Use Of Propaganda In George W. Bush's State Of The Union
Communication Theory 3
The Use of Propaganda in George W. Bush’s
State of the Union Speech 2006
By
Parisa Taghipoor
ICV 2c
List of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................3
2. What is Propaganda? .............................................................................................3
3. Background of the speech.......................................................................................4
4. The use of propaganda in the State of the Union speech 2006...............................5 4.1 One-sided Perspective.........................................................................................5
4.2. …show more content…
Justification for war..............................................................................................7
4.3. Emotional appeal.................................................................................................8
5. Connection to the theory...........................................................................................9
6. How does the audience react?.................................................................................10
7. Conclusion................................................................................................................11
Reference List...............................................................................................................12
1. Introduction
If one thinks of propaganda the first association is mostly the way Nazi-Germany persuaded the people. But is propaganda only an outdated system of communication used by regimes that oppress the people living in the country? Or is propaganda also in use of countries that have democratically elected governments? In the following essay we would like to find out if propaganda was used in the United States in the context of the Iraq war. Therefore we are going to analyse the State of the Union speech of 2006. This essay will start with a definition of propaganda and background information of the speech. The propaganda aspects will be discussed in the next part of the essay. That part is subdivided in the subareas “one-sided perspective” of the speech, justifications of war in the speech, and emotional appeals. In the next part we will connect the speech to some communication theories about propaganda. Last but not least there will be a chapter about the reaction of the audience towards propaganda in the United States.
2. What is propaganda?
The term propaganda is difficult to define and there are many different attempts because of its broad meaning and different connotations. In general it can be said that it is one-way-communication with the purpose to influence and manipulate the receiver and lead his opinion to a certain direction. Propaganda is related to advertisement and public relations which goal is to promote a commercial product or brand. However, the term propaganda is more likely to be used in connection with politics and promoting ideas.
There are many different ways to perform propaganda as well as there are various instruments and devices. Therefore, there it can be difficult to detect it because it comes in different forms and shapes.
Propaganda is likely to appeal to emotions rather than to facts and information. By arousing the audience’s feelings about an issue it is often easier to persuade them than by giving many complicated facts. For example fear or euphoria can be spread amongst the audience to influence them. The information given tends to be simple but intense. Often it is generalized and contains only half-truths. For instance only the favourable facts are presented to the audience while the less favourable issues are being ignored. Also scapegoating and stereotyping is used to arouse prejudices amongst the audience to provide a target that is to be blamed. Another tool that is often used by propagandists is the repetition of certain words or phrases. By saying it over and over again the message is hammered into the audience’s minds.
During history propaganda has been used many times in many ways. The most famous example is probably the Nazi propaganda before and during the 2nd World War. Adolf Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbles tricked almost a whole generation when he promised the Germans a better life while they were suffering from the consequences of the First World War and assured them their right and their destiny to dominate all non-Germanic people to gain world power.
Also during the Vietnam War propaganda was an important issue. Even though in the United States between 1965 and 1970 only 3% of the news showed severe fighting scenes in Vietnam some people say that it were these few images that turned the nation against the war (Kumar, 2006). As a consequence, from the Panama Invasion up to the Iraq War the government decided to control the news coverage of the public which meant for example, that journalists had no or very restricted access to any military setting and were only given military approved information and images of the war to manipulate the audience and build a pro-war attitude amongst the country.
3.
Background of the speech
The state of the union speech is held every year held by the president of the United States of America in front of the congress. During this speech the president mainly outlines his legislative proposals for a time period of one year. Traditionally the speech is held in January.
Some background will be needed to be able to analyse the speech in terms of propaganda. The most significant events that happened before the speech and are also mentioned in it are the attacks of 11 September 2001, when two planes were crashed into the two towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. This event changed the meaning of safety in many ways in the western world. Western countries suddenly felt that problems which are located several miles can have consequences in their own countries. The American Government and people felt suddenly insecure and the need to do something about the situation was urgent. Since terrorists were attacking out of reasons that are not obverse to the officials a difficult time with the “war on terror” started. In 2003 the war on Iraq started, the country was suspected to hide weapons of mass destruction. In 2006 there were still no weapons found by the troops. Foreign governments started to criticize the invasion since they did not see any evidence of terrorism in Iraq. The U.S. also had to fight with internal problems since not all people of the American population felt like they should support the fights and except the loses of …show more content…
fellow Americans in the war.
4. Propaganda aspects in the State of the Union speech 2006
4.1 One-sided perspective
A distinctive characteristic of propaganda is the one sided presentation of information which means that only favourable aspects about the issue are mentioned to manipulate the audience in their opinion making process.
