Ian Cooke, co-curator of 'Propaganda: Power and Persuasion' provides a summary of public debates held at the Library in partnership with Speakers Corner Trust.

Over four days 2- 5 September, the British Library held four public debates related to the theme of our exhibition Propaganda: Power and Persuasion. We worked with Speakers Corner Trust to plan the programme of debates, and were extremely lucky to have four inspirational speakers to introduce and lead our debates. 

Dr Evan Harris, Associate Director of the Hacked Off campaign for a free and accountable press, introduced our first debate ‘Is the News Propaganda?’. On subsequent days, Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society, asked us to re-examine our views about propaganda, and consider more-positive aspects. Anthony Barnett, founder of openDemocracy, led a lively discussion on our attitudes to media new and old, and how we respond to a sense of “information overload”. Finally, Agnès Callamard, Executive Director of Article19, gave a strong defence of freedom of speech as the best means of combatting the “propaganda of hate”.  

Each speaker gave a short introduction to the topic, and then the direction and theme of the debate, as well as the content, came from the audience present. This worked better on some days than others, but on every day I was struck by the richness and seriousness of the discussion that came from the audience. I learnt a lot, and the four days have made me look at these subjects in a different light. I’m very grateful to everyone who attended on these days. For the rest of this post, I’ll try to summarise some of the main points that came out in the debates. However, this is of course a personal view, and I’m sure that, for those of you who came along, you’d probably have different things to say.

 

Introducing the last of our debates, Peter Bradley, the Director of Speakers Corner Trust, reminded us that ‘rights are like muscles, you need to exercise them or they grow weak’. A strong theme through all four days was the importance of freedom of speech and expression, and the value in ensuring this is extended and nurtured for all. Access to the means of communication, including through new media and social media, empowers and provides the means for groups to organise and gain support. More than this though, it can also provide a means of redress, to correct distortions and challenge prejudice. As Ruth Fox demonstrated, the use of powerful symbols, for example on banners and badges, could generate feelings of solidarity.

There are, of course, challenges. People talked about the inequality of access to spaces for debate, resulting from structural issues around ownership of the national and international news organisations and social media platforms, or around access to new technologies. Online information sources can sometimes give the impression of creating a “deluge” of news. Difficulties in sorting that which we find trustworthy from the untrustworthy can lead us to the conclusion that all sources are unreliable, and promote a sense of cynicism where we feel powerless and alienated. In the case of social-media, the capacity to harass and abuse, often anonymously or under cover of a pseudonym, appears unchecked. Much of the discussion over the four days sought ways in which we could overcome such difficulties.

We discussed regulation in the case of news reporting. In other circumstances, there was support for education as a way of challenging cynicism, coping with perceived “information overload”, and understanding how to exercise our right to free expression without restricting this for others. One person noted that those who used new media more frequently became more confident in recognising authenticity in online communications. Understanding the process by which news becomes news can help us make decisions about what sources we trust. The teaching of history is one way in which a critical analysis of sources can be introduced. 

The programme was devised to accompany our exhibition on propaganda, so there was much discussion about what the word meant to people. Talking about news reporting, propaganda could be thought of as intentional, editorial, bias. Also, and perhaps more damagingly, it could be a failure to analyse things presented as fact or to critically question sources. A lack of accountability or poor systems of redress could also contribute to propaganda. Here, we were thinking about propaganda as being the narrowing of argument and heightening of inequalities in access to debate. However, the presence of bias in debate and commentary could also be a healthy sign – one that shows that freedom of expression is protected. The crucial element here would be an accompanying plurality of voices.

Ruth Fox reminded us that persuasive speech could also be used to mutually beneficial ends. Health campaigning by state bodies can result in savings for services, and more productive populations, but also result in genuine benefits in wellbeing for individuals. As with other, more readily-recognised forms of propaganda, the appeal is often made to emotions, using powerful images and symbols.    

An important issue in the way that we respond to these powerful messages is trust. This was a theme raised by many of our speakers and in subsequent discussions. At some points there seemed to be a reluctance to place trust in many of the sources of information that we receive, with both social media and more traditional media faring poorly. The point was made that we tend to place more trust in sources and people that are local. Also, that we are more likely to trust sources that we agree with – which can be a useful tool for propagandists. This leads back to the importance of education and access to debate. The more we understand about how the messages that we find influential are produced, the better-equipped we are to analyse and assess them. Access to the arenas of debate, and making use of that access, makes the sources of information more accountable and more reflective of the range of interests and opinions within a society.   

The British Library has put together a new series of videos which show how different people have been inspired and supported by the Library’s collections. Different areas of the collections such as newspapers, maps and market research reports are shown to enable researchers, educators and creative individuals carry out their work. Alex Hall, a final year PhD student at the University of Manchester has used the British Library’s newspaper collections to undertake research in the history of science. Here is a bit more about his research and how he has used our collections.

History of Science – Alex Hall

Alex Hall is in the final year of his PhD at the University of Manchester, researching UK weather events and the history of the Met Office. He is interested in the way that the Met Office has communicated with the public, and how its role has changed since WWII. His starting point was the Daily Mirror headline after the Great Storm of 1987: ‘Why didn’t they warn us?’ This prompted the question: how did this culture of blame develop?

Alex has used official documents from other archives to research particular events, for example, floods in the 40s and 50s. These sources can tell you ‘what happened’, or ‘what was supposed to happen’, but they often don’t tell you how events unfolded, and how the public responded. He turned to the Library’s unique collections of local newspapers to analyse the public response to the floods. He also used the Library’s international collections to find government documents from around the world, to give a wider context to his work. Particularly useful was a US document called ‘Weather is the Nation’s Business’; he discovered that many British policy ideas had been directly drawn from this report. Alex has spoken at several conferences about his work, in the UK and US, and also writes a weather-related blog. This blog led to him being invited to speak to a group of Chinese meteorologists about his research. He hopes his completed research will prove useful to the Met Office, as his discoveries give insight into the evolution of its role and reputation.

Watch Alex’s short video about his research at the British Library here:

 

In the case of the video failing to play, click here.

Follow Alex on Twitter @Green_gambit and read his personal blog here: http://greengambit.blogspot.com/

 

Ian Cooke, co-curator of 'Propaganda: Power and Persuasion' writes about the Ministry of Information.

‘If the Ministry of Information were to become a beloved feature of our political life, then I should indeed feel that something had gone very wrong with the mental and spiritual health of my countrymen.’ Harold Nicolson M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information, writing in the BBC Handbook, 1941.

Some of the most memorable propaganda from the Second World War was generated from or with the support of the Ministry of Information. “Careless Talk costs Lives”, “Dig for Victory”, “Keep Calm and Carry On” all now have an enduring power, recognition and popularity in British culture today. It may be surprising then that these all came from a Ministry that was seen as highly unpopular and ineffective when it began on 4 September 1939.

This was in fact the second time that a Ministry of Information had been set up in Britain. During the First World War, the Department of Information was created in February 1917 from a number of bodies with responsibilities for propaganda and press in allied and neutral countries and in military zones. Maintenance of morale, recruitment and war savings campaigns within the UK remained the responsibility of a network of commercial, Parliamentary and voluntary committees. The Department became the Ministry of Information in March 1918, and was dissolved in November 1918.

Planning for a revived Ministry of Information, in the event of war in Europe, began as early as 1936, drawing on experiences and recollections of those who worked in the First World War. In our exhibition, you can see a note on the volume of material produced by the Department in 1917 – 40 million items in just 10 months. The renewed Ministry of Information held responsibility for domestic propaganda and censorship (unlike its First World War predecessor) as well as propaganda in allied and neutral countries. As well as producing publicity materials itself, the Ministry was intended to advise other government departments on publicity and co-ordinate this work. From the start, the relationship between the Ministry and other government departments was difficult, with battles over who made decisions on public information material. There was also a feeling within the Ministry that its role regulating BBC news output was ambiguous and it had not been given the necessary authority to carry it out. In practice, reporting of the war on the BBC and in the British press was more obstructed by the reluctance of the Service Ministries to release timely information. Public opinion, however, placed the blame on the Ministry of Information. All these difficulties are perhaps reflected in the rapid succession of Ministers in its first years: Lord Hugh MacMillan (September 1939- January 1940), Lord John Reith (January- May 1940), Alfred Duff Cooper (May 1940- July 1941), and Brendan Bracken (from July 1941).

Above: Ministry of Information posters by Ministry of Information Photo Division Photographer via Wikimedia Commons.

For its first years, the Ministry was unpopular within government and also with the press and public in Britain. Its early attempts at producing posters were met with strong resistance. A poster with white lettering on a red background, very much in the style of “Keep Calm and Carry On”, carried the message: ‘Your Courage, Your Cheerfulness, Your Resolution, Will Bring Us Victory’. Public and press picked up on the distinction between “your” and “us”, complaining that the message appeared to be too aloof or condescending – worse, that it suggested that the British public would be relied on to deliver victory for the political elite in Whitehall. This didn’t, however, stop the brewery Courage releasing their own version of the poster with the amended words, ‘… your Courage will add per 1d pint to the Exchequer’. The “Keep Calm” poster, intended for use in the event of imminent invasion, was never used – although it is doubtful that it would have achieved the level of popularity in 1939 that it has enjoyed in recent years.

Similarly, the development of the Home Intelligence Department, to observe and report on public morale through Britain, although of high importance to the planning of public information, was initially met with suspicion and derision. Those tasked with interviewing members of the public, and reporting on morale around the country, were described as ‘Cooper’s Snoopers’, after the then Minister, Duff Cooper.

The Ministry learnt from its early mistakes, and heeded the advice given from, amongst others, Mass Observation on the tone and appearance of posters and leaflets. The use of plain text and distant tone was replaced with more sophisticated tactics, using humour and images. Significant too, the appointment of Brendan Bracken as Minister brought better political support for the Ministry (Bracken was a close friend of Churchill’s) and, crucially, improved the flow of information to the British press from the War Office, Admiralty and Air Ministry.    

Following the end of the Second World War, the Ministry was closed. Responsibility for publicity to countries outside the UK passed to the Foreign Office and Colonial Office, while newly-formed Central Office of Information (COI) took over responsibility for advising government departments and commissioning publicity. Over the next 60 years, the COI were responsible for commissioning some of the most memorable British publicity campaigns, including the Green Cross Code (with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents), the “Clunk Click” campaign to promote use of seatbelts in cars, “Coughs and Sneezes” and AIDS awareness publicity. From 2010, however, government spending on marketing campaigns was substantially reduced as part of wider public spending cuts, and the COI closed at the end of March 2012.

Dr Peter Johnston is an historian and lecturer who recently worked on researching and writing labels and other text to accompany our Propaganda: Power and Persuasion exhibition. 

Until the invention of the radio, the means of disseminating propaganda remained much the same throughout millennia. Monuments, public speeches, coins, and the growing use of the printed word, were all common forms of propaganda from the time of Alexander the Great to the reign of Queen Victoria.

However, with the rapid technological change of the twentieth century, propaganda similarly underwent a massive change. The development of the radio – which Lenin called “a newspaper without paper… and without boundaries” – and in particular the moving image, first in cinemas, and then via televisions that ensured moving pictures could be brought into the home, gave propaganda even greater reach.

The growth of the internet, however, has transformed propaganda beyond anything those tasked with its production and spread in earlier generations could have imagined. The internet is a wilderness of information that is, unlike previous methods of disseminating propaganda, near impossible to regulate or officiate. What’s more, with the extent that we engage with this medium, and use it to share, spread and promote information, we have all become propagandists!

This thesis of course depends on the definition of propaganda. My preferred definition is that of the late Phil Taylor, who wrote that “essentially, propaganda is really no more than the communication of ideas designed to persuade people to think and behave in a desired way.” That means that, when engaging in social media, promoting ideas from politicians, intellectuals, friends, musicians or corporations through likes, shares, retweets and more, we are promoting that information and attempting to influence how people think about these things. How is that not engaging in the spread of propaganda?

