“Nowadays, as Colin Seymour-Ure puts it, television has become an ‘integral part of the environment within which political life takes place’ (1989, p.308). Surveys show that for the vast majority of people the media represent the main source of their information about politics.”(McNair, 23) Therefore, the primary medium of communication between the government and the public, in most countries today, is the media. It is via various forms of media: TV, radio, newspapers and political advertising such as posters that the government usually tries to promote its goals and policies .It is through this means that the government actually tries to influence, mobilize and reinforce the public support that is necessary for effective political action. According to Franklin, the government usually opts for two major strategies: propaganda and news management that it uses for communicating messages to the public. (Franklin, 120).
Governments of various nations such as Britain, Germany and USA have used propaganda successfully for the longest time. It is these countries that prove that “speech and words are mightier than swords.” During both the World War One they used posters as means of not only justifying their involvement in the war to their countrymen but also during the World War Two propaganda was used on the front lines as well as the home front. One of the more widespread uses of propaganda was in leaflets that were dropped on soldiers from the air. These leaflets were intended to demoralize the soldier so that he would lay down his arms and surrender. The United States, Germany, and Japan all used these leaflets.
“It’s not what you say, but how you say it, that matters.” (Ewen, 31) The power of media and how the government had used it for self-interest to spin facts and communicate with the public can clearly be seen after analyzing the cases of the 2003 Iraq War and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In both cases it may be said that government had clearly used propaganda to inflame the public outrage by abstaining crucial bits of information from the public to attain its own benefit. In both cases the government had employed a public relations agency (Hill and Knowlton) to create a pseudo-event with which it could win the public support for its cause. Later on, upon discovery of their devious deed and being questioned, the government had said that they had refrained to give information for national security purposes. Both of these cases are exemplary cases of government’s use of propaganda to wage war and their shrewd way of censoring information. Keeping the above stated scenarios in mind, the government’s intentions in these cases do seem questionable. Was the government actually protecting the public or did it use propaganda to abuse its power to achieve its objectives in the name of national security?
“In Britain, the ‘spiral of censorship’ is more developed and potentially malevolent than in other European countries.” (Franklin, 35) There are various dramatic cases where it has been seen that the British government has censored news, which created severe chaos in the UK political landscape. Amongst them, the sentencing of the former M15 officer David Shayler on 5 November 2002 is one that raised severe queries regarding the British government’s interests to safe guard the public interest in lieu of national security. David Shayler was sentenced for three breaches of the Official Secrets Act. But in this case question can be raised regarding the fairness of the trial since Shayler was imprisoned for 6 months for revealing British Intelligence's protection of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Regarding this case, Watson (n.d) states in an online article that, “The original articles stated that top Labour MP's had signed gag orders, whereby upon mention of this evidence in court, media have to immediately leave the trial. Newspapers all over the country, including the Guardian, the London Evening Standard and the Scotsman either completely removed or amended their articles. This evidence is damning. The British government is trying to bury the story before it buries them.” Upon reading the original facts behind the trial one would definitely wonder as to whether Shayler was sentenced for the breach of the Official Secrets Act or was it just the British government’s way to wipe out a witness who could testify against them. “Sadler’s recent academic study of national security and the D-notice[1] argues that the public interest is insufficiently represented in the system with the result that material may be suppressed not because it threatens national security but instead risks exposing the government to embarrassment. (Sadler 2001).” (Franklin, 33)
“The process of packaging politics manipulates, as well as informs, the public.”(Franklin, 11) Basing on this premise and the above stated cases, it may be said that not only do the governments of the developed countries such as Britain and USA completely censors their own media but they use propaganda selfishly as their means to meet their favorable ends- ends which completely end up ruining and destructing the already impoverished third world countries such as Persia and Iraq which have crumbled away as a result of a war which yielded nothing but thousands of death and devastation.
[1] In the UK, a censorship notice issued by the Department of Defence to the media to prohibit the publication of information on matters alleged to be of national security. The system dates from 1922.
0 comments:
Post a Comment