Strategic communications, public diplomacy, information operations, image and perception management, influence activities, Psychological Operations (PSYOPS), and Military Information Support Operations (MISO) are all terms used by different branches of the US government to describe manners of selectively transmitting information, through varied forms of media, to foreign citizens and governments. The information transmitted usually depicts a positive perception of the American empire, and /or mars the reputation of groups in opposition to the empire. These forms of pro-American empire propaganda, are used in order to legitimize the empire's use of hard power, and make its culture and ideologies more attractive to others, in order to influence their views, opinions and activities. Nye (1990) terms the successful use of these measures as “soft co-optive power” (p. 32).
One of the most underestimated, powerful and successful forms of “soft co-optive power,” in terms of spreading a positive image of American empire, has been American television and film media. American television and film media is not always created or diffused, to specifically influence non-Americans; neither does it always transmit the messages the empire wishes to diffuse foreign audiences; nor has it always been received and interpreted by others, as intended, however, it remains incalculably influential on the whole. This paper will argue that American television and film media has better accomplished the task of “winning hearts and minds,” and spreading American styled democracy and neo-liberal economic ideology in Saudi Arabia, than US government methods, specifically created to accomplish these tasks, have done. As American television and film media and it...
... middle of paper ...
...ision while staying in an American hospital (p. 73-74, p.158) So taken by this experience that in 1963 King Saud issued a royal decree that it was necessary for Saudi Arabia to create its own television broadcast system, with stations in Jeddah and Riyadh (Fraser, 2003, p. 158; Boyd, 1970, p. 74). The national broadcast system was not without its detractors even within the Saudi royal family. (Fraser, 2003, p.159)
Works Cited
Boyd, D.A. (1970) Saudi Arabian Television. Journal of Broadcasting, 15, (1), 73-78.
Fraser, M. (2003) Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire. Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. (1990) Bound To Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. United States of America: Basic Books
Vitalis, R. (2007) America's Kingdom: Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lowi, Theodore, Benjamin Ginsburg. American Government: Freedom and Power. W.W. Norton & Company, New York: 1998.
98-176. 5 Robert H. Ferrell, America as a World Power, 1872-1945, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc., 1971), p. 265. 6 Arthur Meier Schlesinger, p. 46. 7 Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, (New York: Vantage Press 1976), pp.
Fuller, J.F.C. "Propaganda and War. The New Technique of Mendacity as a Psychological Weapon." Ordnance, Dec
Shaheen, J. (1985). Media Coverage of the Middle East: Perception of Foreign Policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v482, pp. 160-75.
. Pilisuk, Marc. “[CN]Chapter 5: [CN] Networks of Power.” Who Benefits from Global Violence and War: Uncovering a Destructive System. With Jennifer Achord Rountree. Westport: Praeger Security International, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2008. Print.
‘’Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.’’ (Eric Hoffer). Propaganda is a broad approach to persuasion for something or against something. Every day you are exposed to some piece of propaganda, it could be an advertisement, or something you heard on the news, or maybe something you saw on Facebook. Another way countries around the world use propaganda is in wartime. The usage of propaganda for wartime isn’t necessary because it leads to prejudice, distrust, and hostility.
After the civil war, United States took a turn that led them to solidify as the world power. From the late 1800s, as the US began to collect power through Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines, debate arose among historians about American imperialism and its behavior. Historians such as William A. Williams, Arthur Schlesinger, and Stephen Kinzer provides their own vision and how America ought to be through ideas centered around economics, power, and racial superiority.
During the late 19th and 20th century, the United States pursues an aggressive policy of expansionism, extending its political, military, and economic influence across the globe. The events during this ‘age of imperialism’ laid the foundation for America’s international power while simultaneously defining the use of the these powers. The policy that the United States implemented at this time is known as Big Stick Diplomacy which was to speak softly but carry a big stick. This meant that the United States would ask for something or take a stance on an issue and if another nation refused or went against the United States, then the military would be summoned to ‘resolve’ the issues. This domineering foreign policy defined the politics of American Imperialism that was especially prevalent from 1890-1913.
Johnson, Loch K. 1942-. American Foreign Policy and the Challenges of World Leadership. Power, Principle, and the Constitution. New York: Oxford UP, 2015. Print.
Cleva, Gregory. Henry Kissinger and the American Approach to Foreign Policy. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1989.
Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert J. Lieber. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. 152-172.
"A leader with no followers is a guy taking a walk". Good leaders whether it be opinion or political, rarely if ever walk by themselves. The information theydisseminate more often than not leaves them with a hoard of followers that conform to their ideas or cause. The circulated information is known as propaganda. The Webster dictionary defines propaganda as, "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further ones cause or to damage an opposing cause". Propaganda has been around for a long time; the earliest use of the word was in connection with religious missionary activity in the 16th century (Hardwood). Contemporary propaganda for the most part is information or disinformation, spread by leaders through their mouth pieces such as spokespeople or public relations firms. Contemporary propaganda is frequently created with stereotypes that can be easily understood, in order to reach the greatest number of people. Stereotypes and propaganda are like peanut butter and jam, when put together stereotypes function very well in propaganda. This essay will look at the relationship between stereotypes and propaganda, how stereotypes function in propaganda and how well they function in propaganda tactics. In other words, this essay will look at how stereotypes function in propaganda.
Endicott, John E.; Johnson, Loch K.; Papp, Daniel S. (2005) American foreign policy: history, politics and policy. N.Y.: Pearson.
...Arabia is a petrostate. Oil dominates the national economy, international exports, and the nation’s politics. It has greatly shaped what the kingdom is today. Having started out as somewhat of a tourist economy, the kingdom has become a world, monetary power. From their massive amounts of oil and extremely cheap production, the country has been able to gain large amounts of affluence and political power. With its large abundance of oil, the country has been able to profit immensely on sales and spur diplomatic outcomes to their benefit due to the great need of the resource. Without the discovery oil, Saudi Arabia would be of little importance in the modern world, having the Grand Mosque be the extent of its importance. But because of its discovery of oil, Saudi Arabia became of international importance, coming to be one of the greatest assets to world superpowers.
The discovery of oil in Middle East in the late nineteenth century added a critical dimension to the region as major outside state powers employed military force to protect their newly acquired interests in the Middle East. The United States efforts to secure the flow of oil have led to their ever-increasing involvement in the Middle East’s political affairs and ongoing power struggles. By the end of the twentieth century, safeguarding the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf had become one of the most important functions of the U.S. military. The close relationship between the United States and the Saudi royal family was formed in the final months of World War II, when U.S. leaders sought to ensure preferential access to Saudi’s petroleum. The U.S. link with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region has demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to both parties, yet it has also led to ever deepening U.S. involvement in regional politics.