- Taschenbuch: 432 Seiten
- Verlag: Owlet Paperbacks; Auflage: REV and Updated (1. März 2001)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 0805074031
- ISBN-13: 978-0805074031
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 15,8 x 2 x 23,6 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 2 Kundenrezensionen
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 33.581 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
Andere Verkäufer auf Amazon
+ kostenlose Lieferung
+ kostenlose Lieferung
Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 1. März 2001
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
"We're all headed for an 'ignorance spiral' if we don't stop American standards of persuasion from deteriorating . . . Don't be part of the problem. Read the book." --Philadelphia Inquirer
"A brilliant tour-de-force . . . about the most pervasive cultural phenomena of our time." --George Gerbner, Dean Emeritus of the Annenberg School of Communication
"The authors . . . inform, provoke, and occasionally shock the reader about the ways in which our beliefs, preferences, and choices are constantly influenced." --Mahzarin Banaji, Yale University
"After reading this book, I have begun to doubt that I ever had much control over how I have been influenced by media hype and clever half-truths." --James Randi, debunker of psychic fraud and author of Flim-Flam and The Mask of Nostradamus
"I could easily list ten reasons why you should read this book, but your boss and colleagues will probably tell you more about it at the office tomorrow--or worse, your competitors will show you next week." --Peter H. Farquhar, Center for Product Research, Carnegie-Mellon University
"A gold mine of valuable information and insights into the persuasion process." --Robert B. Cialdini, Arizona State University, and author of Influence
"A people's guide to baloney-detecting." --Seattle Times
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Anthony Pratkanis is professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Elliot Aronson is one of our nation's most eminent social psychologists. He is professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Kunden, die diesen Artikel angesehen haben, haben auch angesehen
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Pratkanis und Aronson benennen vier Phasen der Überzeugung, die sie ausführlich erklären. In der Vorphase (pre-persuasion) wird die Beeinflussung vorbereitet, indem das Produkt auf eine Art präsentiert wird, die der Kunde (oder der Wähler) nicht in Frage stellt: "Wir brauchen ein starkes Amerika!" Als zweites ist es wichtig, dass die Quelle der Botschaft glaubwürdig ist (deshalb bewerben gerade Sportler vermeintlich gesundheitsfördernde Produkte). Als drittes muss die Aufmerksamkeit des Kunden auf die zu vermittelnde Botschaft gerichtet werden. Und zuletzt gilt es die Emotionen des Kunden zu kontrollieren.
Durch die Darstellung erfolgreicher Strategien verfolgen die Autoren auch das Ziel, den Leser besser auf Beeinflussungsversuche vorzubereiten. Auch stellen sie politische Forderungen zur Bekämpfung unseriöser Propaganda. Auch der Einsatz von Propoganda in amerikanischen Wahlkämpfen wird immer wieder anekdotisch dargestellt.
Insgesamt ist ein lesenswertes, unterhaltsames und zugleich differenziertes Buch entstanden, wenngleich dem in Sozialpsychologie bewanderten Leser nicht allzu viele neue Erkenntnisse unterkommen.
Dieses Buch klärt, macht Spaß beim Lesen und gibt wieder Hoffnung. Hoffnung, die dieser Tage beim Anblick der Inszenierung von Krieg, Tod und Leid manchmal verloren gegangen ist.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
What is propaganda and should government paid professionals be employed in its creation? Whether the public or the law think tax payer money should be spent on the creation of propaganda is largely determined by how it is defined. For many, there is an automatic assumption that anyone producing material on government payroll are automatically producing propaganda. One example of this assumption is in an article on the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act in the Foreign Policy website, they referred to a Washington Post article indicating “the (U.S.) military is more focused on manipulating the news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership.” (Hudson, 2013) (Whitlock, 2013) As we will see later, author ownership is a legal requirement for government offices.