Throughout his speech President Bush talks about the situation in Iraq from a very one sided perspective and presents the United States as a country of good will and noble goals such as freedom while he creates an image of a fearsome and evil enemy.
According to him, America “seek[s] the end of tyranny in our world” and fights against “the enemies of freedom” (Bush G.W, 2006). When he talks about the history of America he proudly mentions the achievements that helped making a better world (“We are a nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire” (Bush G.W, 2006)). Not with one word he talks about the less heroic aspects of American history. The reason for this is that he wants his audience to see the only good things in American history to give them the impression that they have to continue this glorious path of saving the world from the
evil.
Not only in Bush’s State of the Union speech can this aspect about propaganda be found. Many examples of one-sided information coverage could also be detected in the media during and after the war in Iraq. Like Bush did in his speech the media would often emphasize certain things and completely ignore others. For example the historic alley between America and Iraq and the fact that America used to send biological and chemical weapons to Iraq was not mentioned anymore in the media (Kumar, 2006). To ensure that only filtered information would be broadcasted the media and the government worked closely together. For instance the heads of the media tycoons such as Disney and MGM met with some of Bush’s advisors to discuss how the media can support the government’s goals (Kumar, 2006). As a result all the big TV channels would only show a pro war attitude to manipulate the audience. In February 2003 it was found out that 76% of the guests in political talk shows had a military background of which all but one supported the war in Iraq. Only one per cent of the guests were connected with the anti-war movement (Kumar, 2006).
When exposed only to the pro arguments of an issue people are likely to take over that opinion. Many will not question the news on television and subconsciously the message and the pro war arguments will sink into the audience’s minds and form their opinion in favour of war.
Journalists and reporters who questioned the Iraq policy were often fired which of course also set a clear message to the other journalists namely to restrain themselves from stating their own opinion.
Another reason why the news coverage was very one-sided was that only the journalists who signed a contract made by the military which set the rule of what can go to the public and what cannot were allowed at the frontlines in Iraq and only these so called embeds got the protection of the military. They lived together with the soldiers and saw the whole situation only from the American soldiers’ point of view which, of course made them support and identify with the American forces and fear and distrust the other side (Kumar, 2006).
This leads to a reporting that is far from being objective and results in a black and white way of thinking which clearly is a goal of propaganda. By giving the audience only negative and stereotyped characteristics of the enemy they are more likely to accept them as the scapegoats and America as the saviour. Also in Bush’s State of the Union speech this propaganda tool can be found. He says that:” Ultimately, the only way to defeat terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change”. Again he illustrates America as the ones who will rescue the world while the enemy is purely evil and wants to destroy the world. He labels the two sides as “good” and “bad” or “white” and “black”. Bush does not describe the two sides as cultures with many facets and different values, strengths and weaknesses. It does not seem as if he tries to understand the core problem of the conflict. He does not try to understand why the terrorists have become terrorists and what makes them want to attack the western world. He does not portray them as human beings who have family, obviously feel mistreated and desperately fight for their rights but as evil creatures with a “dark vision of hatred and fear”. He does not try to understand the real reasons for the conflict to solve it from its core. What he does is “offering” them “political freedom and peaceful change”. The question is: How can one offer political freedom peacefully in a war? It rather seems as if he forces his ideology on a culture he does not understand instead of solving the conflict by trying to see the problem from another perspective.
By stereotyping and generalizing their enemy as evil barbarians and not as people like you and me the audience exposed to this form of propaganda tends to “forget” this aspect because they are scared of the thread that comes from terrorists and want this problem solved to regain safety. In a way people probably want to see terrorists as barbarous evil creatures because with this perspective it is easier to assimilate and accept the war and its cruel consequences. Propagandists are aware of this subconscious thinking of their audience and gladly present them the easy-to-process form of information.
It can be seen that both in Bush’s speech as well as in the entire media system heavy war propaganda was practiced by providing the public only with favourable information and half truths and by excluding them from the actual facts, information and happenings.
4.2. Justification for war
During the speech George W. Bush tries to justify the war in Iraq with several points. First of all, he comes back to events like 9/11 which are seen as wake-up-call that the security of the U.S. is not only a matter of internal affairs. Another important point he makes is about distributing democracy to all countries of the world. Bush describes this “duty” as historical, since the U.S. also liberated many countries in 1945. According to Bush the Iraq was not free and therefore the people had to be liberated. These oppressed countries would also shelter terroristic groups who fight democracy and liberty. The attack of Iraq is described as defensive and Bush assumes that if they would not have been attacked by the U.S. they would have had attacked the U.S.
