Truth, Propaganda and the Internet

What is truth?

Pilate's confusion over the nature of truth is perhaps understandable for we are still somewhat confused over this today. Perhaps one of the most infamous examples of the manipulation of truth is the activity of Pope Pius XII during the War. Prior to 1964 he was well regarded my many who had lived through WWII, including many Jews. After 1964 his reputation suffered greatly and controversy rages to this day regarding his actions during the war. The difference was not some new research or the revelation of new facts but a play written by Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy. Now the entire Pius XII controversy is beyond the scope of this blog but I wish to point out an aspect of this for our consideration.

The massive change brought about in the case of Pius XII was a clear case of the manipulation of public opinion. The play provided a new and completely different narrative of the events during the War. Once the new story became known, scholars, researchers and political activists began to fill in the details. Since much of this history is open to interpretation, many of the facts can be fit into one story as well as another. The important thing to note here is that the story precedes the facts.

The Encyclical and the Press Release

It is quite amusing to watch media outlets in their coverage of the Vatican. I never tire of pointing out to folks that the Vatican is a hill in Rome on which Peter was buried and a church was built. It doesn't issue press releases. When dealing with information from the Holy See, it is important to scan down to the bottom and take note of who signed the document. When the pope issues any communication, such as an encyclical, his signature can be found at the bottom of the document. This sort of document is to be granted greater weight than one issued by a secretary in some obscure congregation for instance. Being able to attribute a communication to a source is fairly important in curia circles. 

This is not so in the field of public relations. In fact the latest development in the field, viral marketing, involves the transmission of an idea or product in the same manner a viral infection transmits itself in the human body. No one can say with certainty where it came from. In fact if the source of the idea can be attributed to a PR agency, press office or some other entity with a vested interest then the credibility of the information is suspect. Something heard from a friend, coworker or neighbor is far more likely to be given credence. The ideal is for the press release to be transmitted as news.

Bernays and the Propagandists

Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, was primarily responsible for the application of his uncle's theories to the manipulation of public opinion. He realized upon reading Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis that to sway public opinion he would have to appeal to their emotions and subconscious rather than their rational mind. He founded the first public relations firm and consulted extensively with the US government. His legacy is with us today.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

          Propaganda (1928)

 

The Catechetical Crisis 

Years ago we of a certain generation learned our faith from one edition or other of the Baltimore Catechism. For better or worse this has stuck with most of us whether we believe or not. Those of us who returned to the faith found it an excellent foundation for deeper study. This approach to catechetics involved indoctrinating students in the essential tenets of the faith while leaving the experiential side of it to the family and school environment. This approach could leave great whopping holes if the home and school environment were lacking. However when it clicked eventually, it really made sense. This approach appealed to the rational mind by giving people a solid foundation upon which to build an edifice involving the whole person, both rational and emotional.

Today catechetics is handled somewhat differently. We somehow lead the student into some sort of experience of God, eschewing the lifelessness of rote learning. These techniques have more in common with Bernays and the propagandists than they do with Catholic tradition. Rather than provide a firm foundation they seek to sway and manipulate people into having some sort of collective experience that will leave them feeling good. This triumph of sentimentality over reason leaves people ill equipped to reconcile anything that doesn't feel good with their religion. 

The difference between the two approaches can be seen in the ease with which contemporary Catholics can be led astray. Their house is built upon sand. This flight from the rational is fundamentally flawed.

Truth and the Internet 

One of the more difficult ideas to grasp is that the end does not justify the means. If you wish to achieve a good end then you must use good means. The internet is the great leveler in that it provides a wealth of opportunity to transmit information to almost everybody. In this I submit that it is the moral equivalent of the printing press. Unfortunately the same printing press could be as easily used to print Mein Kampf as the Holy Bible. Moreover, the internet is far more difficult to manage than the printing press. When the flow of information was much slower it was possible to submit publications to the appropriate authorities and obtain an imprimatur and nihil obstat. Such methods are no longer effective in this information age.

The internet can be used to slander someone or to spread gossip and rumor. It is fairly easy to use it to rouse peoples emotions and whip them into a frenzy. The techniques of Bernays, the propagandists and public relations can lend themselves to the internet quite handily. The question is whether any of these things is entirely moral. Is advancing the cause of truth by false means ever permissible?

What exactly are false means? In the context we are dealing with here, the triumph of sentimentality over reason, anything that furthers the abandonment of reason is ultimately going to turn around and bite you in the end. Opposing abortion because the killing of a human being in the womb is wrong is quite appropriate. On the other hand, opposing abortion because you are shocked and horrified at pictures of aborted babies on display is ultimately a very weak position. It begs the question of whether it might be alright so long as you are shielded from the emotional impact.

What is perhaps the worst abuse is the party politics approach to questions of truth. Advocates of women priests imagine that if only they can garner enough support and put enough pressure on the powers that be, that they may eventually force a change. Truth becomes a matter of public opinion and the one who is most successful at swaying public opinion decides questions of truth.

A quick tour through some of the blogs on the internet will quickly reveal that this notion of truth as public opinion predominates, as evidenced by the proliferation of com box flame wars. Characterizing one group as Taliban Catholics is certainly not much different from calling another group liberal modernists or the conciliar church. Such name calling means you really don't care about rational argument; you just want these folks to shut up or be ignored. 

People have their internet heroes and villains and the efforts to cheer for the former and boo the latter are far more reminiscent of a WWF wrestling match than any sort of  rational discourse. This leads to all sorts of  questionable phenomena such as the furor that explodes when one of these internet personalities falls from grace. You have to stop criticizing this person or cut this group some slack... we have stopped seeking truth and have degenerated into cheering our favorite team. Truth is not a matter of public opinion or who has the biggest cheering section. It never has been. 

For an interesting perspective on the work of Edward Bernays watch The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis.