The Trouble With Propaganda TV
James Kirchick writing about China’s plans to launch a “Chinese CNN” to join the existing English-language propaganda networks from Russia (Russia Today) and Iran (Press TV) remarks:
Of course, there’s no scientific way to gauge whether or not these efforts will work, but I’d like to think that most Americans (if not most Europeans) will not be won over by the crude propaganda of countries that kill journalists and threaten to (or actually) launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbors. Never mind the cheesy production values and propagandistic mien of these stations. As long as countries like China, Russia and Iran continue their internally repressive and externally aggressive behavior, I don’t see how spending massive gobs of money on TV will improve their reputations.
I think the problem is more fundamental than that. I mean, who wants to watch a propaganda channel? There’s already lots of English-language television channels a person could be watching. I’m more sympathetic than most U.S. observers to the Kremlin point-of-view and even appeared once on Russia Today, but I’m never sitting on the couch saying to myself “gee, if only my cable provider carried an English-language Russian propaganda channel!” It’s just a stupid idea on its face. It’s worth noting that al-Hurra, America’s effort to launch an Arabic language propaganda public diplomacy network, has floundered from the beginning for basically the same reason—it doesn’t matter what your message is if nobody’s watching.
In all these cases, countries could, of course, improve foreigners’ perceptions of them by changing the actual policies that lead to the bad perceptions. But alongside that you would, of course, want a communications strategy. But what a country needs to do is go to where the audience is. That would be foreign governments engaging more directly and effectively with English-language media in the United States and American officials engaging directly with al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya and other popular Arabic-language media.
44 Responses to “The Trouble With Propaganda TV”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
But alongside that you would, of course, want a communications strategy.
Like having a neutral news network that reported news from Russia, China or Iran.
max
['What's really interesting is that it shouldn't matter in China/Russia/Iran what they say on an english-language network.']
February 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“I mean, who wants to watch a propaganda channel?”
Our own propaganda channel, FOX News, is fairly popular, so I guess quite a lot of Americans would like to watch propaganda.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Insert obligatory Fox News joke here.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Damn; too slow. fostert beat me to it.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Most TV all over the world is nothing more nor less than government propaganda. Virtually, all the newspapers, too. It has ever been thus.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Kirkchick writing about “countries that threaten to (or actually) launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbors”? The irony is hilarious. Okay granted, Iraq isn’t our neighbor, but isn’t Kirkchick an Iraq war cheerleader? Did he speak up against Al Hurra or VOA?
February 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Yeah, laugh it up about Fox News, but the truth is basically all American news looks like propaganda to a lot of the world. CNN, for instance, comes across as unbelievably “pro-American” if not right-wing in the American sense.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Some evolution denying wingnut from the Discovery Institute is in that screenshot. A double shot of propoganda.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I wasn’t aware that MY has voluntarily assisted the Kremlin in it’s Soviet style propaganda efforts. Yikes.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
As I recall, the most effective “Voice of America” strategy was just broadcasting popular western music, with a tiny bit of propaganda. The target countries made themselves easy targets because they banned the programming people wanted.
Anything anybody could conceivably want is on American TV in one form or another, generally, done badly. While I think there is a niche you could exploit in the US, that niche is great quality. I just don’t think China is going to exploit that niche. I think we’d get the equivalent of “Sci-Fi Channel Original” movies with product placement of Haier appliances.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The more I think about it, the scarier this fact is.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
One thing I would question is whether China’s news channel is really directed at the West. Just because it’s in English doesn’t make that the case. Think about it, if you wanted to reach viewers in Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, what language would you broadcast in? The only language common to all of those countries is English. We may be acting a little too self-centered in assuming we are the audience. This channel probably won’t have much influence with us, but it could be popular in Southeast and East Asia. Those countries are already moving towards better relations with China, and China already has big businesses interests there. Based on what I’ve seen in those countries, there is a real market for a news outlet that has less of a Western bias. I think the channel will be a success.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I don’t think you should be using Jamie Kirchick posts as springboards for your own posts if you are not going to point out what a stupid and useless little tool and Marty Peretz buttboy Jamie Kirchick is.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“As I recall, the most effective “Voice of America” strategy was just broadcasting popular western music, with a tiny bit of propaganda.”
If you’re ever in Hanoi, go to the Hanoi Jazz Club and talk to Quyen Van Minh. He got started out as a jazz musician listening to VOA during the war. For a long time, he was considered an enemy of the state for playing Western music. But jazz won out in the end, and now he heads the music department at Hanoi University.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I was puzzled by this post as well, waiting for the obviously ironic punchline. Many people love their own side’s feel good propaganda and tend to look elsewhere for information only if there is some practical necessity to do so. Obviously propaganda and good entertainment value at the same time helps greatly. Indeed there is the story that the first Western marketing professionals in China in the 1970s and 1980s explained that ‘marketing’ was what people in the West called ‘propaganda’.
So yes, marketing is important.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
They’d be better off just creating pre-produced video press releases. Lazy journalists would pick them up and get their production in front of actual viewers.
The reason Voice of America worked is because the Soviet block countries didn’t have many other options, as Njorl pointed out. This just doesn’t happen in America. Or for that matter a lot of the Middle East and Asia. There are other, more entertaining and better targeted options available.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The press in any country is slanted according to the local perspective. It would be stupid to have a media company based on saying things your audience disagrees with.
That’s why importing foreign-produced propaganda into the US is a stupid idea — the perspective doesn’t match the audience.
But the difference between “propaganda” and “a free press, slanted according to the local perspective” is sometimes more subtle than it would seem. The Republicans surely had the Democrats spooked during the run-up to the Iraq War. In turn, the media became spooked because of the prevailing ideological and emotional climate. This is like propaganda at a second or third remove.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I dunno, I like Russia Today and english Al Jazeera* precisely because it provides insight into the gestalt of elite opinion as well as what the elites find important in the world. And if it weren’t for the starvation and misery, the North Korean news service would be downright hilarious.
