Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Communication can make good things happen for the wrong reasons


            Thussu in The Historical Context of International Communication discusses the relevance of communication in regards to dispersing opinion to a wide audience. Particularly his focus on propaganda throughout the history of international communication is significant not only today, as messages are more easily spread as ICT advance and become more accessible to those in developing countries, but also in history. I’m thinking of one person in particular: Marie Antoinette. But first, a little background.
            Elizabeth C. Hanson of the university of Connecticut gives a brief relay of the vast changes that took place in medieval Europe after the introduction of the printing press, borrowed from China and later perfected in the 1500s by Johann Gutenberg. In her book, The Origins of the Information Revolution, she mentioned that Europe went from a literacy rate of 4 to 5 percent in the fifteenth century to, suddenly, producing books that “…posed a serious challenge to the Catholic Church,” the Church being “the medieval society’s principal information network,” (Hanson, 15). With the invention of cheaply produced press, the poor could suddenly produce their own versions of history and information.
            “The importance of cables as the arteries of an international network of information, of intelligence services and of propaganda can be gauged from the fact that the day after the First World War broke out, the British cut both German transatlantic cables,” (Thussu, 5). Thussu goes on to recount that the United States, after WWI, was able to land a deal in buying out communication cables from Britain, as Britain was desperate. This cables landed the United States in a position of power, as it would thereafter be better equipped to diffuse its own propaganda.
            Newspapers are especially powerful tools of propaganda, and though we know Reuters today to be a distinguished a fairly balanced source of current events, Reuters, according to Thussu, started as Britain’s main propaganda machine, spreading news through a Royal filter to all of Britain’s distant colonies. “[The British Department of Information] …rallied opinion within the Empire and influenced the attitudes of the neutral countries,” (Thussu, 6). The Manging Director of Reuters during these years, George Jones, also happened to be in charge of “cable and wireless propaganda” for the BDI.
            Thussu details that Mahatma Gandhi was able to “propogate an anticolonial agenda,” (Thussu, 7) while Armand Mattelart’s Mapping World Communication makes a convincing argument that propagandized press was largely responsible for American intervention in Cuba in 1898. What this demonstrates is the negative effects of technology. While technology and the transfer of information – the right information – can be used for good, it can also be used to accomplish things for the wrong reasons, or sometimes to place blame on those who don’t deserve it.   
            Now, back to the Last Queen of France: Marie Antoinette was indeed a victim of propaganda made possible by an increase in communication. A few comics and pamphlets propagandized her activities in Versailles and successfully ruined her reputation (“she’s a lesbian/she’s spending France into ruin/etc). While the everyday Frenchman indeed had a tough life and the French Revolution was valid (no one here is defending the legitimacy of a monarchy), much of the blame for France’s economic woes were placed on a teenage girl, and a foreigner at that. What this goes to show is that information, right or wrong, was dispersed so rapidly in the 1700s that even today people still believe that Marie Antoinette actually said, “Let them eat cake,” (not true).  Even today, the French learn that a teenage Austrian was the reason for France’s suffering, and French schoolbooks conveniently leave out that it was King Louis who actually spent France into ruin with his support of the American Revolution.
            It wasn’t long before other European powers got wind of the events in France, which caused them to punish severely any political dissidence. If information caused that much damage back then, what can it do today with Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and the like?

No comments:

Post a Comment