Propaganda is not the insidious, deceptive, manipulative pattern of negatively influencing behaviour that many people consider it to be. While there’s no doubt it has been used for those purposes in the past, and continues to do so in the present, propaganda has also been used for good, in the spread of public health messaging, for example. Therefore, propaganda itself is an ethically neutral idea – it is the content that varies.

Due to the growth of the internet, and in particular the explosion of social media, the information-generating process has been democratised. Whenever we post an opinion on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media site, we are issuing propaganda, a piece of information designed to make those who read it think about an issue or behave in a certain way conducive to what we want them to. Corporations have realised this, which is why they have such an active social media presence. Branding and advertising has become a major aspect of social media for all businesses, with a far greater personalisation to match the needs of consumers. By promoting brands, we are engaging in issuing propaganda on their behalf. 

Social media has enormous potential, which is why China, for example, has its own social media site, Weibo. In the popular revolutions, uprisings and protests across the world in recent years, social media has played a major part in mobilising, informing and influencing public opinion and shaping consensus of events from around the world. Modern communications are utilised by both sides, and it is here that the modern propaganda and information war is fought, in front of a global audience.

However, such a tool is not without its weaknesses. Disinformation regularly occurs, with fake or doctored pictures being used. Social media has the potential to spread information rapidly around the world. The recent uprising in Egypt has seen such images, and as testament to the times it is through other social media that such falsehoods are exposed. However, due to the sheer nature of information being generated on social media sites, reactions are often instantaneous, without any deep analysis being given. In that way, many people are often unwilling propagandists, deceived by the speed at which information is generated that compels an instantaneous response.

Social media also carries the potential for anonymity, and recently there have been several cases where accounts have been exposed as fake, or deliberately designed for political purposes. Such accounts operate very much in the black propaganda mould that was seen throughout the First and Second World Wars, deceptive propaganda that was issued under one guise but emanated from another source. This direct parallel demonstrates just how important social media is in the ongoing information war.  

Because of this, it means that you should never instantly believe everything you read, and that the same rules of scepticism and analysis need to be applied to digital propaganda as to any other, namely:

• Who is producing the propaganda?
• What they are saying?
• Who is the propaganda directed at? Who are the intended audience?
• Why?
• With what effect?

By doing so, a critical engagement with information can be maintained.

Propaganda has always evolved along with communications technology. As new ways develop to spread information, so too will they be used to spread propaganda. That is what propaganda is! As such, the internet may currently be the final frontier, but there’s no reason not to think horizons will be extended further in future.

You can follow Dr Peter Johnston on Twitter @PeteAJohnston 

Gill Ridgley, Lead Curator for Sociology, Cultural Studies and Sport writes about the background to the FA 1863 Minute Book which is now on display at the British Library.

The British Library and the Football Association joined forces on Wednesday 21 August to celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the setting down of the laws of football.

Amid much excitement, the FA Minute Book, which contains the first laws of the game, was ceremoniously placed in an exhibition cabinet in the Library’s Treasures Gallery alongside a small selection of football books in the British Library’s own collections. Present were numerous eager media representatives, FA officials, and most notably, Greg Dyke, the Chairman of the FA, and Roy Hodgson, the England football manager.

Above: Football Association 1863 Minute Book – contains the 13 original laws of football. Photo by British Library Image Services. Copyright © The British Library

The minute book, which is on loan to the British Library for the next four months, contains the deliberations of eight men who gathered on 26 October 1863 in the Freemasons Tavern in Holborn. Their aim was to draw up a series of laws regulating a game which was played throughout the country, but which was bedevilled by different interpretations of how matches should be played. By providing a proper legal framework, the game was able to spread much more widely, and British men working or living abroad were quick to foster it in their adoptive countries. Football under FA rules was rapidly taken up in South America and Italy, exported there by engineers, scientists and expatriates.

There are only 13 laws in the minute book itself, a far cry from the many rules now in place, and these were carefully written down by Ebenezer Morley (the first secretary of the FA) in a neat and legible hand. One of the rules sets down the dimensions of the pitch; another describes the goal (two upright posts with no crossbar) and another – most importantly - declares that ‘no player shall carry the ball’. This particular prohibition finally helped to distinguish the game from rugby football, and both games were thereby able to develop, and flourish, independently.