According to Bush Iraq is a strategic country for “terrorists” like bin Laden and Zarqawi and if the American troops would withdraw they would gain too much power in that area. So he justifies the attack by stopping them to gain power in a geographically crucial area.
A little hinted in actually another part of the speech Bush is saying: “America is addicted to oil. Which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” This implies that one of the goods that America wants is located in a country like Iraq. To make sure, that they will get their share of the oil that is in Iraq it is an important task to stabilize the country to import oil.
In his speech Bush creates a picture of the people of Iraq as partners in the American fight against terror. First he describes the country as oppressed, by people who fight freedom and democracy. And that it is likely to give shelter to terrorists. This creates for the audience a picture of the people of Iraq as pupil who do not have a choice and need to be freed by the American force. Altogether he creates a picture of Iraq as place where terrorism is hiding and developing.
Officially the reason for starting the war was that one thought that there were weapons for mass destruction hidden in Iraq. After 2 years of war none had been found. Bush does not mentioned this reason to attack in his speech since it had been proven at this moment that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If Bush would have said this in this speech in the context of the congress this fact would have changed maybe some attitude towards the war.
4.3. Emotional Appeal As it is a defining characteristic for propaganda, George W. Bush tries to manipulate his audience by arousing their emotions. In the beginning of the speech Bush makes compliments to his audience and gives them a feeling of togetherness when he says for example what an honour it is to serve with the members of congress or by making statements such as:”Tonight our state of our Union is strong and together we will make it stronger” (Bush G.W, 2006). With statements like this Bush makes his audience filled with positive emotions and the belief that with a strong nation they will be able to achieve everything.
He continues in doing so by constantly referring to “we” throughout his speech. For example he says: “Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning” or “we have killed or captured many of their [terrorist network] leaders” (Bush G.W, 2006). The audience identifies with Bush and feels that they will fight all together and that it is the right thing to do. Bush arouses a sense of unity and patriotism with these statements which is a very effective tool of propaganda. As a group the audience feels more powerful and has a stronger drive for united action such as war.
Further on in his speech, President Bush tries to touch his audience’s emotions by a vivid description of a soldiers every day live in Iraq (“They know how it is like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb” (Bush G.W, 2006)). He then reads out a letter that a fallen American soldier has written to his family in which the soldier writes how honoured he feels to die for America. After that Bush welcomes the parents who are also present at the congress.
The reason why he reads out the letter is that with this tragic story of a brave American soldier Bush can influence many people in the audience because they are likely to identify with the personal story of an individual. Many parents will think of their own children and be deeply affected by the fate of the fallen soldier but also people without children feel sorry for the military families and proud of the young men and woman who fight for the American idealism.
Emotions are often a stronger drive for people then facts which is why it is used so often by propagandists. Emotions have a strong manipulative potential on people. If Bush had presented the statistics about death rates of American soldiers in a rather dry manner the audience would probably have acknowledged it but they would not have felt directly affected. The story of an individual makes it more graspable and tragic for the audience and emotions such as sorrow, fear or anger are stirred up which have a deeper impact than plain facts.
What is also striking is that while the U.S. soldiers are connected with many emotions to bring them as close to the audience’s minds as possible, the soldiers of the Middle East are labelled as plainly evil, as mentioned before. It is to assume that if Bush had read the last letter of a radical Islamic fighter to his family the audience might have identified with him as well and seen him as an individual human being instead of a senseless killing machine. This would have given them a different perspective and perhaps made them question the war. To prevent this, the radical Islamists are heavily stereotyped while the American soldiers are heavily idealized.
In his speech Bush creates a sense of brotherhood, patriotism, pride and will power but he also creates an atmosphere of fear. He describes the threat of the radical Islam to America as being very serious and fearsome. The radical Islam is an “ideology of terror and death” (Bush G.W, 2006) and its followers aim is to use Iraq to launch attacks against America. According to Bush, they will kill children to spread terror and fear. The images that are created in the audience’s minds with Bush’s description create fear and worry about one’s own safety and the safety of one’s environment. It wakes the wish to fight back the enemy and makes people believe that the war in Iraq was an inevitable necessity.
5. Connecting the speech to the theory
If one connects the speech to the basic model developed by Stappers (1988) one would consider Bush as sender A. A is telling the congress, who would be receiver B in this case about the Iraq war. The war is the topic A talks about and therefore the x stands for it. Since B is no homogonous mass x is received in several ways. Pacifistic listeners will perceive the topic war as not justifiable while patriots will support the continuing of the patriot act more easily and in another way. Bush as A might also use a different vocabulary and key words in his speech. Since he is speaking in front of a group that has the same cultural background it is likely that he will get a big part of his message across.