According to Jowett & O'Donnell, propaganda is an effort to influence: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." (Jowett & O′Donnell , 2011)
The U.S. Congress has enacted a series of laws over the years, often with the appropriations bill, which limits what American taxpayers money can be spent on with regard to publicity and propaganda. However, many of these laws are hidden inside of budget authorizations and subsequently not only don't get the attention of the American public, are often unknown even to the people who prepare information for public consumption. The gist of the legislation has been an increasing tendency toward transparency in governance, regardless which political party was in office at the time the various laws were enacted.
These laws make certain activities that wold fit under Jowell & O'Donnell's definition of propaganda illegal. And when a government agency fails to comply with the law, they are sanctioned and called out publicly via a report by the Government Accounting Office.
While a systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a change in pending legislation directly contradicts the U.S. law and was the topic of the latest GAO report on inappropriate use of propaganda, support of existing legislation is an authorized use of publicity and funding for government agencies. One of the best and most noteworthy public campaigns is the Smokey the Bear campaign. According to the Ad Council website, “The longest running campaign in Ad Council history, Smokey Bear and his famous warning, "Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires," was introduced to Americans in 1944. The Forest Fire Prevention campaign has helped reduce the number of acres lost annually from 22 million to 6.5 million annually today.” (Wildfire Prevention, 2017) This remarkably effective ad campaign is the product of the U.S. Forest Service. As such, it was created by a government agency at tax payer expense. The Forest Service also created one of the other famous ad campaigns for public service, “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute.”
GAO has identified core categories of illicit behaviors regarding publicity and propaganda, including three categories of agency communications that are restricted by the publicity or propaganda prohibition: (1) covert communications, (2) self-aggrandizement, and (3) purely partisan activities. (GAO, 2017)
To further examine the appropriate and inappropriate use of influence by U.S. government agencies, consider the “Waters of the United States” campaign by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding pending legislation in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. According to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), “The EPA violated publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts with its use of certain social media platforms in association with its "Waters of the United States rulemaking in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Specifically, EPA violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition though its use of a platform known as Thunderclap that allows a single message to be shared across multiple Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr accounts at the same time. EPA engaged in covert propaganda when the agency did not identify EPA's role as the creator of the Thunderclap message to the target audience.” (Perez, 2015)
The GAO report cited U.S. Appropriations law 2015 (Sec. 715), which “prohibits an agency of the executive branch from using funds for publicity or propaganda purposes or for the preparation or distribution of materials designed to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress.” (Perez, 2015)
Considerable attention has been given to the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act regulating U.S. propaganda overseas. The book International Propaganda by R. John Martin deals in detail with the historical roles of U.S. government agencies, principally the Department of State. (Martin, 1969)
The most valuable portion of the book is the definition of propaganda, which the author spends a full chapter on. He defines propaganda as, “Propaganda is promotion which is veiled in one way or another as to 1) its origin or sources, 2) interests involved, 3) the methods employed, 4) the content spread, and 5 ) the results accruing to the victims.” (Martin, 1969) This is consistent with the GAO's Principles of Federal Appropriations Guidance. (GAO, 2017)
According to the Principles of Information published in section 5 of Department of Defense Directive 5122.05, “The DoD’s obligation to provide the public with information on its major programs may require detailed public affairs planning and coordination within the DoD and with other government agencies. The sole purpose of such activity is to expedite the flow of information to the public; propaganda has no place in DoD public affairs programs.” (DOD Directive 5122.05, 2017)
While there’s no denying the U.S. government has not always been so clean. There is a history of government information which is partisan, self-aggrandizing and covert. McCarthyism is a prefect example. However, the recent misinformation in the general United State dialog is not an example of propaganda. While it is inaccurate, it is not prepared by government public affairs officers. In “The Green Scare is not McCarthyism 2.0: How Islamophobia is redefining the use of propaganda in foreign and domestic affairs,” Dalia F. Fahmy rather accurately explores the use of propaganda by Senator McCarthy. The author then changes to the inaccuracies regarding the new national enemy following 9/11, which is the Islamic world. The problem with this comparison is that the information, while certainly inaccurate, is not produced by the U.S. government, but rather ill-informed citizen-journalists. With the rise of blogging and everyone becoming a publisher, inaccurate information is rampant. The author alludes to a campaign involving veiled promotion. The problem is the paper is weak on the specifics of who is promoting veiled information. (Famy, 2015)
In “the Smith-Mundt Act’s ban on domestic propaganda,” the authors Allen Palmer and Ed Carter launch another ill-conceived attack on official U.S. government information.
