CHAPTER 2 - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Propaganda Theories

Propaganda theories provide the theoretical framework for this research because they help to explain how political propaganda was used during the communist regime in Romania and how it still affects the post-communist broadcasting industry. Focusing its attention on media and their powerful effects on the audiences, propaganda theories were among the first true media theories developed. Theorists attempted to understand and explain the capacity of media messages to convince and convert large masses of people. Propagandists employ of a variety of communication tools to change the way people act and think, making them believe that their new actions and opinions are their own.[1]

The secret to efficient propaganda consists in the repetition of the same messages and symbols over and over again. Two theories that see the individual as highly vulnerable to media manipulation supported this communist elaborated strategy. John B. Watson and Sigmund Freud developed two perspectives, presently outdated, that have been changed since their inception.

John B. Watson emphasized in his theory about behaviorism that all human action is merely a conditioned response to environmental stimuli.[2] The communist propagandists used an avalanche of symbols that were supposed to stimulate large-scale mass attention and eventually become reflex through the repetition process. However, as the history shown, these tactics eventually failed and so did the communist propaganda. Oversaturated with propagandistic symbols, people had only one choice: to accept but not to assume them.

The Freudian theory, developed by Sigmund Freud, considered the father of psychoanalysis, highlights people’s inability to exercise rational control over their actions. Freud considered that the self that guides action must be fragmented into conflicting parts: ego (rational mind), id (the egocentric pleasure-seeking part of the mind), and superego (the internalized set of cultural rules). Although the rational part is usually in control, sometimes other parts become dominant. [3]

Both theories emphasize media’s enormous influence on people. However, they are overly simplistic and no longer up to date. Since the communism ideology failed in most of the countries where it was propagated, these theories that tried to explain the communist control of media had the same fate.

Along with Walter Lippmann and John Dewey, Harold Lasswell was one of the most important media theorists interested in propaganda. Although the theory he developed brings a pessimistic vision of media and their role and received much criticism, some of his points tried to explain how propaganda works. He argued about a slow and long-term process in which new ideas and symbols are first introduced and then cultivated. Consequently, people associate strong emotions to these symbols, which posses the power to influence audiences if they are used intelligently. [4]

Although his theory formulated some interesting points, Lasswell’s solution to propaganda seems impossible and manipulative as well. He argued that the power of propaganda can be stopped only if controlled by a new elite, a scientific technocracy that would protect vulnerable average people from harmful propaganda. His thoughts were sustained by another media theorist, Walter Lippmann, who shared his skepticism about the capacity of average people to decide for themselves. He questioned the feasibility of democracy and the role of a free press by arguing that common people could not govern themselves; instead a powerful form of media control was needed.[5]

These early propaganda theories were opposed by philosopher John Dewey, who brought a new vision about propaganda and whose ideas are still valuable. He argued that media should be perceived as public servants that provide discussions and debates, while people use media to maintain their culture. When media work to manipulate their audiences, they no longer serve as convincing “facilitators and guardians of public debate”.[6] People refuse to accept their messages and the link between them and media disappears. In the last years of communism in Romania, censorship was omnipresent in the media, including television. The news bulletins were constantly propagating lies about the benefits of the system and no foreign news was allowed to be broadcast. Consequently, people did not trust the TV anymore and started to seek out other sources of information. Access to East-Central European and some Western broadcasting was possible for people who lived near the national borders or possessed an illegal satellite dish. [7]

Furthermore, all these theories that attempted to explain the communism domination did not succeed in proving their views. Along with the failure of communism, the early propaganda theories lost their credibility.

According to several critical contemporary theorists, a well coordinated communication and a complex language that would discourage reflective thought are propagandistic strategies used successfully today by powerful elites to impose their truth on the culture.[8] Political discourse and advertising are areas that could easily use propaganda; the message is shaped by elites in an attractive way with the single aim to serve their own interests.

Economist and media analyst Edward S. Herman identified five filters that are used by powerful business and government entities to control the communication channels: (1) ownership; (2) advertising; (3) sourcing; (4) media’s belief in the miracle of the market; (5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.[9] Through ownership of media conglomerates, the professional independence of journalists has decreased; they have to follow guidelines that sometimes are in accordance to owners’ interests rather than to public’s agenda. Furthermore, media might be financed and consequently, influenced by powerful entities that expect favors in return.

Behaviorists Richard Laitinen and Richard Rakos noticed that although in democratic systems the absence of government control is considered a feature of a free society, this does not mean that information is free of any influence. Economic and political interests represent significant threats to free communication. The incorporation of media companies into megaconglomerates offers excessive power in the hands of powerful elites without the public’s awareness. [10]

Romanian post-communist media has the premises of modern propaganda. The broadcasting industry is dominated by a few media groups, while most of their owners have close relations with business and political circles.[11] When owners of media outlets are also leaders of political parties it is not difficult to imagine that concepts such as objectivity and independence are not always respected. Moreover, in the past years, being under government control, Romanian public television had to face many accusations of censorship and propaganda. Many times, the public discourse is shaped to serve other’s interests rather than the audience’s interests.

[1] Stanley Baran and Davis K. Dennis, Mass Communication Theory (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006), 74.
[2] Ibid., 80.
[3] Ibid., 25.
[4] Ibid., 86.
[5] Ibid., 83.
[6] Ibid., 87.
[7] Thomas A Mollison, “Television Broadcasting Leads Romania’s March toward an Open, Democratic Society”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42, no 1 (Winter 1998): 129.
[8] Stanley Baran and Davis K. Dennis, Mass Communication Theory (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006), 74.
[9] Ibid., 89.
[10] Ibid., 88.
[11] EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program (EUMAP), Romania – Television across Europe: Regulation, Policy, and Independence – Follow-up Report 2008, (Budapest, 2008, accessed 15 March 2008), available from http://www.mediapolicy.org/tv-across-europe/tv-across-europe-follow-up-reports-2008-country/Romania-web.pdf/view; Internet.