NEW YORK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA ECOLOGY PROGRAM E38. 2142 Professor Salvatore J. Fallica Communication and Persuasion: Room 717, 239 East Bldg., Greene Street Political Propaganda 212-998-5217, 718-849-6194 Fall, 2005 [email protected] Tuesdays, 7:15-9:25PM, 407 Silver Office hours by appointment.

Some Preliminary Observations on the study of Political Propaganda Problems that scholars face when studying political propaganda include the volume of the material and the scope of the subject. An area of inquiry as ancient and as contemporary as political propaganda can overwhelm any serious student with overkill: you could spend almost all of your time studying current events – the actions of nation states or the statements of political elites. You could devote an entire semester to major historical moments in the infamous history of propaganda, such as the development of the Nazi or Soviet propaganda systems. You could study how changes in technology have changed the nature and scope of propaganda; indeed, you could study any period in the history of almost any country and not be at a loss for the ubiquitous phenomena of propaganda. Some definitions are in order. The term “politics” has undergone serious conceptual extension and its varied inflected forms are seen everywhere and in all kinds of contexts contributing at times to an unhelpful ambiguity. Even the definition in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought that describes politics as “the process whereby a group of people, whose opinions or interests are initially divergent, reach collective decisions which are generally regarded as binding on the group and enforced as common policy” promotes such vagueness. In this course, while I prefer to use Professor Dan Hahn’s salient definition, describing politics as “the process of solving public problems” (see Dan Hahn, Political Communication: Rhetoric, Government and Citizens, 1998 Strata Publishing), we need to discuss this term further. At the same time, the term “propaganda,” while not totally absent from communications studies scholarship remains surprisingly marginalized and also requires an explanation for its prominence in the course title. Because we tend to examine contemporary U.S. political campaigns, the question is often asked, why use the name “propaganda” and not, say, “political communication”? While the terms can be used interchangeably, they have different histories and different contexts of study. As we will see over the next few weeks, propaganda is more than a manipulative message or series of messages, but part of the overall ecology of culture, communication and media. On the other hand, “political communication” seems to be a more benign term and suggests that political information can be transmitted without an agenda; that the messengers use processes and tools that are natural and neutral; and that our focus should be mostly on the content and the strategic use of that content. One assumption in this course is that the processes and tools of communication are not natural and certainly not neutral, and that we need to pay attention to the forms and genres of political messages as well as to their content. It should be understood that before there were courses in “political communications studies,” indeed, even before there were organized departments of communications, there existed the study of propaganda. Propaganda analysis, which scholars say began with Aristotle’s Rhetoric, burgeoned with a focused examination of political messages in the mass media before, during and after World War I and helped to establish the significance of the field. This particular form of inquiry has had an interesting history, and I will discuss some portions of that history in our opening sessions. However, to call what we do “political communication” very often leaves out that history, or compartmentalizes that history, or minimizes or even ignores the forms of political messages. I would like our work

1

this semester to connect us with th

remake will do). “The War Room” and “The Perfect Candidate are, of course, documentaries and there have been recently a slew of documentaries that you could also examine: Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911” comes to mind; others include “Control Room,” “The Hunting of the President,” and “Outfoxed.” And, as usual, I am open to suggestions. Let’s discuss additions to this list during our opening session. Course Requirements: You are responsible for the following. Since there is no formal research paper as a final exam, I urge those of you interested to consider developing the assigned essays into short presentations for various communications conferences or articles for appropriate journals. During the fall and spring semesters I conduct frequent “conference” oriented seminars

