“…The question to be asked now is how and through which channels “propaganda” is to be delivered and which tools are to be implemented? It was toward the end of WWII that Casey (1944) mentioned the following tools:…There are different kinds of propaganda. They run all the way from selfish, deceitful, and subversive effort to honest and aboveboard promotion of things that are good.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…tool] is suggestion … [or] stimulation … A second … is the use of hints, insinuations, or indirect statements … A third…is the appeal to known desires of an audience… The self‐interested propagandist will study public opinion to find out what things people are “for” or “against” to decide on the labels that he will use to bring about desired reactions. (Casey, 1944)…”
This article gives an interesting picture of how the Soviets viewed the propaganda war in Iran during the second half of the 1940s. It is mainly based on documents from the USSR's Ministry of Interior, the use of which is considered an innovation in the existing literature on the subject. Most of the attention of the Soviet sources discussed concerns the propaganda war, which began in 1943 between the three Allied powers that had invaded Iran during WWII, taking on the character of a combined struggle when the competition for Iranian oil was woven into the mix. To a large extent, this continued well into the years after WWII when, toward its end, it became even more intense. The main promoter of pro‐Soviet propaganda was the Tudeh party, and it was very successful in promoting the Soviet agenda in Iran, at least until the middle of 1946, mainly at the expense of British interests. In the remaining years until the end of the 1940s, the USA began to prevail in the struggle, and this was quite clear to all, including the Soviets, who admit to this openly in their situational assessment from the beginning of 1950.
“…The question to be asked now is how and through which channels “propaganda” is to be delivered and which tools are to be implemented? It was toward the end of WWII that Casey (1944) mentioned the following tools:…There are different kinds of propaganda. They run all the way from selfish, deceitful, and subversive effort to honest and aboveboard promotion of things that are good.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…tool] is suggestion … [or] stimulation … A second … is the use of hints, insinuations, or indirect statements … A third…is the appeal to known desires of an audience… The self‐interested propagandist will study public opinion to find out what things people are “for” or “against” to decide on the labels that he will use to bring about desired reactions. (Casey, 1944)…”
This article gives an interesting picture of how the Soviets viewed the propaganda war in Iran during the second half of the 1940s. It is mainly based on documents from the USSR's Ministry of Interior, the use of which is considered an innovation in the existing literature on the subject. Most of the attention of the Soviet sources discussed concerns the propaganda war, which began in 1943 between the three Allied powers that had invaded Iran during WWII, taking on the character of a combined struggle when the competition for Iranian oil was woven into the mix. To a large extent, this continued well into the years after WWII when, toward its end, it became even more intense. The main promoter of pro‐Soviet propaganda was the Tudeh party, and it was very successful in promoting the Soviet agenda in Iran, at least until the middle of 1946, mainly at the expense of British interests. In the remaining years until the end of the 1940s, the USA began to prevail in the struggle, and this was quite clear to all, including the Soviets, who admit to this openly in their situational assessment from the beginning of 1950.
“… 6. Propaganda is broadly defined as ‘any ideas or beliefs that are intentionally propagated’ (Casey, 1944). We can distinguish between three types of propaganda: ‘Black’ propaganda is created by one source, but attributed to another.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…‘Gray’ propaganda has no known producer. With ‘white’ propaganda, the source is known (Casey, 1944).…”
Russia’s cyber-enabled influence operations (CEIO) have garnered significant public, academic and policy interest. 126 million Americans were reportedly exposed to Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 US election on Facebook. Indeed, to the extent that such efforts shape political outcomes, they may prove far more consequential than other, more flamboyant forms of cyber conflict. Importantly, CEIOs highlight the human dimension of cyber conflict. Focused on ‘hacking human minds’ and affecting individuals behind keyboards, as opposed to hacking networked systems, CEIOs represent an emergent form of state cyber activity. Importantly, data for studying CEIOs are often publicly available. We employ semantic network analysis (SNA) to assess data seldom analyzed in cybersecurity research – the text of actual advertisements from a prominent CEIO. We examine the content, as well as the scope and scale of the Russian-orchestrated social media campaign. While often described as ‘disinformation,’ our analysis shows that the information utilized in the Russian CEIO was generally factually correct. Further, it appears that African Americans, not white conservatives, were the target demographic that Russia sought to influence. We conclude with speculation, based on our findings, about the likely motives for the CEIO.
“…While government-backed fake news has understandably garnered a great deal of attention recently, it is just one of many tools used by governments to control media narratives, and in many ways it is not a novel phenomenon. Government-backed propaganda disseminated through mass media started being used effectively during World War I in Western countries and has been employed by a variety of states ever since (Casey 1944). It is possible for nongovernment interest groups also to propagate fake news, but it can take on a magnitude with the full backing of government agents, namely intelligence outfits, that is not easy for private quarters to match.…”
Mainstream media faces challenges in developed democracies like never before. On one hand, seemingly “free” digital (including social media) options are eroding the market for print drastically. Ads are not so much shifting from print to digital, but apparently simply disappearing. In the face of the pressures stemming from changing economics of the news business—which still has to be gathered at great expense, even if it can be distributed or shared by third parties practically for free (denying the gatherers their share of revenue)—one now encounters a new form of threat that is more political and cultural, namely, “fake news” and state and nonstate actors who wield it to undermine the public's trust in traditional media or news sources.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