Dervin (1989) information models would be applied as follows. If the “empty-bucket”-model is considered in this context when should assume that Bush could say anything and it would be seen as true by the audience. More likely would be the “information-as-construction-model” since the audience consists out of many individuals and will have some impact about the speech later on as well (in the political context at least). Last but not least Bauer (1964) could be applied as well. The speech would fit between the “social model” and the “scientific model” since there is no direct “dialogue” or interaction between the two during the actual speech. But afterwards there is going to be interaction between the different participants. Surely everybody has his/her own reason to be listening to the speech. Most of them will have the responsibility to participate on that kind of event since they are member of the congress. In the end the one-way-communication will turn into a two-way-process afterwards.
6. How does the audience react to propaganda?
So far it has been found out that there are many stylistic devices in the State of the Union speech that are often used by propagandists but how does the audience react to propaganda?
People react very different to the exposure of media and propaganda and many researchers have tried to find out how propaganda influences the audience. Hyman and Sheatsley for example, say that the way the audience perceives information in the media depends on their level of knowledge and interest in the topic and on their previous attitude. People tend to prefer to expose themselves to communication that they agree with and that fits to their pre-existing knowledge.
This can be demonstrated with the research of Hayes and Reineke (2007) about the effects of government censorship on war related news coverage. In this research the respondents were asked if they were interested in seeing pictures and footages that had been censored by the government. The images showed the transportation of coffins with the remains of American soldiers who died in Iraq. Some of the respondents were told about the Bush administration policy before reporting their interest and others were not.
It was found out that the respondents who were told about the censorship and the Bush administration policy before hand were more interested in seeing the pictures than those who were not given the cue. This shows that the audience does not like the feeling of being excluded from the truth and that they show more interest in the topic once they know about the censorship.
It was also found out that the responders who support George W. Bush are less interested in seeing the censored pictures than those against him. This shows that, as Hyman and Sheatsley have said, the audience exposes themselves to media that fits to their pre-existing attitude. Bush supporters do not want to see the pictures with the coffins because it would challenge their view of the world.
This is a reason why propaganda works very often and why it is used very efficiently in Bush’s speech of the union. The citizens of the United States tend to be very proud of their country and its achievements. They show their patriotism with much self confidence and strongly believe in individual freedom and this is exactly what Bush emphasizes on in his speech. He talks about the freedom in America and how it is America’s destiny to spread freedom around the world (“[we have] to spread freedom and hope in troubled regions” (Bush G.W, 2006)). This fits to the frame of his American audience. They agree with him and the emotions of pride and assertiveness are stirred up. As a result the audience tends to be blinded with their emotions and with the elementary statements they agree with such as freedom, that they do not see the gaps of reason and information in the speech anymore.
7. Conclusion
As a conclusion, it has been found out that propaganda is not an outdated way of persuasive mass communication only used by former dictatorships but that it is still widely used today in democracies such as the United States of America. With the example of George W. Bush’s speech at the State of the Union in 2006 it can be seen how the audience is manipulated to form an opinion in favor of the Iraq war. Just as it happened in the past, the audience is provided only with vague half truths and generalizations that fit to their believes and values while their emotions are stirred up to distract their attention from the lack of reasonable facts.
One might think that with the constantly improving communication tools and the wide range of media channels such as the internet, propaganda cannot be practiced anymore because the audience now has the ability to compare and analyze the given information. However, Bush’s public information policy shows very clearly that propaganda is still a common tool by the governments and media tycoons and that not everything said in the news is bound to be the truth.
Reference List
Bauer, R.A. (1964). The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. American Psychologist, 19, 319-328.
CQ Transcripts Wire (2006)President Bush’s State of the Union Adress, © 1996-2010 The Washington Post Company: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
Dervin,B. (1989) Audience as a listener and learner, teacher and confidante: The sense-making approach. R.E. Rice & C. K Atkin (Eds), Public Communication Campaigns (2nd ), (pp. 67-86). Newbury Park: Sage.
Hayes, A. F., & Reineke, J. B. (2007). The effects of government censorship of war-related news coverage on interest in the censored coverage. Mass Communication & Society, 10, 423-438.
Hyman, H, H., & Sheatsly, P.B. (1947. Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly , 11, 412-423
Kumar, D.(2006) Media, War, and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management during the 2003 Iraq War. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 3, no. 1
Stappers, J.G. (1988). Developing the basic model (1-6). Chapter translated by ICM in 2007 from:Stappers, J.G. (1988). Massacommunicatie: een inleiding (pp. 43-53). Amsterdam: arbeiderspers.