The small display is actually the first football-related exhibition held by the Library and contains a tiny selection of early soccer publications chosen by Gill Ridgley and Jude England of the Social Sciences team. Among them are fanzines, early football calendars, manuals and referees’ guides to the laws. There are also sound clips recalling the exploits of the great Stanley Matthews. Surrounded by these smaller treasures, the FA Minute Book holds centre stage,  co-existing very comfortably with iconic items like Magna Carta.

Ian Cooke, co-curator of 'Propaganda: Power and Persuasion' writes about our new series of lunchtime debates with the Speakers' Corner Trust. Join speakers Dr Evan Harris, Ruth Fox, Anthony Barnett and Dr Agnès Callamard to discuss issues of propaganda, news, truth, censorship and public interest.

We’ve been asking for your reactions by Twitter #blpropaganda to our Propaganda exhibition and have been getting some very interesting comments and examples, relating to the UK and around the world. The best thing about our events and public tours for Propaganda has been the chance to talk to people who have been coming to the exhibition, and find out more about your reactions and opinions on propaganda.

Starting on Monday 2 September, and running for four days, we’re inviting you to come to the British Library to take part in a series of lunchtime public debates that respond to themes raised in our exhibiton. I’ve been really excited about these events, which we’ve been planning in partnership with Speakers' Corner Trust. This is a subject that lends itself very well to public debate, and the enthusiasm and thoughtfulness of people that I’ve spoken to has been one of the things that I’ve enjoyed most about curating this exhibition.

Above: Free Speech Reason Progress by Simon Gibbs from London, United Kingdom  

Each debate is free to attend, and we’ll be looking to you to contribute your arguments, opinions and thoughts on each theme. We’ll be meeting at 1pm each day, in the Poets Circle on our Piazza – or inside the Library if the weather is not so good.

We’ve got a fantastic line up of speakers to provide an introduction to each of our events, more details as follows:

Monday 2 September: Dr Evan Harris, Associate Director, Hacked Off Campaign
Is the News Propaganda?
What we read in our daily paper is shaped by the interests of the proprietor, the preoccupations of the editor, the resources of the news desk and competition with its rivals to win audiences and advertisers. How likely is it that we will find the truth?

Tuesday 3 September: Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society
Thank Goodness for Propaganda! 
Can propaganda ever serve a public interest? If so, where should the line be drawn and by whom?

Wednesday 4 September: Anthony Barnett, Founder of openDemocracy
New Media – New Propaganda?
Does the internet spell an end to propaganda, allowing more democratic communication and quicker responses to events – or does it simply provide new means for the state, and others, to manipulate information and opinion?

Thursday 5 September: Agnès Callamard, Executive Director of Article 19
Your Propaganda - My Free Speech
How should we deal with the propaganda of hate? How do we challenge it? Does propaganda have a role to play in democracy's defence? Can censorship ever be justified and if so in what circumstances?

I hope to see you at the British Library for a great series of debates. If you’re after some inspiration to get involved, have a look at our videos from the exhibition.    

Abiola Olanipekun is an intern at the British Library. This latest blog post is number two in a series of four which reflects on reports about the ‘iPod generation’ which appear on the Management and Business Studies portal and were published by Reform in 2006. 

This second blog post about the ‘iPod generation’ continues to follow the envisaged bleak turn of events for this generation. Before I start, you may want to read part one of this series here.

After my first posting, I re-read ‘Class of 2006: A lifebelt for the iPod generation’ and it confirmed that in 2006 there was no supposed ‘happy ever after’ or even a semi-decent outcome in sight, just a doomed financial future for this generation. Will there ever be any ‘Green Shoots’ at this miserable point? Knowing what happened to the economy in the years that follow suggest not.

Should you, as a member of our erudite audience, wish to see this report then feel free (once more) to click here. It’s free to download from our MBS Portal.

