[spenvo]

The greatest instrument used in the societal tragedies of the last century has (undoubtedly) been state delivered propaganda.

Japan (Empire of the Rising Sun), Nazi Germany, Maoism (and the following Cultural Revolution), in America: Red Scare (age of McCarthyism, ending as a consequence of JMc.'s untimely death), the Red Peril (the predecessor of the Red Scare) -- the list goes on. The efficacy of those at the top to wield their power would have been far less without propaganda. Their ability to acquire it -- even less still.

Consider current-day North Korea, Venezuela, or numerous Middle-Eastern countries (which regulate education as well as the internet); consider the intellectually subdued population of China and the unconscionable acts which have been silently taking place in Tibet (and elsewhere) behind the Great Firewall. All of these nations are suffering from handicapped/censored versions of the internet -- while simultaneously being subjected to propaganda.

Russia can now officially be added to that club. I can't help but extrapolate -- applying this trend to other nations.

An Uncensored and Open Internet* is crucial to the subversion of tyrannical governments' propaganda efforts.

* - (I prefer this to "Free and Open" because 'free' is so easily misunderstood by baby boomers)

~ ~

We are witnessing (again [0]) a complete lack of attempted narrative on the part of the US/UK mainstream press. There isn't the slightest reason to not give this story ample coverage -- it is anti-Putin/Russia (which, we can all agree is the current fetish in the media), and it is absolutely newsworthy -- even by their standards (they covered when the Russia Today anchors quit and spoke-out). SO WHAT GIVES? This is the dereliction of duty in "journalism." Shame. And it is greatly affecting the movement for an Uncensored and Open Internet.

"Coverage" is different from "being reported." This needs to reach baby boomers in the form of a headline. They don't appreciate the internet because they can't connect the dots.

I've snapshoted cnn.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, bbc.com - at 8:51pm CST at web.archive.org . I'm the crackpot that believes there are ulterior motives in this pattern of institutional ignorance/behavior.

~ ~

When it comes to the marketing of high stakes legislation - know that the true motives are often-times blended with an actual public desire, with the bill being a means to another end entirely. As mike_esspe points out: this action being taken is through the passage of Russia's "anti-child pornography" bill. For those that missed it, here's what happening in the UK on the same front of misdirection. [0]

If you care about making a difference, beyond "liking" and "upvoting" -- I highly recommend (as did Aaron Swartz) reading "The Power Broker," and you will have a greater appreciation of the forces at play and how opaque the processes which deliver and execute the policies of governance really are.

[0] - A recent example of the mainstream press giving essentially no coverage came with GHCQ webcam revelations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7315743 The loose connection between the (casually addressed) problems of pictures obtained of minors' nudity in the webcam program and the governments' attempts to censor the internet on the back of the serious child pornography issue is worth noting, for its hypocrisy.

[1] - http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zhd6i/david_came... ~~

For the inevitable Godwin's Law comebacks. People too often focus on Hitler's 1936-39 rise to global prominence: what is often overlooked is the unabated role of the party's propaganda-machine from 1921 to 1932 to gain popular support and 1932 to ~1936 to brainwash the remaining populace.

[nl]

Not to detract from your point, but you neglected two of the archetype of the tragedies arising from State-controlled media propaganda:

The role of the Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian media in the wars following the break up of Yugoslavia[1].

The role of state controlled radio and TV in the Rwandan genocide[2][3]. To quote from [2]:

From October 1993 to late 1994, RTLM was used by Hutu leaders to advance an extremist Hutu message and anti-Tutsi disinformation, spreading fear of a Tutsi genocide against Hutu, identifying specific Tutsi targets or areas where they could be found, and encouraging the progress of the genocide. In April 1994, Radio Rwanda began to advance a similar message, speaking for the national authorities, issuing directives on how and where to kill Tutsis, and congratulating those who had already taken part.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_media_in_the_Yugosl...