The Use of Propaganda in George W. Bush’s
State of the Union Speech 2006
By
Parisa Taghipoor
ICV 2c
List of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................3
2. What is Propaganda? .............................................................................................3
3. Background of the speech.......................................................................................4
4. The use of propaganda in the State of the Union speech 2006...............................5 4.1 One-sided Perspective.........................................................................................5
4.2. …show more content…
Justification for war..............................................................................................7
4.3. Emotional appeal.................................................................................................8
5. Connection to the theory...........................................................................................9
6. How does the audience react?.................................................................................10
7. Conclusion................................................................................................................11
Reference List...............................................................................................................12
1. Introduction
If one thinks of propaganda the first association is mostly the way Nazi-Germany persuaded the people. But is propaganda only an outdated system of communication used by regimes that oppress the people living in the country? Or is propaganda also in use of countries that have democratically elected governments? In the following essay we would like to find out if propaganda was used in the United States in the context of the Iraq war. Therefore we are going to analyse the State of the Union speech of 2006. This essay will start with a definition of propaganda and background information of the speech. The propaganda aspects will be discussed in the next part of the essay. That part is subdivided in the subareas “one-sided perspective” of the speech, justifications of war in the speech, and emotional appeals. In the next part we will connect the speech to some communication theories about propaganda. Last but not least there will be a chapter about the reaction of the audience towards propaganda in the United States.
2. What is propaganda?
The term propaganda is difficult to define and there are many different attempts because of its broad meaning and different connotations. In general it can be said that it is one-way-communication with the purpose to influence and manipulate the receiver and lead his opinion to a certain direction. Propaganda is related to advertisement and public relations which goal is to promote a commercial product or brand. However, the term propaganda is more likely to be used in connection with politics and promoting ideas.
There are many different ways to perform propaganda as well as there are various instruments and devices. Therefore, there it can be difficult to detect it because it comes in different forms and shapes.
Propaganda is likely to appeal to emotions rather than to facts and information. By arousing the audience’s feelings about an issue it is often easier to persuade them than by giving many complicated facts. For example fear or euphoria can be spread amongst the audience to influence them. The information given tends to be simple but intense. Often it is generalized and contains only half-truths. For instance only the favourable facts are presented to the audience while the less favourable issues are being ignored. Also scapegoating and stereotyping is used to arouse prejudices amongst the audience to provide a target that is to be blamed. Another tool that is often used by propagandists is the repetition of certain words or phrases. By saying it over and over again the message is hammered into the audience’s minds.
During history propaganda has been used many times in many ways. The most famous example is probably the Nazi propaganda before and during the 2nd World War. Adolf Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbles tricked almost a whole generation when he promised the Germans a better life while they were suffering from the consequences of the First World War and assured them their right and their destiny to dominate all non-Germanic people to gain world power.
Also during the Vietnam War propaganda was an important issue. Even though in the United States between 1965 and 1970 only 3% of the news showed severe fighting scenes in Vietnam some people say that it were these few images that turned the nation against the war (Kumar, 2006). As a consequence, from the Panama Invasion up to the Iraq War the government decided to control the news coverage of the public which meant for example, that journalists had no or very restricted access to any military setting and were only given military approved information and images of the war to manipulate the audience and build a pro-war attitude amongst the country.
3.
Background of the speech
The state of the union speech is held every year held by the president of the United States of America in front of the congress. During this speech the president mainly outlines his legislative proposals for a time period of one year. Traditionally the speech is held in January.
Some background will be needed to be able to analyse the speech in terms of propaganda. The most significant events that happened before the speech and are also mentioned in it are the attacks of 11 September 2001, when two planes were crashed into the two towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. This event changed the meaning of safety in many ways in the western world. Western countries suddenly felt that problems which are located several miles can have consequences in their own countries. The American Government and people felt suddenly insecure and the need to do something about the situation was urgent. Since terrorists were attacking out of reasons that are not obverse to the officials a difficult time with the “war on terror” started. In 2003 the war on Iraq started, the country was suspected to hide weapons of mass destruction. In 2006 there were still no weapons found by the troops. Foreign governments started to criticize the invasion since they did not see any evidence of terrorism in Iraq. The U.S. also had to fight with internal problems since not all people of the American population felt like they should support the fights and except the loses of …show more content…
fellow Americans in the war.
4. Propaganda aspects in the State of the Union speech 2006
4.1 One-sided perspective
A distinctive characteristic of propaganda is the one sided presentation of information which means that only favourable aspects about the issue are mentioned to manipulate the audience in their opinion making process.