Joe Conason. Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, Thomas Dunne Books, 2003. Edwin Diamond and Robert A. Silverman. White House to Your House: Media and Politics in Virtual America, MIT Press, 1997. Murray Edelman. 2001. The Politics of Misinformation. Cambridge University Press. Brett Gary. The Nervous Liberals: Propaganda Anxieties from World War I to the Cold War, Columbia University Press, 1999. Todd Gitlin. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and the Unmaking of the New Left, (University of CA Press, 1980). Thomas A. Hollihan. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, Bedford/St.Martins, 2001. Gerd Horten. Radio Goes to War: The Cultural Politics of Propaganda During World War II, University of California Press, 2003. Andrew Hoskins. 2004. Televising War: From Vietnam to Iraq. Continuum International Publishing. Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction and Democracy. Oxford University Press, 1993. ___________________. 1996. Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising, 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press. Dennis W. Johnson. No Place for Amateurs: How Political Consultants are Reshaping American Democracy, Routledge, 2001. Montague Kern. 1989. 30 Second Politics: Political Advertising in the Eighties. Praeger. John R. MacArthur. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, University of California Press, 1993. Joe McGinniss. The Selling of the President, 1968, Twentieth Anniversary Edition, Penguin Books, 1969, 1988. Mark Crispin Miller. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder. W.W. Norton, 2001. Brigitte L. Nacos. Mass-Mediated Terrorism: The Central Role of the Media in Terrorism and Counterterrorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002. Thomas E. Patterson. 2003. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. Vintage Books. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2003. Glenn W. Richardson. 2003. Pulp Politics: How Political Advertising Tells the Stories of American Politics. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Course Caveats Please double space and paginate your papers; also, please use a consistent documentation format; and provide a bibliography where applicable. Late papers will be accepted and read, and, of course, penalized. Please type papers with enough margin room for my comments. Please do not use folders or binders, etc. You can staple or paper clip the pages at the top left corner. I will evaluate each of your efforts, provided that they are turned in on time; late papers constitute a breach of contract for a written commentary or evaluation. Evaluation will be based on to what extent you successfully complete the assignment and to what extent your paper exhibits proper use of academic writing conventions. I will use “numbers” as well as commentary to evaluate your papers and presentations. Evaluation standards and policies. Plagiarism is unacceptable and I follow University procedures in this matter. A = Excellent. To earn this grade, you need to have outstanding work in all respects. This work demonstrates comprehensive and solid understanding of course material, and presents thoughtful interpretations, well-focused and original insights, and well-reasoned commentary and analysis. You also need to demonstrate skillful use of source materials, illuminating examples and illustrations, fluent expression and no grammar errors. B = Good. To earn this

4

grade, your work demonstrates a complete and accurate understanding of the course material, presents a reasonable degree of insight and broad levels of analysis. Work reflects competence, but stays at a general or predictable level of understanding. Source materials, examples, illustrations, are used appropriately and articulation/writing is clear. Papers have been carefully proofread. C = Adequate/Fair. To earn this grade, your work is generally correct, superficial, incomplete, or expresses some significant errors or weaknesses. Source materials may be used inadequately or inappropriately, and arguments lack concrete, specific examples and illustrations. Writing/articulation may appear vague, hard to follow, or loaded with other technical errors. D = Unsatisfactory. To earn this grade you have generally misunderstood almost everything we have done and/or said, and almost everything you have read. In fact, you probably didn’t do much of the reading to begin with – you have made serious errors in understanding, you fail to express the most rudimentary aspects of the course. Sources may be used entirely inappropriately or not at all, and writing/articulation appears deficient. F = Failed. Your work was not submitted or attempted; and you failed to participate at every level. Plus (+) or minus (-) grades indicate your range within the aforementioned grades. Guidelines for assignments. 1. Guideline for the essay “Notes toward a theory of propaganda.” How do you conceptualize this phenomenon called propaganda? Use your notes, our class discussions, your reading of Ellul and O’Shaughnessy and at least one other model of propaganda, as well as your own research. Discuss which model(s) of propaganda seem(s) to have more explanatory power. About ten pages would be average. In your essay discuss the following. Due session # 7, 25% of final grade. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

What do you perceive to be the major differences among the major models of political propaganda? Which “definition” appeals to you among the many? How can you account for these differences? How do these models reflect principles of communication theories? How do these models account for audiences? How do these models account for the role of technology? What do you think of the authors’ positions? Which model, theory or approach seems more valid to you and why? Discuss anything else you think is significant about these models.

2. Guide for the Campaign Propaganda Paper: We will call this our final exam. This is a documented essay discussing an example or a series of examples of a genre of campaign propaganda. You could discuss an ad, or a series of ads, a debate or series of debates, press conferences, interviews, campaign speeches, et al. Choose either Ellul’s or O’Shaughnessy’s model of propaganda analysis as your approach. During the term I will present several case studies that you can model your paper on or take as a starting point. For example, we will discuss Nixon’s “Checker’s Speech, the first televised presidential debates, and of course, many examples of political advertising on television. About eight to ten pages would be average. Due session # 15, 25% of final grade.

3. Guide to the film essay. This is an essay that analyzes how one of the films (from the approved list of films) illuminates a theme or model of propaganda or an issue in political propaganda/communication studies. This response is not meant to be a film review in the traditional sense, but rather to see the film as descriptive statement of an aspect of our propaganda environment. Students can make short (five-ten minute) presentations with an appropriate film clip. See Calavita’s essay on “The Candidate” as an example. Three pages would be about average. Due session # 11, 5% of final grade.

4. A reaction paper to Nixon’s Checker’s speech. This is a propaganda analysis of a major moment in American politics. Choose a model of propaganda and in a unified essay discuss at least three propaganda techniques Nixon uses. Three pages would be average. Due session # 9, 5% of final grade.