[2] http://migs.concordia.ca/links/RwandaRadioTranscripts.htm

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm

[FD3SA]

I believe this is the post you are referring to [1]. In it, Aaron describes his reaction to reading Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky.

I second your sentiment completely, and knowledge is indeed the path to freedom. The journey itself however, is fraught with malignant powers hell bent upon crushing us at every step. Ukraine is a tragic example in a long list of historic casualties, caught in the eternal fight for freedom against powerful tyrants.

1. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/epiphany

[growupkids]

They aren't he'll bent on crushing you. Oh no, propaganda is about seducing you. They want you on their side, not crushed. Convincing you that you're much too clever to be sold a lie. Why this is the truth! Those others, why they don't want you to know the truth. That you are truly one of the smart ones, that's found the one true way. Some might call it brain washing, I just call it sales. Turn you into a believer, a loyal true believer because by god these people only wants best for you. And bam, your hooked.

Don't be fooled, power isnt about crushing, not all all, it's about developing large adoring flocks of people that have seen the way, and don't need to hear another word. You don't crush your troops. You mold them into Super fans, adoring acolytes.

True propaganda entices, it never ever crushes.

[throwawayaway]

Sounds like codinghorror.com

[spenvo]

Thanks - I messed up linking in the post.

On "The Power Broker," Swartz says:

"I cannot possibly say enough good things about this book. Go read it. Right now. Yes, I know it’s long, but trust me, you’ll wish it was longer. I think it may be simply the best nonfiction book."

[0] - https://zolabooks.com/list/aaron-swartz-reading-list/1

[beedogs]

> We are witnessing (again [0]) a complete lack of attempted narrative on the part of the US/UK mainstream press. There isn't the slightest reason to not give this story ample coverage -- it is anti-Putin/Russia (which, we can all agree is the current fetish in the media), and it is absolutely newsworthy -- even by their standards (they covered when the Russia Today anchors quit and spoke-out). SO WHAT GIVES? This is the dereliction of duty in "journalism." Shame. And it is greatly affecting the movement for an Uncensored and Open Internet.

It's obvious. People will start drawing parallels between Russia's actions and that of the Western governments and their press. They'd rather not have folks figure out we're just as bad as the rest of 'em.

[rjzzleep]

ironically, the uk has already done that before they passed the bill. they blocked independent media coverage of iran, and not only blocked it, but also banned them from sky satellites. germans then banned the channel from astra, which was revoked after a court appeal. i don't know of any updates to the story though. been a while since i followed the story.

i find it particularly interesting, mainly because for the most part the population never even noticed.

we shouldn't really be so high and mighty. for all i know people over there oppose their bad practices, and over here people are defending them.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/20/iran-press-tv-l...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/06/18/246851/press-tv-is-b...

[choult]

I'd hardly call Press TV "independent" - it's state-funded and apparently strongly linked to the Revolutionary Guard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_TV.

Your Guardian link describes Ofcom - the TV regulator in the UK - offering two alternatives to Press TV to retain its license in order to comply with the requirement that the license is held by the same entity as that providing editorial oversight. It also mentions that Press TV was fined for airing a clip of an interview carried out under duress. Regulation is not censorship.

[guard-of-terra]

"Independent" means just "not affiliated with the current regime in your country"

[aldous]

The UK mainstream press are reporting it: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21599061-kremlins-belli...

[baddox]

> Consider current-day North Korea, Venezuela, or countless Middle-Eastern countries (which regulate education as well as the internet)

Doesn't the United States also regulate education and the Internet, and particularly the former? It seems like you're still likely to get labelled a kooky conspiracy theorist if you claim that modern Western governments actively engage in blatant propaganda campaigns, but it's considered "obvious" that other countries (either in the past or other parts of the world) do so.

[ender7]

US education has both private and public aspects. Private schools are, surprisingly, almost unregulated in terms of the content that they must teach (high school students are required to take one class in American History).

