Given the fact that propaganda is a broad term, which creats debates over its definition, let assume that it is the form of communication designed to influence others' behavior for self interests, to quote the literature propaganda is defined by Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell as "the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions and direct behaviors to achieve a response that furthers the intent of the propagandist" (Jowett and O'Donnell, 1992, 4). let also say that it relies on symbols, myths and irrational emotions.
Assumed that, relying on the definition you prefer for public diplomacy, i'd like you to think about the US public diplomacy over the last 60-70 years, about the role of the USIA and the Voice Of America during the cold war, the Shared Values Campaign, and Obama self-presentation and the rebranding of USA under his presidency, about the Hollywood's presentation of the American dream and finally on the americanization of the world that occurred since the end of the Cold War, then think about America victimizing itself after the 9/11 attacks and its campaign to support its illegal war on Iraq waged for the alleged possesion of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which ectually have never been found, and finally about the war on terror which is actually spreading more terror on us and increasing terror (Snow, 2009, 34).
Now you might think that I am doing counterpropaganda, however I just want to ask you whether you believe or not that american public diplomacy is propaganda. it is a kind of survey nothing more that that.
thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, you have given us a lot to think about. Indeed, the US is a country rich in examples of positive nation branding as well as of negative. Nevertheless, while looking at Obama's approach to the world politics in comparision to the former president G.W.Bush, Obama is definately trying to make a change in the US image abroad. Indeed he has a hard job to do as the phenomenon of Anti- Americanism has spred around the globe. Nevertheless, Obama
ReplyDeleteis trying his best while promoting mutual understanding rather then promoting the national security interests of the US. Check Obama's speech before the summit in Copenhagen 2009. He says that it is a time for committments and cooperation which the US ignored for some time. You can see his will to change things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhJHf0W7qhg
Moreover, please see Obama's message to Iran. He clearly promotes engagement and respect between the two nations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI
Soft power is what in my opinion the US will rediscover during Obama's residency. Nevertheless, there is the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan which in my opinion, even with Obama's best intentions, the US won't turn to positive. America should be prepared to sing Obama's song 'Yes We Can't' rather then 'Yes we can' any time soon. Please check the song on YouTube ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk&feature=related
I do not agree with your argument when claiming that American public diplomacy is "mere propaganda". Your point about american public diplomacy during the Cold war with agencies such as USIA and Voice of America is somewhat just, however you must not forget that America was found herself in a state of war with a great enemy. The Americans were not the only one with such agency to promote their cause. As we have learn in our reading and in the lecture, countries all over the world to promote themselves, by portraying their image as perfectly as they can. Would you say that every states public diplomacy is solely propaganda?
ReplyDeleteI think we should be careful in ticking particular countries in boxes. I also believe that you last two sentences stated that you just trying to bring a debate rather than "counter-propaganda" as you put it yourself.
no my point is that if a state does not support its public diplomacy with concrete actions, then YES its public diplomacy is propaganda!
ReplyDeleteand then do you think that america found itself "in state of war with a great enemy" as you said, which I suppose you are talking about terrorism, from nothing? don't you think that terrorism is the response to somothing bigger? "one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"(sorry i can't source this because I did not find who actually said it). America's imperialism and neo colonialism had an answer! i'm not supporting terrorism and I think there is not excuse for the means they use, however if you want to blame terrorism, you should look at the whole scenario. america supported terrorism for a long period of time (read Chomsky "Hegemony or survival"), and suddenly it becomes the greatest advocator for the eradication of terrorism, for me this is propaganda, the creation of a common enemy, the demonization of some states which actually do not submit to the hegemonical power, which do not want to accept america hegemony. what about the doggy dossier of the weapons of mass destruction in iraq? for me that's propaganda. when you have to uphold your position which has been threatened, you resort to EVERY means, and that's what america is doing!
Norway is not a big country but its public diplomacy is genuine, at least more than many other's and it is actually trusted by the international community!