Manipulation of Public Opinion
Manipulating public opinion involves using various techniques to shape how people think about issues, often through misinformation or emotional appeals.
In recent years, political actors have used social media to manipulate public opinion on a massive scale. For example, during elections, targeted ads and disinformation campaigns have been employed to sway voters’ perceptions. Let’s look at some examples of Public Opinion Manipulation:
The 2024 American Election
Campaign observations and background:
If we look at the 2020 American election, where Trump lost. We can confirm that during that election, there were a lot of misinformative posts and suggestions from all sides, including Q-anon, who claimed Trump to be in charge of some inter-galactic space force.
But then Q-anon, went quiet, they went underground.
For the 2024 election, my feeds were very different to 2020. I found that very few people on my feeds were all that concerned about this election. However, our press were: Most of our press were making fearful mentions of Trump, and were clearly in support of Biden.
However, they failed to mention that Biden seemed to be developing age related issues, as did his own party. Personally, when I saw this develop in the run up to the election, I took an inference that Biden’s re-selection as candidate was a signal that his party has chosen to lose. To me, I could see that liability. His party, and team, knew how he was looking on our TVs. I’d even go so far as to suggest that Bidens team may well have deliberately gaslit him behind the scenes, causing him to become this “incompetent, nervous wreck”. A notion I think that is supported by the observation, that they supported his obvious problematic behaviour, for far, far, too long.
We do not have space here to go into these details. But we can ask some open questions:
Media Influence: The role of the media in shaping narratives cannot be overstated. During the last election, many outlets focused heavily on Trump’s controversies while often downplaying concerns about Biden’s age and health. This selective coverage can create a skewed perception among the public.
Public Perception of Candidates: Polls indicated that a significant portion of the electorate had doubts about both Biden’s and Trump’s mental capabilities. For instance, a poll from March 2024 found that 6 in 10 US adults questioned Biden’s mental fitness. This reflects a broader concern that may not have been adequately addressed in mainstream discussions.
Q-Anon and Misinformation: The quieting of Q-Anon during the last election cycle is intriguing. It suggests a shift in the landscape of misinformation, where other narratives may have taken precedence. The impact of misinformation on voter behaviour is profound, as it can create confusion and distrust.
Biden’s Health and Competence: Concerns about Biden’s age and health have been a topic of discussion. Reports have surfaced suggesting that he was experiencing cognitive decline even before the 2020 election. This raises questions about the decision-making processes within the Democratic Party regarding his candidacy.
Gaslighting and Political Strategy: The suggestion that Biden’s team may have contributed to his perceived incompetence is a serious allegation. If true, it reflects a troubling dynamic where political advisors might prioritize electoral strategy over the well-being of the candidate. This could lead to a situation where the candidate appears out of touch or unfit for office.
We can now also look to another example of a possible manipulative situation, and cross compare what we noticed about the previous example:
Historical Example: The McCarthy Era
The McCarthy era, in the United States saw the manipulation of public opinion through the fear of communism, leading to widespread paranoia and the persecution of individuals accused of being communists.
The McCarthy era and these more recent political events share striking similarities in how public opinion can be manipulated, often through fear and misinformation. Let’s explore some of these patterns and consider what the press may have omitted in their coverage.
Fear-Mongering: During the McCarthy era, Senator Joseph McCarthy used fear of communism to rally public support, often making baseless accusations against individuals. This created a climate of paranoia. It also set the expectation that he was willing to persecute his political enemies, and all of them would be called “Communists”, if they disagreed with him or got in his way. We can observe that Trump has control over significant parts of the legislature, and that DOGE has the power to hire and fire, almost everywhere in the American Government. Given it’s recent mandate. We can also reflect on Calvert’s Self-police Parade, and suggest Trump is in open encouragement to those kinds of behaviours. We can also observe that during that last election, his supporters came out in open revolt, and he “might” have approved.
Selective Reporting: The media during McCarthy’s time often amplified his accusations without sufficient scrutiny, leading to widespread panic and persecution. They too were encouraging what was known then as “Vigilantism”: The idea that “Good” American’s with guns, should take to the streets and call out politically targeted “Bad” American’s, who may also have guns.
In contemporary politics, many “trusted” media outlets may also have focussed heavily on negative aspects of one candidate while downplaying or ignoring issues related to another, such as Biden’s age and health concerns during the last election.
Echo Chambers: McCarthyism intensified political polarization, creating ideological echo chambers that discouraged nuanced discussions. This meant that dissent, following the election was suppressed. Not only that, but the scene had been set for McCarthy’s Self-police Parade to continue to target any local voices of dissent. They did not need to meet or coordinate to agree targets, they just needed to look for any open supporters of those their trusted press had just targeted. Including now, those that do not respond to their master’s call. Those on their Facebook feed that they are already watching.
