This book is an Allies-only, very British look at propaganda. I am lukewarm on the title because it struck me while reading it that works like this, which are ostensibly about propaganda, are themselves works of propaganda.
Unlike the author’s presented here, I don’t accept that propaganda is something one does, in a tactical sense. Rather, propaganda is a meta concept that shapes opinion and viewpoint in a particular way; that there are a vast number of tactics underneath that umbrella.
Much of this book deals with propaganda in the sense of it only being something that happens in a situation of war.
However, the one article that did seem to promise something was the piece on Wikileaks. The author wasn’t interested in assessing the Wikileaks phenomenon in the basis of its place in a new world shaped by a different type of propaganda; in fact, he showed his hand in the first paragraph by instead taking a personal stab at both Assange and Manning.
This wouldn’t have been problematic if it was at all relevant to the discussion. But it wasn’t. How Wikileaks functions within and shapes cultural opinion making or access to information has nothing at all to do with the personal or criminal activities of the founder. Nor has it anything to do with Chelsea Manning’s sexual orientation, which is also pointed out unnecessarily. Not to mention that the author refuses to refer to Manning as Chelsea, and instead steadfastly calls her Bradley. There are enough tactics in this one particular piece - including relating concepts together by proximity instead of reason or logic - that undo the volume.
As does one other piece, in which the writer was in her way towards making a great case for the place of media theory in propaganda studies... before falling flat on her face by attempting to refer to platforms “other than” the internet, in which she included Twitter and Facebook.
And at that point all credibility disappeared out the window.