7 ms·

UK’s propaganda leaflets inspired 1960s massacre of Indonesian communists

10 points by hunglee2 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
Source attribution is one of the most important factors in Linebarger's S-T-A-S-M model of Propaganda Analysis: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_110 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... a. Source (1) True source ("Where does it really come from?") (a) Release channel ("How did it come out?") if different from true source without concealing true source (b) Person or institution in whose name material originates (c) Transmitting channel ("Who got it to us?"), person or institution effecting known transmission—omitting, of course, analyst's own procurement facilities (2) Ostensible source ("Where does it pretend to come from?") (a) Release channel ("Who is supposed to be passing it along?") (3) First-use and second-use source (first use, "Who is said to have used this first?"; second use, "Who pretends to be quoting someone else?") (a) Connection between second-use source and first-use source, usually in the form of attributed or unacknowledged quotation; more rarely, plagiarism (b) Modification between use by first-use and second-use sources, when both are known (i) Deletions (ii) Changes in text (iii) Enclosure within editorial matter of transmitter (iv) Falsification which appears deliberate (v) Effects of translation from one language to another I appreciated Linebarger's candour when he mentions that, of course, We as well as They produce "black" propaganda, and begs the readers' forgiveness for only including Their material as examples in his (approved for publication by Us) book. (at one point he mentions that porno propaganda is kept, not with the main material, but in a special collection in the National Archives; I sometimes wonder if he had mentioned that, in the hopes of encouraging the more diligent of his readers to independently seek out the existence of other special collections?) (Reading between the lines elsewhere, I also got the impression that Linebarger advocated —never directly, mind you— that, all moral considerations aside, solely on the practical basis of preparing to meet the communist menace, the US military would do well to desegregate itself.)
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
When I hear calls for accountability like this, I wonder if anyone else hears a patronizing subtext: “we are the only ones who act, others are merely acted upon”
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  The distinction between actors and those being acted upon was used in anti-Caesar propaganda ("Bithynica regina"); no doubt its subtext was ancient even then. (I understand your main point: murderers are obviously more guilty than inciters, who tend to be termed complicit. However, The Grauniad's circulation is brit, so I can understand a parochial focus on british guilt; if this article had been published by Kompas I might have read it with far less charity on the subtext.)

10 points by hunglee2 4y ago

Source attribution is one of the most important factors in Linebarger's S-T-A-S-M model of Propaganda Analysis: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_110 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... a. Source (1) True source ("Where does it really come from?") (a) Release channel ("How did it come out?") if different from true source without concealing true source (b) Person or institution in whose name material originates (c) Transmitting channel ("Who got it to us?"), person or institution effecting known transmission—omitting, of course, analyst's own procurement facilities (2) Ostensible source ("Where does it pretend to come from?") (a) Release channel ("Who is supposed to be passing it along?") (3) First-use and second-use source (first use, "Who is said to have used this first?"; second use, "Who pretends to be quoting someone else?") (a) Connection between second-use source and first-use source, usually in the form of attributed or unacknowledged quotation; more rarely, plagiarism (b) Modification between use by first-use and second-use sources, when both are known (i) Deletions (ii) Changes in text (iii) Enclosure within editorial matter of transmitter (iv) Falsification which appears deliberate (v) Effects of translation from one language to another I appreciated Linebarger's candour when he mentions that, of course, We as well as They produce "black" propaganda, and begs the readers' forgiveness for only including Their material as examples in his (approved for publication by Us) book. (at one point he mentions that porno propaganda is kept, not with the main material, but in a special collection in the National Archives; I sometimes wonder if he had mentioned that, in the hopes of encouraging the more diligent of his readers to independently seek out the existence of other special collections?) (Reading between the lines elsewhere, I also got the impression that Linebarger advocated —never directly, mind you— that, all moral considerations aside, solely on the practical basis of preparing to meet the communist menace, the US military would do well to desegregate itself.)

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

When I hear calls for accountability like this, I wonder if anyone else hears a patronizing subtext: “we are the only ones who act, others are merely acted upon”

082349872349872 4y ago
The distinction between actors and those being acted upon was used in anti-Caesar propaganda ("Bithynica regina"); no doubt its subtext was ancient even then. (I understand your main point: murderers are obviously more guilty than inciters, who tend to be termed complicit. However, The Grauniad's circulation is brit, so I can understand a parochial focus on british guilt; if this article had been published by Kompas I might have read it with far less charity on the subtext.)