Public education is administered at the county level (if you can believe it). States have a decent amount to say with regards to what schools teach; the federal government does not. This system is not great for a variety of reasons (primarily the fact that education quality varies astronomically from county to county), but it does mean that "propaganda in schools" is hard to effect from a centralized location.

[baddox]

I haven't done a lot of research, but from the few public school teachers I know personally, I glean that a lot of state and federal public school "regulation" is not of the explicit legal type, but rather takes the form of pressure from conditional subsidies.

[pflats]

States set their own educational requirements. The federal government has no "hard" power there, but it has a big pile of money, lots of ideas, and likes to promote the latter with the former.

[guscost]

> "propaganda in schools" is hard to effect from a centralized location.

What do you think of the new "common core" standards?

[bmelton]

> Public education is administered at the county level

Admitting that as being partially true, and/or not wanting to quibble over where it isn't, it's worth pointing out that will be a fallacy should Common Core become widely adopted.

It's also worth noting that public schools have been used for indoctrination for a very long time now. You'd have been hard-pressed to find a college grad in the early thirties who believed that the government had the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare, while you'd be hard-pressed to find one now that believed it didn't.

While much of that is attributable to the actual practice of legislation, and the past 80 years of precedent, education, particularly history, is continually being "updated" to reflect modern sentiment, and applies that to the distant past.

[higherpurpose]

Anonymity in an uncensored Internet and in a democracy in general is just as important for the same reasons.

Right now in Russia there are two kinds of people: those too afraid to speak or do anything, and those who get silenced. In such a situation there's no way to have a contrarian voice unless you're anonymous.

[malkung]

My impression from reading Russian blogs on LiveJournal is that there are two kinds of people in Russia right now: those extremely anti-Putin and those extremely pro-Putin, in about 50/50 proportion. No one is "too afraid" or "silenced".

[dcc1]

Until one day those antiPutinities are mysteriously rounded up and sent to Siberia, heres a thought for you if Putin did that tomorrow what would the "West" do? the answer will be nothing, nada, zero

If I was in Russia now i would shut up and plan my exit strategy, as most of those who could afford did so.

[malkung]

Here you are thinking about Russia in your Western categories. Those who did exit did so not because they want to be able to speak up against Putin, but for economic or professional reasons. Also Anti-Putinites are so many on the Internet you can't possibly round them up. Russians have been venting their political views on the Internet ever since the Internet has become available, I don't see how this can ever be stopped. Also Siberia is not such a bad place :) Also, the "West" doesn't need to do anything in Russia, unless it wants a mess just like in Ukraine, only with lots more of unhinged nationalists/patriots/communists/liberals and with nuclear weapons getting involved. It's not going to be nice pro-Western people against a horrible totalitarian regime.

[dcc1]

I was born in the USSR, my birth cert has the hammer and sickle, so please don't lecture me on "the Russian way of thinking"

What has risen in the last ~15 years is a much more cynical, evil, ugly and nastier version of what USSR was.

Hell my parents still watch Russian channels and it doesn't take long to realise that there is some sort of mass psychosis taking place in the old country, fuelled by state controlled media.

I actually feel very much sorry for those brave souls that do speak out, seeing as to what happened to all those journalists that did so, you are right ending up in a Siberian gulag aint the worst outcome.

[spenvo]

I agree, which is why programs (now in effect) like this one are so threatening:

http://www.netfamilynews.org/online-id-verification-in-south...

[contingencies]

US: Fox News, CNN, 'embedded journalists' in US military campaign reporting.

About censorship bills brought in by dubious 'five horseman of the internet apocalypse' arguments, yes.

Honestly though, almost every nation I've lived in or have citizenship has equivalent rules (Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, China, UK). The US perhaps doesn't but it's still bullshit to hold it up as any kind of do-gooder because it would be hard to argue that its recent actions have any positive outcome for the internet (re: extralegal persecution of Wikileaks, MegaUpload, pervasive PRISM surveillance, encouragement of allies to do the same, peddling of lofty-sounding international agreements by bribery/cocercion to effect 'IP law' changes that essentially undermine funamental freedoms, domestic shackling of IANA, politicization of DNS, etc.)

