And now what do we do with the propaganda?

In recent decades, the appearance of digital communication media has revolutionized the way in which information is disseminated among citizens. The news that circulates through web pages and social networks have a different format from that of radio and television newscasts.

Its impact on the audience could be much more effective and the existence of a correlation between the persuasive power of the Internet, the rise of populism and the crisis of democracy is increasingly being pointed out.

Given the scarcity of legislation that regulates the activities of the new media, it is worth asking to what extent democratic governments would be legitimized to sanction abuses such as the dissemination of false news.

This is not an unprecedented scenario. Throughout history, the appearance of new means of communication has always generated great anxiety among politicians, one of the clearest precedents being the attitude that US institutions had towards the advent of cinema.

the cinema arrives

The beginning, at the end of the 19th century, of the fascinating world of movies is associated with the names of inventors such as Louis Le Prince, Auguste and Louis Lumière or Thomas Edison.

Initially, his moving images were disseminated to the public through fairs and exhibitions (attraction cinema). Within a few decades, however, the world of cinema had already become a thriving industry in some countries. The first stars appeared, like the latin lover Rodolfo Valentino.

But, above all, the directors were no longer content to amaze the viewer, but began to tell stories. Some of them contained controversial messages. In 1915, for example, The birth of a nation by DW Griffith rewrote the history of the American Civil War (1861-1865), justifying the segregation of African-Americans and glorifying the xenophobic organization of the Ku Klux Klan.

The unbridled popular enthusiasm for movies and the simultaneous absence of laws regulating their production alerted the political world. Was it necessary to intervene in the film market? Was it necessary to monitor the contents of the films, eliminating inappropriate messages? Could the Government use them for its political communication campaigns?

better with self control

After intense debates, in the 1920s it was concluded that the world of feature films had to remain, like that of radio, in private hands, making it clear anyway that the large corporations had to provide a service commensurate with it. with the public interest.

A handful of big studios (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount, Warner Bros., Universal, etc.) ended up cornering the market. The institutions did not oppose, rather worrying about establishing good relations. US diplomacy worked so that Hollywood movies could be broadcast without hindrance or censorship in other countries. Producers and directors, for their part, contributed to the country’s war efforts with patriotic propaganda, both during the Great War and World War II.

In the United States, a law that censored the political content of films was never enacted, at least in peacetime. Feature films from both the right and the left were shown in the theaters, including films produced in Soviet Russia (such as Sergei Eisenstein’s), Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany (for example, The triumph of the will). Some films did receive criticism that, like The great Dictatordenigrated authoritarianism, as they were accused of endangering peace with the Axis countries.

Films like the Czechoslovakian one seemed to generate more concern Ecstasy (1933), in which a female orgasm was intuited. Faced with the prospect of a federal law punishing immorality, the bet was on self-censorship: the Hays Code, drawn up by the Motion Picture Association, kept sex, violence, vulgarities and alcohol away from the big screen until the sixties.

As for the production of feature films by the Government, this practice was tolerated during the Great War and World War II.

In peacetime, on the other hand, it gave rise to great controversies. During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration produced films extolling state intervention to create jobs or prevent environmental catastrophes. Congress ended up cutting the budget allocated to such activities.

current controversies

The same concerns and debates of the interwar period emerge when new media appear. Decade after decade, the goal has been to find a balance between private initiative and public interest or between freedom of expression, morality and national security.

Recently, due to the appearance of digital media, we are experiencing a new already seen. if the big ones majors They were the owners of cinema and television for a long time, now the digital communication market has been monopolized by multinationals such as Google, Twitter or Meta.

As happened with the cinema, the institutions do not seem willing to intervene in the digital media sector, even after learning that some companies have been accused of having allowed the spread of manipulation campaigns capable of influencing important electoral events.

Once again, self-censorship has been opted for. Many digital companies ban nudity and arbitrarily penalize those who use violent language. And although politicians do use social networks for electoral purposes, they have not yet dared to organize large campaigns to impose the narrative of democracy over the populist narrative.

The line between political communication and propaganda is very fine and nobody wants to be accused of manipulating public opinion. As in the interwar period, in democracies the word propaganda is still taboo.

Dario Migliucci, Postdoctoral Researcher, Contemporary History, University of Almeria

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.