Throughout his speech President Bush talks about the situation in Iraq from a very one sided perspective and presents the United States as a country of good will and noble goals such as freedom while he creates an image of a fearsome and evil enemy.
According to him, America “seek[s] the end of tyranny in our world” and fights against “the enemies of freedom” (Bush G.W, 2006). When he talks about the history of America he proudly mentions the achievements that helped making a better world (“We are a nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire” (Bush G.W, 2006)). Not with one word he talks about the less heroic aspects of American history. The reason for this is that he wants his audience to see the only good things in American history to give them the impression that they have to continue this glorious path of saving the world from the
evil.
Not only in Bush’s State of the Union speech can this aspect about propaganda be found. Many examples of one-sided information coverage could also be detected in the media during and after the war in Iraq. Like Bush did in his speech the media would often emphasize certain things and completely ignore others. For example the historic alley between America and Iraq and the fact that America used to send biological and chemical weapons to Iraq was not mentioned anymore in the media (Kumar, 2006). To ensure that only filtered information would be broadcasted the media and the government worked closely together. For instance the heads of the media tycoons such as Disney and MGM met with some of Bush’s advisors to discuss how the media can support the government’s goals (Kumar, 2006). As a result all the big TV channels would only show a pro war attitude to manipulate the audience. In February 2003 it was found out that 76% of the guests in political talk shows had a military background of which all but one supported the war in Iraq. Only one per cent of the guests were connected with the anti-war movement (Kumar, 2006).
When exposed only to the pro arguments of an issue people are likely to take over that opinion. Many will not question the news on television and subconsciously the message and the pro war arguments will sink into the audience’s minds and form their opinion in favour of war.
Journalists and reporters who questioned the Iraq policy were often fired which of course also set a clear message to the other journalists namely to restrain themselves from stating their own opinion.
Another reason why the news coverage was very one-sided was that only the journalists who signed a contract made by the military which set the rule of what can go to the public and what cannot were allowed at the frontlines in Iraq and only these so called embeds got the protection of the military. They lived together with the soldiers and saw the whole situation only from the American soldiers’ point of view which, of course made them support and identify with the American forces and fear and distrust the other side (Kumar, 2006).
This leads to a reporting that is far from being objective and results in a black and white way of thinking which clearly is a goal of propaganda. By giving the audience only negative and stereotyped characteristics of the enemy they are more likely to accept them as the scapegoats and America as the saviour. Also in Bush’s State of the Union speech this propaganda tool can be found. He says that:” Ultimately, the only way to defeat terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change”. Again he illustrates America as the ones who will rescue the world while the enemy is purely evil and wants to destroy the world. He labels the two sides as “good” and “bad” or “white” and “black”. Bush does not describe the two sides as cultures with many facets and different values, strengths and weaknesses. It does not seem as if he tries to understand the core problem of the conflict. He does not try to understand why the terrorists have become terrorists and what makes them want to attack the western world. He does not portray them as human beings who have family, obviously feel mistreated and desperately fight for their rights but as evil creatures with a “dark vision of hatred and fear”. He does not try to understand the real reasons for the conflict to solve it from its core. What he does is “offering” them “political freedom and peaceful change”. The question is: How can one offer political freedom peacefully in a war? It rather seems as if he forces his ideology on a culture he does not understand instead of solving the conflict by trying to see the problem from another perspective.
By stereotyping and generalizing their enemy as evil barbarians and not as people like you and me the audience exposed to this form of propaganda tends to “forget” this aspect because they are scared of the thread that comes from terrorists and want this problem solved to regain safety. In a way people probably want to see terrorists as barbarous evil creatures because with this perspective it is easier to assimilate and accept the war and its cruel consequences. Propagandists are aware of this subconscious thinking of their audience and gladly present them the easy-to-process form of information.
It can be seen that both in Bush’s speech as well as in the entire media system heavy war propaganda was practiced by providing the public only with favourable information and half truths and by excluding them from the actual facts, information and happenings.
4.2. Justification for war
During the speech George W. Bush tries to justify the war in Iraq with several points. First of all, he comes back to events like 9/11 which are seen as wake-up-call that the security of the U.S. is not only a matter of internal affairs. Another important point he makes is about distributing democracy to all countries of the world. Bush describes this “duty” as historical, since the U.S. also liberated many countries in 1945. According to Bush the Iraq was not free and therefore the people had to be liberated. These oppressed countries would also shelter terroristic groups who fight democracy and liberty. The attack of Iraq is described as defensive and Bush assumes that if they would not have been attacked by the U.S. they would have had attacked the U.S.
