Does propaganda determine (geo)politics? Pt. 1
On the CNN effect and how propaganda potentially operates as direct policymaking and institutional administration.
The CNN effect, if we generalize a bit, refers to the hypothesis that propaganda and the mass media apparatus to some extent determines the policy of governing institutions, and that propaganda thus plays a significant role in the actual outcomes (political, economic, social) effected by the governing instutions, the policymakers, the legislators, the ideological state apparatuses et.c.
What’s interesting about this suggestion is that it would mean that propaganda is not (mainly or only, depending on how you look at things) downstream from the governing institutions. The mass media apparatus does then not only reflect the objectives and values of the ruling class and of the dominant institutions upon the populace in general, but functions as a significant determinant of their policies, of institutional behaviour, of high-level decision-making and so forth.
In other words, propaganda in this case does not just serve to manufacture consent and agitation among the public, with the intentions of the higher levels in the hierarchy remaining more or less stable.
Assuming that the CNN effect is real and significant, it namely follows that propaganda also influences the institutional operations and priorities at the upper levels of the societal chain of command, rendering them less independent while the mass media apparatus then must be considered an influential actor in its own right.
Depending on the level of impact we’re talking about here, propaganda ought possibly even be thought of as the key determinant of social power in our age.
So there are basically two approaches to the CNN effect and the power of propaganda in general.
According to what I’d consider the “legacy model”, propaganda and the mass media mainly expresses and mirrors the intentions and priorities of the governing institutions (of the ruling class or equivalent). Propaganda is dependent on these, and does not exert any significant influence on this foundation.
This model would look something like this, with the main avenues of influence indicated.
The other perspective, and which emphasizes the “CNN effect” as a key characteristic, rather brings out how propaganda and the mass media institutions function as independent actors.
This model would look something like this (with a bit of complexity lost):
So are there any empirical data that support this latter perspective instead of the legacy model?
Yes and no.
The relationship is deceptively simple in principle, but almost incomprehensibly complex in practice due to the nature of mediated communication, an almost infinite set of interdependencies of influence, and the multi-layered character of the relevant institutions.
There’s also a significant vagueness in terms of defining the “CNN effect” - are we talking about specific media institutions or discernible narratives, or rather (which I naturally prefer) the complex phenomenon of propaganda in general?
Moreover, the most straightforward approach to measure this sort of media impact is to compare policy outcomes with preceding narratives and attempt to quantify the results and tease out some sort of statistical correlation. This methodology will for the most part disregard important aspects of the situation such as the structural impact of the media’s framing of our worldview; the effects of the media and technology on which type of content that can effectively be communicated; the role of omission and tacit censorship in framing policy option and so forth.
Yet this basic approach has given us some interesting results, such as Robinson’s (2000, 2002) studies on a rather narrow policy-media interaction which assert that the media’s effect is secondary to policy, but that it’s evident when policy is weak and certain other catalyzing factors are in play.
This goes a long way to establish the validity of our agential model in some respects - but if we add considerations pertaining to framing, construction and actualization of myths and meta-narratives, and why not the recursive effects of agitprop on policymakers (covid? Ukraine?), it’s obvious that the media’s influence is far from merely a passive modifier of public opinion.
Henrik Thune’s 2009 dissertation on the topic ends by emphasizing this type of factors, and how the “bigger picture” structuring of information over and above specific narratives exert a significant influence on the societal power structures (and arguably also provide plenty of space for pinpoint actualizations of the overarching strcuture through strategically placed narrative interventions. Something which becomes vastly more simplified and effective through the introduction of algorithms in the media structure.
In short, the theoretical model indicates that the news media represent and filter events, developments and occurrences in international politics according to a structural pattern. This structure is not a mental formation. Nor are these structures reducible to the individual views and journalistic choices of news journalists. The structures are defined by systematic technological and dramaturgical constraints of the media and byvdevelopments in information technology, which only to a small degree vary between different news organizations and journalists. I have labelled this type of purely structural communicative qualities that filter our common perception of international politics as ‘communicative selectors’, distinguishing them from another (and more contextual) type of news media selectors called ‘communitarian selectors’. The empirical case studies indicate that the global transmission of news is defined by at least five important communicative selectors of this kind.
…
According to the general model, these communicative patterns or qualities of the news media are, over time, to some degree reproduced and reflected in the states’ conduct of foreign policy. I have called this process of gradual adjustment the news media’s power of adaptation. This an understanding of historical and social change by which the news media are to some extent conceived of analogous to an environmental condition (Bourdieu 1993: 78). The news media’s power of adaptation is a type of influence where political actors and decision-making systems constantly and reflexively perform an adjustment to the media’s communicative logic (Thune 2009).
But apart from actual research, we can of course make some simple observations of our own. Were Sweden’s government officials influenced by the dominant media narratives when NATO accession was opted for “in proper democratic fashion” without a referendum or any meaningful debates?
(The lack of meaningful debates can also be connected to the CNN effect as a structural intentionality of the mass media which serves to accelerate policy choices in line with the dominant power structure.)
And were the decisions to keep funding the ongoing Ukraine war taken within governing institutions throughout Europe in any way affected by the content and character of the mass and digital media throughout the last two years? Or by the general view on Russia inculcated in us over the past decades?
Of course. The midwit managerial elite of the puppet states of the imperial periphery are regular stupid fucking people. Just like you and I. Their decisions and priorities are not any more lofty and independent than those of the general populace, and arguably a good bit less so.
In the next piece, I’m going to discuss some important conclusions we can draw from the quite plausible assumption that the CNN-effect or agential model of propaganda gives us a more or less accurate picture of reality.
References
Thune, H. (2009). Beyond the CNN Effect. Unipub A/S.
Robinson, P. (2000). The policy-media interaction model: Measuring media power during humanitarian crisis. Journal of Peace Research, 37, 613–633.
Robinson, P. (2002). The CNN effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention. New York: Routledge.
Or....the "individual" governmental organizations (that are defacto corporate trusts) are directed by globalist elites to continue the execution of its long- and short-range plans, and the media, which have long been controlled by the CIA (Operation Mockingbird) --at least in the U.S. -- are simply used to create the politically correct theater to entertain and to sway, shape or directly influence and subtly change "public opinion" and behavior to coincide with the actions, however radical and even "out-of-character" that are being taken by these rogue "governments" which have become fascistic in their "public/private partnerships" with private corporate entities, all of which are owned by the same few mega companies (think Black Rock, Vanguard, et al) which are in turn controlled by the elite globalists (old families with more resources than God, the crown, the vatican, and of course the international bankers). The goal of owning, digitizing, inventorying and controlling every resource and human capital on earth and culling the excess,then enslaving the rest to serve the needs of the few can easily be accomplished. The military industrial complex becomes the execution arm, including the most recent scamdemic, which was all transferred to and overseen by the Department of Defense and the "bioweapons countermeasures" injected into the arms and systems of 70% of the earth's population over a fake "virus" that is more likely tied to 5G, the use of directed energy weapons & geoengineering of our atmosphere for weather control and to ignite precision fires in areas to be reclaimed and rewilded or developed into electronic panopticons as sites for the slave class, etc. can all easily e discerned when there is a central plan being executed and directed and controlled to achieve a desired outcome....this flies in the face of the idea of separate competing factions vying for dominance -- that's the illusion to keep us distracted while they complete their mission - transhumanism and the alteration of all organic life to synthetic -- the satanically-enabled, psychopath's dream nearly realized. The truth is seeping out, but is it enough and in time? OR is this just more bread and circuses for the puppeteers?