5

5. Guide for the book report. Keep in mind that you are reading a book from an approved list of texts. Many of them are, in their way, propaganda or political communications “stars.” The list appears above and the questions below. Do not quote except briefly. In your analysis answer the following questions. About five to eight pages would be average. Due session # 14, 20% of final grade.

A. B.

What do you think is the central thesis of this work? In your judgment, on what assumptions – communications or otherwise – or point of view is the thesis of the work built? By “assumptions” I mean the communications principles or values that the author presumes in the process of building his or her argument. C. What are the major terms or concepts central to this work, and how does the author define these terms? D. What are the methods of argument and kinds of evidence used to develop and support the thesis of the work? E. In your judgment, what are the limitations, shortcomings, errors or weaknesses in the work? F. In your judgment, what are the major contributions of this work to the understanding of culture and communication? G. What relationships do you see between this work and other works or articles we have read or discussed in class?

E 38. 2142.001 Class schedule, Fall 2005 Ses

Date

Topic

Reading(s)

Introduction: Course overview and discussion of class requirements; definitions (six important words in the study of propaganda); We discuss the three articles. Intellectual/Political Bio is due. Lecture/presentation: Models of propaganda. Aristotle, Lasswell, Jowett & O’Donnell, Chomsky et al.

Menand, Frank and Bai, see course pack. Articles in course pack Lasswell, Herman et al. Goebbells and other articles in course pack. O’Shaughnessy

1.

9/06

2.

9/13

3.

9/20

Student presentation: Nazi propaganda. Partial film screening and discussion, “The Eternal Jew.”

4.

9/27

5

10/04

Student presentations: defining and “explaining” propaganda: rhetoric, myth and symbolism. Student presentations: case studies in propaganda: party propaganda, 9/11 and war; weapons of mass deception.

6.

10/11

Lecture and student presentations: Ellul and the ecology of

O’Shaughnessy

Ellul

propaganda. Also, student presentations. 7.

10/18

8.

10/25

9.

11/01

10.

11/08

11.

11/15

12.

11/22

13.

11/29

14.

12/06

15.

12/13

Lecture/presentation: We might have to complete our discussion of Ellul, but we start our unit on Campaign propaganda w/ a look at “The Candidate.” Film presentation and class discussion. Theory paper due. Lecture/presentation: Nixon’s propaganda: the Checkers speech. Lecture/presentation: Modern campaign propaganda: presidential debates. Nixon reaction paper due. Modern campaign propaganda: political ads. Also, student film presentations. Modern campaign propaganda: political ads. Film essay due. Modern campaign propaganda: Part 3. Introducing Jamieson, and The Press Effect. Student presentations. Student presentations: student presentations and The Press Effect. Student presentations: Modern campaign propaganda: the internet. Book report due. Final class, all questions answered; all answers questioned. Final exams due.

“The Candidate,” and articles distributed by instructor. Articles distributed by instructor. Articles distributed by instructor. West, and course pack. West, and course pack. See course pack. See course pack. Cornfield

Colleagues, I am developing a course pack for E 38.2142.001 (Fall, 2005), and it should include the following items. 1.

Louis Menand, “The Unpolitical Animal,” The New Yorker, 9/23/04 (issue of 2004-08-30).

2.

Matt Bai, “The Framing Wars,” The New York Times, July 17th, 2005.

3.

Leonard W. Doob. 1948. “Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda,” in Propaganda. Ed. Robert Jackal, New York University Press, 1995.

4.

Edward Herman Edward. 1996. “The Propaganda Model Revisited” in July, 1996 Monthly Review.

5.

Thomas Frank, “What’s the Matter with Liberals?” The New York Review of Books, Volume 52, No. 8, May 12, 2005.

6.

Institute for Propaganda Analysis.1937. “How to Detect Propaganda,” in Propaganda. Ed. Robert Jackal, New York University Press, 1995.

7.

Robert Jackal and Janice Hirota. 1995. “America’s First Propaganda Ministry: The Committee on Public Information During the Great War,” in Propaganda. Ed. Robert Jackal, New York University Press.

9.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman. 2003. The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists and

7

the Stories That Shape the Political World. Oxford University Press. The first two chapters. 10. Harold D. Lasswell. “The Theory of Propaganda,” in Propaganda. Ed. Robert Jackal, New York University Press. 11. J. Fred MacDonald. 1989. “Propaganda and Social Order in Modern Society,” in Propaganda: A Pluralistic Perspective. Ed. Ted J. Smith, Praeger. Article distributed by instructor. 12. Jowett and O’Donnell, “How to Analyze Propaganda,” in Propaganda and Persuasion, third edition, Sage Publications, 1999. Chapter 6.

8