Modern media? This is at least as old as 1928. Take Edward Bernays (the "father of modern PR" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Bernays), whose book "Propaganda" said things like: "There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities."
And: "For this reason there is an increasing tendency to concentrate the functions of propaganda in the hands of the propaganda specialist. This specialist is more and more assuming a distinct place and function in our national life."
Does awareness immunize you? "Undoubtedly the public is becoming aware of the methods which are being used to mold its opinions and habits. If the public is better informed about the processes of its own life, it will be so much the more receptive to reasonable appeals to its own interests. No matter how sophisticated, how cynical the public may become about publicity methods, it must respond to the basic appeals, because it will always need food, crave amusement, long for beauty, respond to leadership.
"If the public becomes more intelligent in its commercial demands, commercial firms will meet the new standards. If it becomes weary of the old methods used to persuade it to accept a given idea or commodity, its leaders will present their appeals more intelligently."
A terribly amusing read, from a pre-computing programmer of people. (http://www.whale.to/b/bernays.pdf) When guys like Ryan Holiday talk about the "modern media", they're stirring nostalgia for lost days of yore — which didn't exist. At least not in the timeframe they seem to imply.
[Disclaimer: I'm only halfway through the video before writing this. I'll be embarrassed if he delves into the 20th century history in the latter half. And keep in mind that "Propaganda" had a more neutral connotation then. Later, it got associated with the Nazis, who were actually inspired by the success of US propaganda.]
1913 Bernays was hired by the actor Richard Bennett to protect a play that supported sex education against police interference. Bernays set up a front group called the "Medical Review of Reviews Sociological Fund" (officially concerned with fighting venereal disease) for the purpose of endorsing the play.[21]
In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.
Actually, in the book I go much earlier. Upton Sinclair wrote a book of media criticism in 1912 that was the genesis for my theories. Yellow journalism predates Bernays by more than a few decades.
Thanks, I'll get a copy of your book. BTW, you might be interested in the work of media historian Bob McChesney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney), if you haven't checked it out already.
One thing he argued is that before professional journalism, the media was much like today's blogs; everyone knew their content reflected the owner's biases. Then with the consolidation of newspapers (due to economic reasons), to the point where a city might have only a couple dailies, overt bias "stank like old fish", so professional journalism arose. (And journalism schools along with it.) With it came a neutral-sounding objective tone, which hid a number of biases (like what's covered — and what's not, reliance on "official sources" who are elites, and so on). But of course, the content reflects the owners and advertisers' general interests, as we'd expect from media corporations which like staying in business.
Given that, I'd wonder if good, carefully-researched professional journalism is more insidous than yellow journalism. I'll look more closely at your (and Sinclair's) work.
+1 for the Robert McChesney reference. I remember taking the class Money, Media, and Power at UIUC which he instructs, and it was one of the most interesting classes I've taken in my 6 lengthy years in college.
In a recent interview, Chomsky expressed ambivalence about the propaganda model that became so successful with Manufacturing Consent. It seems that he disagrees somewhat with the analysis of media content as a function of corporate interests, but is uncomfortable saying so too bluntly because it was largely the work of his friend Ed Herman. Chomsky's real opinion is that economic interests alone can't explain why intellectuals overwhelmingly serve power, since many intellectuals hold safe positions (e.g. in academia) that aren't subject to corporate bosses. I got the impression that Chomsky sees media propaganda as a special case of this more general pattern which he considers more fundamental. Don't have the link handy but can dig it up if anyone cares.
Its probably older than printing, blackening your opponents name goes back thousands of years. For example back during the Peloponnesian War did Acibedies realy go on a drunken bender with his drinking buddies and paint statues penises blue?
Or was it a black propaganda exercise by his political enemies Swift Boating Athenian style if you will.
And: "For this reason there is an increasing tendency to concentrate the functions of propaganda in the hands of the propaganda specialist. This specialist is more and more assuming a distinct place and function in our national life."
Does awareness immunize you? "Undoubtedly the public is becoming aware of the methods which are being used to mold its opinions and habits. If the public is better informed about the processes of its own life, it will be so much the more receptive to reasonable appeals to its own interests. No matter how sophisticated, how cynical the public may become about publicity methods, it must respond to the basic appeals, because it will always need food, crave amusement, long for beauty, respond to leadership.
"If the public becomes more intelligent in its commercial demands, commercial firms will meet the new standards. If it becomes weary of the old methods used to persuade it to accept a given idea or commodity, its leaders will present their appeals more intelligently."
A terribly amusing read, from a pre-computing programmer of people. (http://www.whale.to/b/bernays.pdf) When guys like Ryan Holiday talk about the "modern media", they're stirring nostalgia for lost days of yore — which didn't exist. At least not in the timeframe they seem to imply.
[Disclaimer: I'm only halfway through the video before writing this. I'll be embarrassed if he delves into the 20th century history in the latter half. And keep in mind that "Propaganda" had a more neutral connotation then. Later, it got associated with the Nazis, who were actually inspired by the success of US propaganda.]