The authors talk about a US Information Agency film, Czechoslovakia 1968 about a failed uprising against the Soviet Union. It won the Academy Award for Documentary Short Subject and in 1997, was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
This film sounds like exactly what government information is legally required to be: factually accurate, adequately attributed and independent of the democratic process, such as pending legislation, etc. (Palmer & Carter, 2006)
In his article on J. Edgar Hoover’s domestic propaganda, Stephen M. Underhill details the FBI used of yellow-journalism style embellished reports which saw their way into print and staged events for the benefit of the media. “Staged events, therefore, were used to create an impression among audience members that the moments themselves in which officials and journalists came together were matters of civic importance because of their reportage.” Indeed, the techniques used by the former FBI director due appear to fit the current laws banning propaganda because they were often covert, self-aggrandizing and undermined or attempted to shape legislation. (Underhill, 2012)
In addition to the early FBI and Senator McCarthy, the U.S Treasury Department has a sordid history that is well detailed in selling war bonds to support World War II. “The widespread war bond appeals were never publicly singled out as official propaganda, and perhaps for this reason they often succeeded in reaching the wary public when … (other government offices) … could not. Ironically, the intensity of partisan discourse in the Treasury's publicity rivaled that in the office of the war information’s truncated domestic propaganda.” (Kimble, 2006)
In Terrorism, Internet and Propaganda, A Deadly Combination, the author stresses transparency. “Counter-propaganda should avoid appearing biased and utilize a credible communicator.” This is very much in keeping with the Department of Defense principles of information. Accuracy is critical to maintaining credibility. (Lieberman, 2017)
In Propaganda and Democracy, the author comes very close to saying that propaganda is inherently incompatible with a liberal democracy. The current U.S. laws seem to align with his interpretation. (Wood, 2017)
In “UN Demands More Globalist Propaganda in School Textbooks,” the author uses inflammatory language to make allegations against the UN and UNESCO demanding the U.S. “totally withdraw from UNESCO” because of its “outright totalitarianism.” (Anonymous, 2017) This is the kind of use of the word propaganda that creates misunderstanding and mistrust.
In the book Primetime Propaganda, the author Ben Shapiro argues, “Primetime Propaganda examines the political orientation and history of television since its inception, not through secondary sources, but by looking at the actual words and deeds of the most important figures in TV over the last 60 years. The book makes the case that Hollywood content isn’t merely or accidently leftist, but is consciously designed by liberal creators and executives to convert Americans to their political cause.” The problem is no one Shapiro talks about are government employees. Rather these people are simply exercising their right to free speech. Shapiro can certainly disagree with their opinion, but it is not propaganda. (Shapiro, 2011)
The book is also a sobering reflection on the difficulties inherent in having a fully functioning, and fully informed, democracy in an age of advertising, packaging, spin, and big-media manipulation.
- It is great to help people become aware of how the media manipulates our fears, insecurities and prejudices to make us want to buy everything in sight.
- It shows how advertisers take advantage of our being in a rush when shopping and not being used to think about what we're buying.
- It points out how we fall into traps without noticing it, and that it is not enough to know that ads are designed to make us like the products they are selling.
The reason I didn't give it 5 stars is that many of the experiments are too old. Over 10, 20 or 30 years sometimes. I wish there had been more current studies used as examples.
Still, it makes very pleasant, easy, informative, and many times funny reading :-)