According to Bush Iraq is a strategic country for “terrorists” like bin Laden and Zarqawi and if the American troops would withdraw they would gain too much power in that area. So he justifies the attack by stopping them to gain power in a geographically crucial area.
A little hinted in actually another part of the speech Bush is saying: “America is addicted to oil. Which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” This implies that one of the goods that America wants is located in a country like Iraq. To make sure, that they will get their share of the oil that is in Iraq it is an important task to stabilize the country to import oil.
In his speech Bush creates a picture of the people of Iraq as partners in the American fight against terror. First he describes the country as oppressed, by people who fight freedom and democracy. And that it is likely to give shelter to terrorists. This creates for the audience a picture of the people of Iraq as pupil who do not have a choice and need to be freed by the American force. Altogether he creates a picture of Iraq as place where terrorism is hiding and developing.
Officially the reason for starting the war was that one thought that there were weapons for mass destruction hidden in Iraq. After 2 years of war none had been found. Bush does not mentioned this reason to attack in his speech since it had been proven at this moment that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If Bush would have said this in this speech in the context of the congress this fact would have changed maybe some attitude towards the war.
4.3. Emotional Appeal As it is a defining characteristic for propaganda, George W. Bush tries to manipulate his audience by arousing their emotions. In the beginning of the speech Bush makes compliments to his audience and gives them a feeling of togetherness when he says for example what an honour it is to serve with the members of congress or by making statements such as:”Tonight our state of our Union is strong and together we will make it stronger” (Bush G.W, 2006). With statements like this Bush makes his audience filled with positive emotions and the belief that with a strong nation they will be able to achieve everything.
He continues in doing so by constantly referring to “we” throughout his speech. For example he says: “Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning” or “we have killed or captured many of their [terrorist network] leaders” (Bush G.W, 2006). The audience identifies with Bush and feels that they will fight all together and that it is the right thing to do. Bush arouses a sense of unity and patriotism with these statements which is a very effective tool of propaganda. As a group the audience feels more powerful and has a stronger drive for united action such as war.
Further on in his speech, President Bush tries to touch his audience’s emotions by a vivid description of a soldiers every day live in Iraq (“They know how it is like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb” (Bush G.W, 2006)). He then reads out a letter that a fallen American soldier has written to his family in which the soldier writes how honoured he feels to die for America. After that Bush welcomes the parents who are also present at the congress.
The reason why he reads out the letter is that with this tragic story of a brave American soldier Bush can influence many people in the audience because they are likely to identify with the personal story of an individual. Many parents will think of their own children and be deeply affected by the fate of the fallen soldier but also people without children feel sorry for the military families and proud of the young men and woman who fight for the American idealism.
Emotions are often a stronger drive for people then facts which is why it is used so often by propagandists. Emotions have a strong manipulative potential on people. If Bush had presented the statistics about death rates of American soldiers in a rather dry manner the audience would probably have acknowledged it but they would not have felt directly affected. The story of an individual makes it more graspable and tragic for the audience and emotions such as sorrow, fear or anger are stirred up which have a deeper impact than plain facts.
What is also striking is that while the U.S. soldiers are connected with many emotions to bring them as close to the audience’s minds as possible, the soldiers of the Middle East are labelled as plainly evil, as mentioned before. It is to assume that if Bush had read the last letter of a radical Islamic fighter to his family the audience might have identified with him as well and seen him as an individual human being instead of a senseless killing machine. This would have given them a different perspective and perhaps made them question the war. To prevent this, the radical Islamists are heavily stereotyped while the American soldiers are heavily idealized.
In his speech Bush creates a sense of brotherhood, patriotism, pride and will power but he also creates an atmosphere of fear. He describes the threat of the radical Islam to America as being very serious and fearsome. The radical Islam is an “ideology of terror and death” (Bush G.W, 2006) and its followers aim is to use Iraq to launch attacks against America. According to Bush, they will kill children to spread terror and fear. The images that are created in the audience’s minds with Bush’s description create fear and worry about one’s own safety and the safety of one’s environment. It wakes the wish to fight back the enemy and makes people believe that the war in Iraq was an inevitable necessity.
5. Connecting the speech to the theory
If one connects the speech to the basic model developed by Stappers (1988) one would consider Bush as sender A. A is telling the congress, who would be receiver B in this case about the Iraq war. The war is the topic A talks about and therefore the x stands for it. Since B is no homogonous mass x is received in several ways. Pacifistic listeners will perceive the topic war as not justifiable while patriots will support the continuing of the patriot act more easily and in another way. Bush as A might also use a different vocabulary and key words in his speech. Since he is speaking in front of a group that has the same cultural background it is likely that he will get a big part of his message across.
