It
is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through
information campaigns.
Position:
Agree.
I agree with this statement, as
long as the information in the “information campaigns” is labeled as being from
the government. If the public is aware of the information’s source, they can
make their own decisions about whether to follow it or not.
Every government will have a
‘side’, or a certain bias that they tend towards. Governments are comprised of
people, and people cannot exist without their beliefs of what is right and wrong.
With this in mind, I propose that not only is it acceptable for a government to
try to shape public opinion, it is sometimes also inevitable.
Assuming a democracy, the ruling
party in question would’ve been selected to power for a reason – because the
majority of people in the country agree with them and their ideas. Beyond this,
we also elect individuals to power for the positive plans they have for a country.
This implies action – we are willing to let them make changes and control the country because we believe
in their ideals. It follows that the ideas in their information campaigns will
probably agree with us, and public opinion will be further shaped in the
direction it chose in the first place.
One example where this phenomenon
has been better for a country as a whole is in Singapore’s Keep Singapore Clean campaign (1968-1990). Public opinion was
shaped, encouraging people to change their views and habits to focus on an
aspect they had previously ignored: keeping their country clean. As a result, Singapore
is now one of the cleanest countries in the world*
In the case of the Iraq War, none
of the examples we looked at could be considered information campaigns. The
cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were individual stories that the
government chose to focus on, not a systematic sequence of actions – which is what a campaign would be. With
regards to the documentary, government bias is often less dangerous than media
news bias. This is because while both sides portray their information as the
truth, the public is aware that the government has a specific side (their own).
The media, on the other hand, is often pulled by invisible strings that the
public doesn’t see or understand.
Continuing with the example of a
democracy, if a government were to release information campaigns that went
against a country’s values, it is the duty of the people to revolt, and to
demand a different government.
* http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1202168
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/beavers.pdf
http://remembersingapore.org/2013/01/18/singapore-campaigns-of-the-past/
No comments:
Post a Comment