Imagine it’s early 2016, and you are a citizen living in a northern english city. Over the past decade, your financial situation has deteriorated. You’re struggling to make ends meet or even find stable employment. Amid your difficulties, a narrative begins to emerge around you. You’re repeatedly reminded of the so-called "autocratic" regime of the European Union, which is accused of imposing its beliefs and rules over the UK. Bold messages catch your eye: buses proclaim, “We send the EU £350 million a week.” Prominent Leave campaigners, such as Michael Gove, assert that “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU. Vote Leave, take back control.” (The Guardian, 2016)
The intent behind these statements is clear: to convince you that the root of your financial struggles lies not with democratically elected British politicians, but with the undemocratic institutions in Brussels and across the Channel. This is the one chance you will get to secure the UK’s return to sovereignty, which will allow prosperity and growth to bring you and the nation out of the slump caused by the EU.
However, the accuracy of these claims appears to be highly questionable. The UK most definitely was not sending £350 million a week to the EU and this figure ignored the significant EU funding that flowed back to the UK. The repeatedly promised "Brexit dividend" for the NHS never materialized and healthcare spending has only increased due to pressures such as COVID-19, contributing to a rising public debt. As for Turkey, it never joined the EU, and the claim was little more than a fear-mongering tactic to stoke anxieties about immigration.
Nevertheless, these exact tactics were deemed so successful and achieved their desired goals. In the summer of 2016, the UK voted to leave the European Union by a narrow majority of 51%. The exaggerated posters, misleading quotes, and outright lies successfully manipulated and shaped public cognition, fostering the belief that a brighter future was within reach—if only the UK embraced Brexit.
It’s difficult to say what makes a publicity piece propaganda. Publicity is simply garnering attention for a person, place, or thing. So what makes Stalin, or Brexit publicity, into propaganda? Propaganda is inherently a form of publicity, trying to shape one's perception to fit a goal, the difference is both in the content and the delivery. Propaganda aims to evoke an irrational emotional response, through lies, hiding the truth, or drowning out the opposition.
Now that we’ve entered the information age, and social media has exploded in popularity, propaganda has not only become easier to spread, but profitable to do so. Misinformation and fake news, used to garner votes and sway perspectives, have enormously impacted the international political climate. It has become increasingly difficult to prove information is false, bringing skepticism to an all-time high. But is the separation between publicity and propaganda so clean-cut? When we look at famous leaders such as Stalin, and Mao Zedong it is easy to say they were propagandists, but when we look inward at our apparently democratic leaders, we become overly trustworthy.
It’s easy to look at Trump, and his election denial and see his clear use of social media to spread misinformation to bring attention to his cause and publicize himself. But looking across the aisle we see similar cases, although more subtle. The economy is a frequently touched upon topic as it has a genuine affect on the personal lives of almost everyone in the world, and debates surrounding it are shrouded in a fog of complicated terms, and “people pleasing”. Trump with his false claims of tariff benefits, and Kamala with her promise of $25,000 down-payments to first-time home buyers, may not be outright propaganda, but they are misleading. Both sides are just trying to say what people will like the most, and what will give them the most positive public image, even if it means telling a half truth. So what makes propaganda? It is the language, and the emotion it intends to invoke. Although publicity brings attention, propaganda pushes people to react irrationally.
Trump’s election denial was a perfect use of propaganda to make people act irrationally. This deliberate effort to invoke a reaction and spark emotions is what really sets propoganda apart. Telling a half-truth has become so common on social media, whether in product advertisements or economic conversations that identifying propoganda has become extremely difficult.
Ethical Concerns
In essence, propaganda is a form of publicity. It is disguised under this more innocent appearing term in modern politics, seen and acknowledged as an essential tool in any political and corporate setting. What is presented as factual information aimed at garnering attention can easily veer into modern-day propaganda. The distortion of facts or promoting half-truths, which are realistic flaws of publicity, can very quickly impair the populations' ability to make informed decisions about the media circulating them.
The consequences of this misuse are severe: the complete polarisation of the population, the undermining of democratic norms, and the societal and political isolation of communities. In the present day, the misuse of facts by major politicians has increasingly come under scrutiny, further weakening trust in established institutions. Social media’s ability to push out more content at a faster pace than traditional media has enabled the reliability of news on the internet to become harder to detect. This has led to growing skepticism among citizens, questioning the reliability of information. Trump was able to split the US in two on media outlets, just by calling some fake news, and never providing evidence.