Dervin (1989) information models would be applied as follows. If the “empty-bucket”-model is considered in this context when should assume that Bush could say anything and it would be seen as true by the audience. More likely would be the “information-as-construction-model” since the audience consists out of many individuals and will have some impact about the speech later on as well (in the political context at least). Last but not least Bauer (1964) could be applied as well. The speech would fit between the “social model” and the “scientific model” since there is no direct “dialogue” or interaction between the two during the actual speech. But afterwards there is going to be interaction between the different participants. Surely everybody has his/her own reason to be listening to the speech. Most of them will have the responsibility to participate on that kind of event since they are member of the congress. In the end the one-way-communication will turn into a two-way-process afterwards.
6. How does the audience react to propaganda?
So far it has been found out that there are many stylistic devices in the State of the Union speech that are often used by propagandists but how does the audience react to propaganda?
People react very different to the exposure of media and propaganda and many researchers have tried to find out how propaganda influences the audience. Hyman and Sheatsley for example, say that the way the audience perceives information in the media depends on their level of knowledge and interest in the topic and on their previous attitude. People tend to prefer to expose themselves to communication that they agree with and that fits to their pre-existing knowledge.
This can be demonstrated with the research of Hayes and Reineke (2007) about the effects of government censorship on war related news coverage. In this research the respondents were asked if they were interested in seeing pictures and footages that had been censored by the government. The images showed the transportation of coffins with the remains of American soldiers who died in Iraq. Some of the respondents were told about the Bush administration policy before reporting their interest and others were not.
It was found out that the respondents who were told about the censorship and the Bush administration policy before hand were more interested in seeing the pictures than those who were not given the cue. This shows that the audience does not like the feeling of being excluded from the truth and that they show more interest in the topic once they know about the censorship.
It was also found out that the responders who support George W. Bush are less interested in seeing the censored pictures than those against him. This shows that, as Hyman and Sheatsley have said, the audience exposes themselves to media that fits to their pre-existing attitude. Bush supporters do not want to see the pictures with the coffins because it would challenge their view of the world.
This is a reason why propaganda works very often and why it is used very efficiently in Bush’s speech of the union. The citizens of the United States tend to be very proud of their country and its achievements. They show their patriotism with much self confidence and strongly believe in individual freedom and this is exactly what Bush emphasizes on in his speech. He talks about the freedom in America and how it is America’s destiny to spread freedom around the world (“[we have] to spread freedom and hope in troubled regions” (Bush G.W, 2006)). This fits to the frame of his American audience. They agree with him and the emotions of pride and assertiveness are stirred up. As a result the audience tends to be blinded with their emotions and with the elementary statements they agree with such as freedom, that they do not see the gaps of reason and information in the speech anymore.
7. Conclusion
As a conclusion, it has been found out that propaganda is not an outdated way of persuasive mass communication only used by former dictatorships but that it is still widely used today in democracies such as the United States of America. With the example of George W. Bush’s speech at the State of the Union in 2006 it can be seen how the audience is manipulated to form an opinion in favor of the Iraq war. Just as it happened in the past, the audience is provided only with vague half truths and generalizations that fit to their believes and values while their emotions are stirred up to distract their attention from the lack of reasonable facts.
One might think that with the constantly improving communication tools and the wide range of media channels such as the internet, propaganda cannot be practiced anymore because the audience now has the ability to compare and analyze the given information. However, Bush’s public information policy shows very clearly that propaganda is still a common tool by the governments and media tycoons and that not everything said in the news is bound to be the truth.
Reference List
Bauer, R.A. (1964). The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. American Psychologist, 19, 319-328.
CQ Transcripts Wire (2006)President Bush’s State of the Union Adress, © 1996-2010 The Washington Post Company: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
Dervin,B. (1989) Audience as a listener and learner, teacher and confidante: The sense-making approach. R.E. Rice & C. K Atkin (Eds), Public Communication Campaigns (2nd ), (pp. 67-86). Newbury Park: Sage.
Hayes, A. F., & Reineke, J. B. (2007). The effects of government censorship of war-related news coverage on interest in the censored coverage. Mass Communication & Society, 10, 423-438.
Hyman, H, H., & Sheatsly, P.B. (1947. Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly , 11, 412-423
Kumar, D.(2006) Media, War, and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management during the 2003 Iraq War. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 3, no. 1
Stappers, J.G. (1988). Developing the basic model (1-6). Chapter translated by ICM in 2007 from:Stappers, J.G. (1988). Massacommunicatie: een inleiding (pp. 43-53). Amsterdam: arbeiderspers.