Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 27 – At the end
of Soviet times, the Russian people didn’t trust official propaganda even
though as a result of state controls they had little access to alternative
sources of information. But today, they do trust that propaganda and thus see
no need to turn to the plethora of alternatives available, according to Mark
Urnov.
In an article in “Nezavisimaya
gazeta,” the political analyst at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, says
that both what has not changed between Soviet times and now as far as
propaganda is concerned is as striking as what has changed both in the
government line and the availability of alternatives (ng.ru/stsenarii/2016-09-27/13_narkoz.html).
As in the late
Soviet period so too now, television is the main channel for the dissemination
of propaganda providing in both cases “not so much factual information as
evaluations,” Urnov says. “The role of all other channels of mass information
(radio, newspapers, magazines, the Internet) is incomparably less important as
far as propaganda is concerned.”
So too as in the late Soviet period,
the two main messages of Russian propaganda today are the great significance of
Russia in the world and the striving of others and above all the United States
to restrict that role in order to “subordinate Russia to its interests and
establish control over our natural resources.”
There are major differences. Because
it did not face much competition from other channels, Soviet propaganda
suggested that the Soviet people lived “significantly better than toilers in
capitalist countries and that the economy of our country was not behind that of
America’s.
Now, fully recognizing that
insisting on those two points is a fool’s errand, Russian government propaganda
focuses not on the level of Russian life or live in other countries but on the
justice of Russia in seeking a multi-polar world and the evil of the US that “seeks
to remain the only super power.”
That shift reflects the fact that “the
information background” available to Russians now is incomparable to that
available to Soviet citizens. Soviet
propagandists could count on the fact that their audience had few alternative
sources and would thus accept whatever Moscow declared to be true.
Now, Russian propagandists know they
must operate in a world in which their audience at least potentially has
widespread access to alternative ideas. Thus the focus on values rather than on
facts. But what is striking is this, Urnov continues. “Now there is no official
monopoly, but the alternative sources clearly don’t attract the attention of a
broad public.”
The reason for this is rooted in a
major difference from the late Soviet period. Then, “fewer than five percent”
believed what officials said. Indeed, many assumed that if Soviet officials
said something, the opposite or something close to it must be true. Now, the
situation is very different.
More than 70 percent of Russians
today accept anti-American propaganda as true, Urnov says, and for two
important reasons: Russians are happy to be able to blame someone other than
themselves for their difficulties and are convinced that “being great” is “the
natural state” of the Russian nation, a view they have had for five hundred
years.
The problem with such views, Urnov
says, is that they prevent Russians from facing up to and having an honest
discussion of the problems their country faces. And without such discussions,
they won’t be able to address them in a timely fashion, guaranteeing that they
will only get worse and will end in tragedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment