Disinformation was seen as an appropriate tool of politics and rhetoric in ancient Greece. Most of all persuasion was used, which then was considered a type of art.
Religion was (and in many ways still is) the best disinformer or manipulator; prophecies were constructed to manipulate the population. The important thing was to use emotions and more than anything else fear as a tool for manipulation. If the oracle of Delphi said a war was to fight and would be won, then the Greek population - because of religious motives - was prepared to fight that war.
Propaganda was not only used in wars but also in daily life to bring people together and create a nation.
But poets, playwrights and other artists were manipulating as well. Their pieces of literature and plays were full of political messages with different ideologies behind. In the way how theatre at that time was part of life, it can be understood easily that those messages had not only entertainment's character but also a lot of political and social influence.
A different and very famous part of disinformation in ancient Greek history was the story of
TEXTBLOCK 1/4 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611661/100438658386
The magic word is credibility.
Disinformation can mean leaving out important informations. Telling lies is not the only method of disinformation. The not telling also creates thoughts and delegates them into certain directions, whereas other models of thinking are left out.
Like this, the deaths on the own side are adjusted downwards whereas the victims of the enemy are counted proudly - as long as they are not civilians. The post-Gulf War period demonstrated how the population reacts if the number of innocent victims is much higher than expected. It was the fact of those numbers that provoked the biggest part of the post-war critique.
The media in democratic states tend to criticize this, which does not mean that they always want to be free of governmental influence. They can choose to help the government in a single case by not writing anything against it or by writing pro-government stories.
At the same time every democracy has undemocratic parts in it - which is already part of democracy itself. There are situations when a democratic government may find it essential to put pressure on the media to inform the population in a certain way; and also censorship is nothing that can only be connected to dictatorship; just think of the Falkland War, the Gulf-War or the Kosovo-War.
TEXTBLOCK 2/4 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611661/100438658709
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 3/4 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611661/100438658128
Between the two World Wars the radio started becoming more and more important; as well in education (e.g.
By hearing unconsciously, without listening, while concentrating on something else, it is easy to spread ideas and emotions. This fact was taken advantage of.
The German Minister for Propaganda,
Radio Moscow, which started working in 1922, tried to intervene in innerstate-affairs in Britain as well as in other countries. The radio was supposed to push ahead the idea of communism.
TEXTBLOCK 4/4 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611661/100438658560