As I read the second report in the series by Reform, I wondered about the relationship between how the evidence is researched and presented, and how it is received. In my first post I received the information as an inquisitive person but certainly felt miserable by the end of the report. This time around it I feel more miserable than I ever did! Knowing that many of the bleak predictions came true in one way or another make the warning produced by Reform even more depressing.

Below are just a few of the points and observations made at the time of this report. Whether this may or may not be the case for today is another debate…

• Young people’s earnings were rising by less than any other age group
• Young people were most likely to be in debt
• House prices had continued to rise beyond the range of young people’s earning
• Older people will gain from a rising state pension linked to earnings. 
• Young people funding the increase in the state pension at the same time as facing automatic contributions of 3 per cent of their salary. 

This report generally confirms that is predicting bad news like the first report.

When the baby boomers are referred to as ‘winning’ the generation game it sets the generations against one another in an insulting way as it reminds of how the older generations have benefited from the welfare state. Or maybe my sense of humour has left because I (like a lot of my age group) am so poor and frustrated feel the reality of these generational differences.

I must stress now though that I am in no way carrying out a ‘Debbie Downer’ type approach to these pieces because that would negate the areas where progress has been made for the young. I also am grateful that the situation for the young people here is not as bad as it is in some other European countries, but recent news stories have also shown that there is economy uncertainty and poor employment conditions for many. Fixed-term contracts, or worse, zero hour contracts do not have a place in my heart. I am hoping for something other than more economic instability.

Dr. Philip Hatfield, Curator for Canadian and Caribbean Studies at the British Library writes on photographs, patriotism and propaganda in this guest blog post.

Above: Sarah Charlton’s ‘Living Union Jack’ (Ontario 1898). Available from Wikimedia Commons.

As the British Library’s ‘Propaganda’ exhibition highlights the methods of this medium are more than just finger-pointing and draconian messaging. Indeed, it has a role in everyday life in war time, peace time and private time.

One form of message that pervades all these different times and spaces is the iconography of patriotism; for the British, the Union Flag that adorns cushions, cricket pitches and camouflage uniforms across the country is the best example. I was reminded of this recently when browsing the Library’s recently digitised collection of Canadian photographs, which can now be found on Wikimedia Commons.

Above: Joseph Clarke’s, ‘Likeness on a Maple Leaf with Union Jack as background’ (1900). Available from Wikimedia Commons.

Today we think of Canada’s symbol as being the Maple Leaf but at the beginning of the twentieth century Canadians showed as much affinity to the Union Flag as to the symbols of maples and beavers. This is borne out by the many occurrences of the flag in the collection, from ‘living’ pictures and humorous memorabilia, to commemorative portraits and symbols to rally behind in times of war.

The above ‘Living Union Jack’ photograph is one of the collection’s eccentric oddities (and slightly let down by the incorrect hanging of the Union Flags in the background) but it speaks to the fondness people held for the symbol and, I would suggest, it’s viability as an image people would consume; this was most likely sold as a postcard.

Above: Ronald Mumford’s, ‘Canadian Patriotic Indian Chiefs’ (1915, one of a series of four). Available from Wikimedia Commons.

The flag’s most common role is in war portraits, commemorative photographs taken before or after a soldier left to fight in British conflicts. The ‘Likeness on a Union Jack’ photograph shares this style although this was perhaps reproduced as a card in support Canadian volunteers for the South African War of 1900 . In the case of the final photograph what we see is pure propaganda, a group of First Nations chiefs posed with a Union Flag to suggest their support for the First World War.

Many from the First Nations were involved in British wars but the exact agency of the individuals in this photograph is unclear. What is also unclear is to what extent we should regard the other photographs shown here as propaganda? No doubt people would feel differently about the images depending on their political affiliations but are the implicit nationalistic sentiments of the ‘Living Union Jack’ on a par with the message of war time allegiance embedded in the ‘Patriotic Indian Chiefs’ photograph?

I would argue not, yet the symbol of the Union accompanies each of these photographs and it communicates a message of trans-national solidarity, to varying degrees, in each one. What we see here, then, is the magic of propaganda; amusing in some situations, comforting in others, forceful at its extremes and always there, embedded in the symbols we see every day.

Read more posts by Philip on the Americas blog.