*not quite the same thing as it’s mostly a private company, but it does provide a window into what ‘the Arab world’ thinks about world events, just like CNN (America) does for the US.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The official U.S. broadcaster Voice of America sounds less nationalistic, parochial, and propagandistic than CNN or NPR for that matter.
If the Chinese want good press here, they should simply invest in Fox News, who will do any amount of lying for their masters desired.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I’d like to think that most Americans (if not most Europeans) will not be won over by the crude propaganda of countries that kill journalists and threaten to (or actually) launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbors. Never mind the cheesy production values and propagandistic mien of these stations
What makes you think it would be crude? Russians, sure, but the Chinese? Look at how they pulled off the Olympics. I, personally, thought they were creepy and totalitarian, but most people seem to think they were spectacular.
I mean, who wants to watch a propaganda channel? Dude, look at Fox.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
f course, there’s no scientific way to gauge whether or not these efforts will work, but I’d like to think that most Americans (if not most Europeans) will not be won over by the crude propaganda of countries that kill journalists and threaten to (or actually) launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbors.
Oh, I don’t know. Afer all, quite a few Americans (if not most Europeans) were won over by the crude propaganda of an American regime that imprisoned journalists and not only threatened but actually launched an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
CCTV, the Chinese TV station, has had an English language news station for years. They used to broadcast it in Tanzania when I lived there. Part of the day it’d be the Chinese, part of the day CNN, then BBC, then Al Jazeera in English, then badly dubbed telenovelas. CCTV wasn’t particularly good or bad as I remember. It was less irritating than CNN but not near as fun as the telenovelas.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
We get Russia Today as part of our cable package, and calling it “propaganda” is something of a stretch. Their main competitors are France 24, BBC World News, and CNN International… not Fox News or the crappy domestic infotainment version of CNN. And it shows.
Granted, their coverage of international incidents involving Russia tends to be creepy and Orwellian. But I would argue that they do a more credible job of reporting on world news outside of Russia than any of our cable news networks do.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
We get Russia Today as part of our cable package, and calling it “propaganda” is something of a stretch. Their main competitors are France 24, BBC World News, and CNN International… not Fox News or the crappy domestic infotainment version of CNN. And it shows.
Granted, their coverage of international incidents involving Russia tends to be creepy and Orwellian. But I would argue that they do a more credible job of reporting on world news outside of Russia than any of our cable news networks do.
I like Telemundo. Their news is good, but the other programming is bizarre.
Njorl:
As I recall, the most effective “Voice of America” strategy was just broadcasting popular western music, with a tiny bit of propaganda. The target countries made themselves easy targets because they banned the programming people wanted.
I caught Sec. of Defense Robert Gates on Charlie Rose and his main point was that the US needs a better communications strategy. He said the rest of the world thinks we’re all like “Baywatch.” Which is partly true, but part of the rest of the world actually likes Baywatch, like Borat.
“C.J.!”
February 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’ve seen a lot of Chinese state TV, from living with a Chinese couple who had to get it via a special satellite box, and while admittedly the value of my impressions are severely compromised by not understanding the language, the visual propaganda quotient appears to be approximately the same as CNN’s.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
As the under-appreciated philosopher Iggy Pop said and I’ll paraphrase: Most people thinks propaganda works by telling people what to think but propaganda works by telling people what to think about.
(He may of been quoting someone else. It’s a very wise thing)
February 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
No one has yet asked the obvious question?
So Matt, how much p*rn*gr*ph*c Russian propaganda would you watch? Where does value exceed cost?
February 13th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
10: Exactly. People like good stuff. It’s why I’ve never understood why the U.S. doesn’t try to seek to improve America’s image simply by offering up easier access to American movies.
In Morocco you see bustling shops filled to the brim with illegally copied DVDs of American movies and TV shows. It’s pretty much the only access most people have to American films, besides illegal satellite tv channels, which often get blocked. Movie theaters have mostly closed and actually buying legal DVDs is so out-of-reach financially that they aren’t even sold anywhere.
So you go in these places and see people busily looking for, say, Season 4 of Prison Break. Or the new Will Smith movie. And every so often, likely from pressure to appease the US, these shops get busted by the Moroccan authorities.
If the US government opened up its own version of these shops, with competitive prices (about 99 cents per DVD), we could win hearts and minds. We’d be providing a huge and hugely popular service.
Obviously this is never going to happen, for a number of reasons. But what a wasted opportunity.
February 13th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Of course, there’s no scientific way to gauge whether or not these efforts will work, but I’d like to think that most Americans (if not most Europeans) will not be won over by the crude propaganda of countries that kill journalists and threaten to (or actually) launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbors.
He’s talking about America?
February 13th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Odd intro. I had to double check to make sure that you wrote “James Kirchick writing about China’s plans to launch a “Chinese CNN” to join the existing English-language propaganda networks from Russia (Russia Today) and Iran (Press TV)” instead of the more accurate
James Kirchick writing about China’s plans to launch a “Chinese CNN” to join the existing English-language propaganda networks from Russia (Russia Today), Iran (Press TV) and the USA (Fox News).
Ohhh you mean pro government of the day propaganda.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:05 am
I mean, who wants to watch a propaganda channel?
Surely you jest!
http://tinyurl.com/av2apu
February 14th, 2009 at 5:40 am
YOu might be interested in my recent piece in History News Network, which also discusses Alhurra:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/61985.html
March 1st, 2009 at 5:46 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
There’s apparently a lot to know about this. I believe you made several good tips as well.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Another reliable result
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:13 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra