Counterpropaganda
Counterpropaganda is a form of communication consisting of methods taken and messages relayed to oppose propaganda which seeks to influence action or perspectives among a targeted audience.
For the sake of clarity this article acknowledges the definition proposed by Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell who define propaganda as "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist"[1] In practice propaganda consists of communicating a controlled message to a targeted audience.
In comparison, Colonel Garrison whose research focuses on the broadcast media as a method of propaganda and public diplomacy provides a more detailed definition of counterpropaganda.
He defined counterpropaganda as the "actions to discredit an adversary's use of broadcast media to support their national objectives by influencing the opinions, emotions, attitude, or behavior of U.S. and friendly audiences.
The definitions also demonstrate counterpropaganda, like propaganda, is generally described as a targeted form of communication intending to influence a specific audience.
While counterpropaganda shares similar traits with propaganda it also consists of unique key elements which define its effective employment.
"[3] Herbert Romerstein argues that using truth based counterpropaganda resulted in the U.S. being perceived as honest where as the Soviet Union's use of false statements discredited their messages.
When Germany forced the Soviet Union out of the city in October 1944 they found twenty-four dead including twelve women, two teenage girls, a baby, six old men and three school children.
The Nazi propaganda unit, titled Skorpion, launched a leaflet campaign and sent a letter to General Eisenhower to expose the Soviet Union's actions to its American allies.
In response America also launched a leaflet campaign and published an article in the March 1, 1945, issue number 49 of its leaflet/newspaper Frontpost titled "Keine Rache" (No Revenge) which quoted Soviet denials of the wrongdoing.
Counterpropaganda messages relying on words or concepts not universally understood fail to adequately communicate to the target audience and are ineffective in opposing propaganda.
Some experts proposed that the phrase would cause greater resistance against the allies because the term was not clearly conveyed to the target audience.
Effective counterpropaganda relies on communicating messages that "resonate with the target audiences" and that are based on culturally relevant narratives.
[2]: 34–36 Since the objective of counterpropaganda is to influence an audience to reject a propaganda message, it must touch upon the elements of culture, belief and emotion that will result in such action.
Oliver Carlson explains that the longer propaganda is perceived as the truth the harder it is to contradict even when the target audience is exposed to an opposing true message.
The decision making process is influenced by cognitive biases which shape how a person perceives certain pieces of information and how they will act upon them.
However, counterpropaganda utilizes a few unique techniques that are effective in attacking propaganda's credibility and ability to influence a target audience.
This initial method of counterpropaganda benefits from experts in a range of disciplines to include intelligence psychological operations, social science, cultural anthropologists, etc.
[12] When counterpropaganda reveals the propaganda's true origin the target audience quickly loses faith in the message as the propagandist was caught lying.
[12][13] During the months leading up to the 1984 Summer Olympics hosted by Los Angeles, the Soviet Union circulated forged Ku Klux Klan leaflets threatening the lives of non-white athletes.
[3] Propagandists exploit cognitive biases and other elements of decision making to shape their messages to influence the target audience.
[12] When a counterpropaganda campaign exposes the target audience's errors in judgment and resolves them the propaganda message loses strength.
This counterpropaganda method works similarly as revealing the true origin of a propaganda message as it exposes the broadcaster as a liar which reduces its credibility.
