This post addresses the following consideration:
Considering the discrediting of massive effects theory, how would you
explain the apparent success of propaganda in the wars?
If one looks at the time when propaganda was most evident in society in
terms of a historical timeframe then it becomes easier to understand how
the massive effect theory through propaganda in the wars can be justified.
During the 1920’s/30’s the power of propaganda was at its best.
Propaganda was effective as a form of persuasion because it was a
‘deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate
cognitions and direct behaviour’ (Jowett and O’Donnell). The reason the
massive effect theory could be justified within this realm was due to
society at the time and traditional communication models.
Society as well as cultural behaviours and norms highly influence the
way one would receive messages. This said societal influence cannot be
ignored as being a contributing factor that justifies this apparent success.
Propagandists during the time of war dealt with ‘the mass audience’
(McQuail 2000 Ch3, p57), being a large audience of not interactive
individuals who were managed and manipulated. Also the type of media
channels at the time of war propaganda could be delivered in a linear
sequence and not shaped to receive feedback. The medium helped the power
of the message; ‘medium is the message’ (McLuhan 1964) and if not this
case entirely the message was highly subjective to the medium and the
audience of the time.