Today, social media and partisan news outlets contribute to similar echo chambers, where individuals are exposed primarily to information that reinforces their existing beliefs.
Public Compliance: Many individuals and institutions remained silent during the McCarthy era due to fear of repercussions, which allowed the witch hunts to continue.
In the current political climate, there may be a reluctance among some media and political figures to address uncomfortable truths about candidates, leading to a lack of accountability.
Health and Competence of Candidates: Concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities and age were often mentioned in private discussions but received limited coverage in mainstream media. This omission could have influenced public perception and voter confidence.
Critique of Political Strategies: The media may have failed to adequately critique the Democratic Party’s decision to nominate Biden despite evident concerns about his fitness for office. This lack of critical analysis can lead to a perception of complicity in the political process.
Impact of Misinformation: The role of misinformation, including the quieting of groups like Q-Anon, was not thoroughly examined. Understanding how misinformation shapes public opinion is crucial for a well-informed electorate.
Historical Context: Drawing parallels between McCarthyism and current political tactics could provide valuable insights. However, the media often focuses on immediate events without contextualizing them within historical patterns of behaviour.
The manipulation of public opinion through fear and selective reporting is a recurring theme in American politics.
Manipulation in Communist Russia
Now we can fold in another example, That of communist Russia.
State-Controlled Media: In countries like Russia, the government controls major media outlets, allowing it to present a singular narrative that supports the regime. This manipulation shapes public perception and limits dissenting voices.
Dare we ask if America seems to behave like a communist country, whenever one of it’s leaders realises how to exploit difference, with hate? And also how those people who they are encouraging to hate their neighbours, become, in those times, an unofficial hate-based political policing force? Directed by “independent” media, who all seem to have the same agenda?
State-Controlled Media in Russia
In Russia, the government exerts significant control over major media outlets, which allows it to present a singular narrative that aligns with the regime’s interests. This has several implications:
Limited Dissent: Independent media outlets have faced severe restrictions, with many being forced to shut down or operate from exile. This creates an environment where dissenting voices are marginalized.
False Opposition: It also means that these independent outlets are probably, equally under state ownership, and providers of equal and opposite disinformation for different targets than their claimed audience. At least, that must be a reasonable assumption to make.
Public Perception: The state-controlled media shapes public perception by promoting narratives that support the government, often at the expense of factual reporting. This can lead to a populace that is less informed and more susceptible to propaganda.
confusion Control: The interplay between the state media, and the “independent” media, allows for the Russian Government to ensure the public are held in the correct state of confusion, as to the actual message, to ask questions, of those, their “policers”, are looking to hear.
Secret Perception: Those that are “trusted”, by the state media, they take a different message from these media outlets. And they know that they are the primary targets for that message. It is helping them better choose their targets for surveillance, reporting, interference and suppression.
Media Manipulation in America
In the United States, while the media landscape is more diverse, there are still significant concerns about manipulation:
Media Polarization: The media tends to amplify these divisions to it’s supporters, however, we have two main parties, and therefore two different media opinion options to follow: Those that tend to hate who you do, or those telling you why you need to fear those that are going to hate you. At least, this is my suggestion for the American media for the next few years. No-one in media actually disagrees with the president. At least, given what I have observed so far. I would suggest that this might be a useful supposition to explore.
Exploitation of Differences: Political leaders, including Trump often exploit societal differences, using rhetoric that encourages division and animosity. This can lead to a culture where individuals feel justified in expressing hatred towards others, often fuelled by sensationalist media coverage. It is clear that Trump is deliberately divisive. He is openly saying “Support me or hate me, I don’t care”. This is slightly different from the messaging of, say McCarthy, who had identified specific Communist targets. What Trump is saying, and the media is subtly agreeing. That if you hate him, then you are potentially one of those targets.
Independent Media in the USA
The term “independent media” can be misleading. While there are genuinely independent outlets, many are influenced by their funding sources or political affiliations. This can lead to:
Shared Agendas: Many independent media promote narratives that align with specific political goals, which can blur the lines between objective reporting and advocacy. In America we can see that this happens overtly. But just like elsewhere, our media knows how to influence without every taking any blame. And when it is clearly flagging it’s allegiances in more overt, but maybe still subtle ways, as we see today, then that means they think that change in signalling is an important statement.
Political Policing: When media outlets encourage hostility towards certain groups, it can create an environment where individuals feel empowered to act on those sentiments, potentially leading to a form of political policing based on hate. If we suggest that we have all been trained to be each other’s policeman, what will happen, come the next revolution? Remember I mentioned that the “extremist” Q-anon group, those that claim Trump as their boss, seem to have gone underground? What is the next question you would like to explore?
0 Comments