After visiting it on the eve of its new government, I wonder how Tunisia is doing with enacting freedom-protecting internet legislation?

I wonder if perhaps, perversely, Germany might be doing OK in this regard?

[Steko]

It's a good thing the Mongols didn't have modern _state delivered propaganda_, otherwise some real atrocities might have taken place in the areas they conquered.

[twelvechairs]

its a good thing the Mongols didn't have modern _state delivered propaganda_. otherwise we wouldn't know about the atrocities that took place in the areas they conquered.

[Steko]

Quite a different claim from grandparent, that modern _state delivered propaganda_ is the biggest enabler of modern atrocity.

[mikeash]

Or An Lushan. Makes Mao look like a rank amateur. If propaganda is necessary to modern atrocities, what changed to make it so?

[MarkTee]

Globalization

[BugBrother]

I shocked the educated English guy next to me at work, when I gave a reference to "The harrowing of the north".

Not exactly the most obscure part of English history, but still not well known. Control of information isn't new.

The fun part will all the Chomsky thing is that in my native Sweden, you have totally different influences on the news media than USA. E.g. left wing extremists have a large space, political discussion are often done by interviewing political left extremists (Gardell, Hubinette, Guillou, etc).

But you see lots of "manufactured consent", lots of head line news stories at BBC/NY Times just doesn't show up. Etc.

[BugBrother]

I should add -- what I meant was, the filtering of the news is very different but still filtered. E.g. pro-Israel stuff (Pallywood, torture between palestinian groups, antisemitism in the muslim world etc)often just doesn't get printed.

Sometimes you see a story at the BBC/NY Times. After it has grown to a headline item, it is grudgingly made news in Sweden a couple of days later.

I assume this is because the left wing extremists really care about Israel.

[democracy]

Also in Germany there was a very good (for Hitler) historical context that didn't need many of out-of-@ss facts (you can get from mass media these days). Anyway, J. Goebbels was the god of propaganda and still is I guess a role model of some political journalists even these days.

[madaxe_again]

Hm, you say that, but Goebbels didn't have any tricks of his own - he learned from the masters - two Americans, Bernays and von Wiegand, who sharpened their skills in the 20's working for the Hearst press and convincing America to smoke.

[spenvo]

This. Thank you. More people should know of these giants and that propaganda's origins (in theorycraft and implementation) are much closer to home than many Anglos realize.

Edward Bernays - his Wikipedia article is enlightening in and of itself. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

[arca_vorago]

Don't forget Ivy Lee. While we are at it, it is worth mentioning that the law against domestic use of propaganda in the US was quietly repealed a few years ago. Operation Mockingbird is also worth a look for those curious about the cozy relationship between the CIA et al and the media.

[userulluipeste]

"propaganda's origins (in theorycraft and implementation) are much closer to home than many Anglos realize"

Propaganda is old as the humanity itself (when was performed mainly through priests), and in Edward Bernays' time it only got formalized.

[antocv]

USA is in that bubble with China, Russia Iran etc.

Youre just in it and refuse to accept it. Americans too are intellectually subdued.

[garrettgrimsley]

It's more nuanced than that.

The USA is very good at the use of soft power, and targeted application of hard power. Our profiency at the use of soft power largely eliminates the need for hard power. Iran and China are simply not on our level when it comes to manipulation of public opinion. I believe that the illusion of an independent and oppositional media plays a large part in this.

For example, I can visit any number of violent white supremacist or radical Islamic websites at my leisure. Yes, I'm likely raising red-flags in a database somewhere, but I'm not stopped from visiting.

This is not to say that Americans are not intellectually subdued, they are, but the way in which control is exerted is markedly different.