This harvests and deepens modern political polarisation, which causes individuals to retreat into ideological echo chambers, further entrenching divisions. These echo chambers, in turn, undermine the integrity of democratic processes, as they threaten rational discourse and encourage extreme partisanship. The distortion of facts and propagation of half-truths were central to the motivations of the self-proclaimed patriots who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, exemplifying how misinformation can destabilize democratic institutions.
represent their interests.
Left and Right wing voters rarely see content from the other side, creating strong echo chambers everywhere we go. Social media algorithms have further exacerbated this issue and made sensationalist claims easy to spread and take root. We see misinformation spread within groups rapidly before the other side can disprove claims. In the 2016 elections claims that Obama was not born in the US were able to spread rapidly through Republican News channels and social media forums. By the time Obama ever heard or was able to disprove these claims, millions of people already believed them and convincing people to go back on their beliefs is easier said than done.
Parties like the AfD in Germany have capitalized on this alienation by presenting themselves as champions of the forgotten working class. Their success demonstrates not only the effectiveness of such narratives but, more importantly, the failure of moderate and established parties to address the concerns of marginalized groups. This neglect has allowed for the exploitation of rural disenfranchisement, further entrenching divisions across European democracies.
The Isolation of Communities and the Rise of Extremism
One of the root causes of growing polarisation and declining trust in democracy is the societal and political isolation of target groups. Whether it's Europe or the US, it seems that more than ever before, rural communities and blue-collar workers feel increasingly marginalized by urban autocratic regimes and policies. This isolation has bred resentment toward traditional political systems, as these communities question whether politicians truly care about their needs or
Many groups and people feel isolated by this and become easy targets for extremist propaganda. The Proud boys are a perfect example of this. The Proud Boys are a US extremist group of neo-fascists, they are armed, and responsible for numerous violent crimes Their beliefs tend to align with right wing groups and the group has been bolstered and somewhat supported by the US right. With the pseudo nazi salute from Elon at Trumps inaugaration, the Proud Boys and similar groups will certainly be more prevalent and active. This is less of a direct use of propaganda, but a major consequence that needs to be recognized.
The Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Discourse
The modern era has seen a shift in how information is controlled and disseminated. Across the political spectrum, each side claims to possess the most accurate and truthful sources of information. Donald Trump is certainly aware of social media’s power in shaping public discourse, and it is no coincidence that his closest ideological ally is Elon Musk, owner of one of the largest platforms, X/Twitter. Musk has repeatedly shared factually questionable and often extreme content, particularly on topics like immigration in both the U.S. and Europe.
Not long after Trump’s electoral victory, Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Meta (Facebook and Instagram), was seen visiting Mar-a-Lago. Within a short period, unsurprisingly, Meta announced a controversial decision to remove its third-party fact-checking system, replacing it with a “community notes” approach, similar to X/Twitter's system implemented by Elon. This policy change mirrors a broader trend of decentralizing truth, leaving the determination of factuality in the hands of users, an approach with strong potential for manipulation and bias.
While figures like Musk and Zuckerberg claim to champion free speech, their actions suggest otherwise. Their rhetoric increasingly appears to amplify far-right voices traditionally suppressed or labeled as misinformation. Zuckerberg himself has openly called for “free discussion” on immigration and gender issues in his recent social media post, conveniently aligning with Trump’s core policy narratives. This raises critical questions about whose interests are truly served by these moves under the guise of free speech and whether these shifts mark a deliberate attempt to reshape public discourse in favour of their political agendas.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The reality is that little has changed. The manipulation of information remains a powerful tool, and the boundaries between publicity and propaganda grow increasingly blurred. As social media continues to dominate public discourse, keeping the flow of media and publicity from becoming propaganda is challenging.
Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach: securing the media’s impartiality to empower citizens to evaluate information critically, holding platforms accountable for their role in spreading misinformation, and bridging the divide between isolated communities and political elites. Without these efforts, the current trajectory risks further eroding trust in democratic systems, leaving society increasingly divided and vulnerable to the exploitation of misinformation. While the Western world might not live in the Stalinist era of Propaganda, it would be naive to assume that the images and content surrounding us at all times, can be considered trustworthy.
As long as humans exist misinformation will be used to make people react irrationally. With the internet, tracking down and proving information false before it can affect people is an impossible feat. Propaganda has been used for thousands of years and will be used for thousands of years more. People need to be educated enough to identify when they are being lied to, or someone is trying to make them react. Without this propaganda will continue to be a powerful weapon in politics.
Oscar Kelleran & Jakob Beller
Comments