twelve years of shady republican rule, and that just because the book doesn't reflect the reviewer's version of "reality," that in itself doesn't in any way invalidate the numerous sources that the authors *did* reference.

Soft Insight.......2005-08-19

Well written, interesting and worth reading, but a bit dated and fluffy in content

La era de la propaganda / Age of Propaganda: Uso y abuso de la persuasion / The Everyday use and abuse of Persuasion

Average customer rating:

La era de la propaganda / Age of Propaganda: Uso y abuso de la persuasion / The Everyday use and abuse of Persuasion
A. Pratkanis , and E. Aronson
Manufacturer: Ediciones Paidos Iberica
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Communications | Skills | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Spanish | Foreign Language Nonfiction | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books

General | Performing Arts | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books

Dirección Comercial | Profesional y Técnico | Libros en español | Formats | Books
ASIN: 8449300649

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books