Global Media &Communication: Propaganda and Diplomacy

Global Media &Communication: Propaganda and Diplomacy
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:
Global Media &Communication: Propaganda and Diplomacy
The contemporary world is characterized by globalization which has been hastened by the ever-improving global communication. Global media is the primary tool that people, cultures and nationals relate to each other by controlling the flow of information. To reiterate the power of global communication, Mattelart (2014), asserted that it (global communication) could manipulate how people see others and how they frame and interpret the events around them through its influence over the economy, politics, military operations and cultural expressions. This power of global communication can be harnessed and used as a powerful diplomatic tool for nations to forward their national agenda. This is the basis of associating global connection with pushing federal programs either using diplomacy or propaganda. Many diplomats have drawn a thin line between the two concepts while others have used them interchangeably. The approach governments take in pushing for the awareness of their political and economic agendas have created more confusion between the terms with scholars as international relations take different forms but are aimed at the same result- national importance. In covering the difference between the concepts, Brown (2008) posed a question as to whether public diplomacy was censored propaganda using a two circle demonstration that shows how they intersect. This paper seeks to provide an analysis of the two concepts to create a clear distinction or blur it further. To achieve this, the study highlights the differences and similarities deriving from examples.
Development in global communication has opened the international arena to further the need for a clear distinction between the two terms (Zaharna, 2004). Zaharna et al. (2014) noted that the advancements in global communication are moving public diplomacy from information dominance to the focus on cultivation relationship which is necessitated by the number of actors in the new media. Melissen (2005) noted the interdependence of both diplomacy and propaganda on global communication by observing that they use the conveyance of information and ideas to foreigners aiming to change or reinforce new attitudes and existing beliefs of the originating country. The discussion following this identification is about the different ways in which propaganda can and has been differentiated from diplomacy. In defining propaganda, Seib (2007) noted that propaganda gives both the sender and receiver in the communication channel a responsibility on how to react to the information for it to be effective. Several similarities create the grey lines in the definitions, but there are also some distinctions that scholars, politicians and the general public have used to differentiate the two.
* Use of global strategic communication
Whether the extent of manipulation is aimed at changing the opinions or encouraging action, both depend on the worldwide connection of the realization of specific objectives. This could be used as the explanation of the emergence of 'new' diplomacy, which is mainly dictated by the evolution of communication technology. The access to information, transmission and possibilities of manipulation presented by the new media blurs the difference between the two which leaves it to other elements for differentiation. These platforms of informative interactions of global communication make propaganda and communication propel further without clear distinction except in the perception of the source and receiver of the information (Gurgu and Cociuban, 2016). Global media can be used to push national agenda manipulating foreign firms to meet their international interactions and military security interests (Matterlart, 2014). The attainment of this result shows indications of both diplomacy and propaganda, depending on the focus and means of enacting the flow and direction of information. Zaharna (2004) also highlighted how governments use global communication to mobilize both domestic and foreign support. In highlighting where the difference between public diplomacy and propaganda comes to effect Melissen (2005) noted that depending on the purpose, the media can act as an agenda-setter and also regulate the type and amount of information that gets to the public. In this regard, when a media outlet or a government controls what to air and manipulates or omits the facts, it determines the pursuit of either diplomacy or propaganda. Manzaria and Bruck (n.d.) identified a case where selective and manipulated use of media was used to enhance propaganda by studying the relations and media practices between Pakistan, France and the USA. In this case, the USA magnified the nuclear programs of both countries but places the Pakistani in bad light to amplify the French program in a progressive notion. How governments and institutions use the media creates a line that can highlight the type of advocacy, i.e. either diplomacy or propaganda. The blur between the two is amplified by the strategic choice of media use which needs more in-depth analysis for differentiation between the two concepts.
* Integrity
Public diplomacy is achieved through the enactment of various means such as international interventions, grooming journalists, cultural and educative activities which are meant to correct errors and misconceptions (Gurgu and Cociuban, 2016). The unethical association of propaganda is the most common differentiating factor that most people use. One of the reasons why public diplomacy is a challenge is that the public harbours a negative perception that public relations are always driven by propagandists (Harris, 2013). Zaharna (2004) also highlighted that propaganda is usually based on lies when she posed the question- ‘should America’s information antics rely on truth or propaganda. This statement indicates propaganda as the opposite of reality. The extent of integrity in the information determines whether an international relationship endeavor manifests as diplomacy or propaganda. The accuracy and level of omission in the information conveyed differentiates between the two concepts. Misyuk (2013) clearly distinguished between the two terms by asserting that propaganda encompasses disinformation mixed with truth and selectively presets one-sided argument intending to shift the focus onto one position at the expense of others. Seib (2007) noted that propaganda focuses on selfish goals and has no problem mixing the facts with truth to achieve their objective. Seib also noted that propaganda narrows the choices that the receivers can act upon. Propaganda misrepresents facts and proposes deliberate lies while public diplomacy involves a truthful, factual and explicit representation of a country’s policy and practices (Brown, 2008). The author also noted the system hold pejorative connotations which are the reason that the public is wary of the type of information they consume. One of the worst cases of propaganda in world history are the event preceding and during the Second World War. In the initial stages of the war, Hitler portrayed German soldiers as the victims and not perpetrators of the war by using expression like ‘images of injustice to Germans’, which were meant to change the world view about the Germans and vouch for sympathy from the public (Snyder, 2019). The existence of propaganda has savored the relationship between the Arab nations and the American government as they usually question the level of commitment to the professed peace talks (Seib, 2013). Although the Iraq war media coverage was real diplomacy, the association with the derogatory nature of propaganda still inhibits the level of influence that diplomacy can harbour.
* Method of persuasion
Both public diplomacy and propaganda aim at influencing the public or government to conform to their ideology and beliefs. While diplomacy considers the means through which it achieves its result through truthful disseminations (Zaharna, 2004) propaganda adopts pro-source operation that utilizes any means possible to achieve their goal (Snow, 2012). Hitler, who was a primary perpetrator of propagandist ideologies, noted that for effective practice, one has to practice the same effect repeatedly to master it (Sneider, 2019). Zaharna (2004) explained propagandists as enforcers of policies on the victims without caring for the subject’s voluntary acceptance to consume the information. One of...