Obviously, the existence of a totalitarian system is not the premise for disinformation. Democracies in a way praise disinformation. For example in the daily news: first the tragedies and catastrophes, afterwards the better stories, and finally the news end with something positive. This makes people satisfied and does not leave them with the feeling that everything is lost. The majority of politically uncomfortable news do not reach the light of the media at all.
Propaganda seems to work even better in a democratic society, as the population is not as suspicious as in a totalitarian system. Democratic systems tend to use disinformation especially during the times of elections. They use it while fighting against the others. The media decide which role they want to play in all that.
Already the selection of news can be disinformation.
"This system of thought control is not centrally managed, although sometimes the government orchestrates a particular propaganda campaign." (
It is very common that political interests are criticized by the media. But as soon as the so-called national interest is in danger, it is most of all the government's strategy that molests them, but no longer the issue itself. Which U.S.-newspaper ever criticized the American participation in the Kosovo or the Gulf War with hard words? Wasn't it simply the way how propaganda was done that was criticized? But even this only got into the news after the war (and that in both cases).
And if the population doesn't want a certain war then there is always the excuse that it has to be done that way to secure the national interests. Who - especially in patriot nations like the USA or Great Britain - would want or dare (from a moral perspective) to speak against this?
"It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern." (
The media are supposed to change information into public information. Out of this results that any lack of media-liberty means a lack of democracy as well.
Still, the instruments and rituals of democracy are never questioned officially.
TEXTBLOCK 1/1 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611661/100438658128
Boris Yeltsin was Russian President until the end of 1999. After many years of work for the Communist Party, he joined the Politburo in 1986. His sharp critique on Mikhail Gorbachev forced that one to resign. Yeltsin won the 1990 election into Russian presidency and quit the Communist Party. Quarrels with the Parliament could not destroy his popularity until the secession war with Chechnya. When the Russian economy collapsed in 1998, he dismissed his entire government. In the end the sick old man of Russian politics had lost all his popularity as a president and resigned for the benefit of his political son Vladimir Putin.