A chat with the propaganda experts.

The capture of Saddam Hussein is serving as an orgasmic propaganda victory for America. But propaganda is a many-splendored thing.

Image Manipulation. George W. Bush gave a speech in Indianapolis to promote his economic plan. White House aides asked people in the crowd standing behind him to take off their ties so that they would look more like the ordinary folks that Bush said would benefit from his tax cut.

Demonization of Enemy. Alternet.org reports on the police beatings of demonstrators against corporate globalization: "For months beforehand, Police Chief John Timoney... had portrayed protestors as terrorists and the gathering in Miami as a siege of the city. Not only were the public and media frightened by Timoney's depiction of the planned protests, 'there's little doubt that the police themselves buy the propaganda.' Having been thoroughly indoctrinated on the threat posed by protesters, and emboldened with new quasi-military equipment, the police were, to say the least, overeager to lunge at protesters."

Obfuscation of Issues. Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld has won the 2003 "Foot in Mouth Award" for his comment on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: "Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns, there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknowns?the ones we don't know we don't know."

Ulterior Motivation. The New York Times reports that "a leaked CIA report warned that resistance to the U.S. occupation is growing among ordinary Iraqis, leading to a new U.S. plan to speed up transfer of power to Iraqis... Even long-time CIA and Pentagon operative Ahmed Chalabi is accusing Bush of letting his re-election concerns determine policy in Iraq, saying, 'The whole thing was set up so President Bush could come to the airport in October [2004] for a ceremony to congratulate the new Iraqi government. When you work backwards from that, you understand the dates the Americans were insisting on.'"

Covering Up Reality. Referring to the president's surprise visit on Thanksgiving day to U.S. troops in Iraq, Mike Littwin reports in the Rocky Mountain News: "Before the press was herded into the giant hangar in advance of George W. Bush's pep rally/photo op with the Fort Carson troops, we were given the rules. No talking to the troops before the rally. No talking to the troops during the rally. No talking to the troops after the rally? But even here, or maybe especially here, a soldier or two might have, in conversation, questioned the need for the war in Iraq. This is not exactly a welcome notion in the White House. The Bush campaign has put up an ad in Iowa saying that certain of his opponents are 'attacking the president for attacking the terrorists,' as if opposing the war in Iraq is the same as opposing the war on terror."

There's a terrific new book, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, editors of PR Watch and co-authors of Trust Us, We're Experts and Toxic Sludge Is Good For You. Since the production of propaganda is accelerating so rapidly these days, I wondered what they would like to have included in their book if it hadn't already gone to press.

"The main thing that stands out in my mind," says Rampton, "has been the progressive unraveling of the propaganda campaign and the efforts by the government in Britain, Australia and the United States to paper things over.

"On the one hand, there has been a steady trickle of whistleblowers [who] have come forward and declared that the intelligence information was selectively interpreted, manipulated, cooked and falsified. The Bush and Blair governments have responded by retreating into minutiae and by attempting to re-spin these exposures as a simple question of whether they 'lied' or not....

"Other things that I find interesting from a propaganda perspective recently: The renaming of 'Total Information Awareness' as 'Terrorism Information Awareness' and Bush's repeated charge that his critics are trying to 'rewrite history.' I find this phrase interesting at several levels: First, it says something about the shallowness of the man that he thinks of events from only a few months ago as 'history.' Secondly, it is a patent attempt at reversal, since the Bush administration has been trying to rewrite history by shifting attention away from the issue of weapons of mass destruction (one of the core claims of its argument for war). What Bush is really trying to do is claim that as the winner of the war in Iraq, it is his prerogative to write the history. Of course, he really hasn't won the war yet...

"I was struck recently by reading a letter to the editor in an Arizona newspaper by a woman named Carol Drew. She began by complaining that the people of Iraq are 'selfish and thankless' for 'crying and whining about how little food and water there is, and blaming it on America.' She then went on to say that she has a niece stationed in Iraq as a soldier. 'The soldiers are suffering diarrhea,' she reported. 'They sleep on the ground in ditches to cover themselves from constant gunfire from the Iraqis... She has lost 15 pounds and is weak from lack of proper nutrition and water, but is adamant about being there to do the job that her government has required her to do.'

"The first time I read the letter, I was rather angry that a woman in Arizona would attack the people of Iraq as 'selfish and thankless,' after all they've been through. As I reread it, though, I began to feel more appreciation for what she must be going through as she worries about her niece. But it also struck me as a powerful example of how effective the propaganda campaign in the United States has been at shaping the thinking of many people in the United States. It seems that even 'constant gunfire' from the Iraqis isn't enough to wake her up to the fact that the Iraqis don't want us there."

I also asked about the relationship between gossip and propaganda.

"Gossip can serve as effective propaganda," Stauber replied, "in the hands of a skilled 'perception manager,' another word for a p.r. flack. Gossip is undocumented information spread popularly from person to person, that may or may not be true. It is often malicious, and started by an individual to smear or undermine an enemy or opponent. Gossip is very difficult to defend against because the very act of denial seems incriminating. Gossip puts the burden on the victim to prove an anonymous charge to be false, rather than requiring that the gossipers prove an allegation to be true. Gossipers are an anonymous mob, passing on allegations that by the very act of passage are granted some invisible authority. Gossip can be very harmful, even if at some point it is exposed as false and malicious.

"Skilled propagandists can plant gossip and, if it takes root and spreads successfully, it can serve a useful propaganda purpose. For instance, gossip has helped spread the false propaganda that Jews stayed home from work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 because they were warned of the attacks in advance. This is an outrageous lie, but that has not stopped it from being spread and believed by those predisposed to so believe. Critical thinkers reject gossip and rumor, but popular media promotes it. Imagine the tabloid or entertainment press without it; it's impossible. Propaganda and gossip are both enemies of critical thinking and democracy. Propagandists can exploit the part of human nature that embraces gossip to plant and promote rumors that serve their purposes."

Paul Krassner can be reached at [www.paulkrassner.com](http://www.paulkrassner.com)