Daily Times

In the old days, that which used to be called propaganda has been rebranded. It now goes by the far more unobtrusive name of perception management. This is, perhaps, more fitting.

Propaganda, after all, was never synonymous with subtlety. As its greatest practitioner, Joseph Goebbels said, “If you repeat the same thing frequently and forcefully, however untrue, it will become believable.”

By contrast, managing perceptions is focused on securing tangible results. That the term itself supports the notion of perception being more important than reality is not insignificant. Modern media, with its ability to target two distinct human senses simultaneously – through audio and visuals – is undoubtedly responsible for this shift. Back in Goebbels’ time, propagandists were reliant upon audio capability only.

Yet today, with the recognition that perceptions are ‘manageable’ comes the understanding that even audio alone is sufficient to manipulate the desired effect.

Consider the impact of a reporter covering a road accident if he or she zooms in on the audible sounds of pain and suffering. The viewer will not be able to help but share the pain and sorrow of the injured.

As with most things, the devil remains in the detail. Meaning that distinct responses are elicited when different spotlights are flicked on. If our roving reporter centres on the fact that either a driver or an inefficient police constable escaped – he will likely make the viewer angry at this perceived injustice. But if he highlights that it was an accident of no one person’s fault and that the passengers bore their suffering with fortitude and prayed to Allah in gratitude, the viewer will have both empathy and grief as their primary response.

In short, the media has at its disposal the power of unbridled manipulation.

Yet it is not just the viewer who remains unaware of the media’s ability to manage perceptions through gross distortion. Those working in the industry are also, at times, non-cognisant of what is going on behind-the-scenes.

Sensationalist reporting is one of the blackest marks against contemporary media. It is primarily a by-product of competition between channels. Media editors and owners, increasingly concerned with maximising profits, are often only too happy to let ratings drive the news agenda.

Regretfully, this has been known to yield unintended consequences. Such as people taking the law into their own hands or crowds incited to collective violence.

But, the worst part is that not all of the media is unaware of its power in this regard. Today’s Goebbels are engaged in managing perceptions to further their own agenda. At times, these intentionally or otherwise, threaten national interests. Take the example of CPEC.

Almost everybody agrees that while it promises enormous potential and is vital to the economic future of the country – those in the know are also mindful of conceptual flaws in its design. The government’s apathy and incompetence, if not greed, coupled with limited institutional capacity poses a great many challenges.

Most sensible people also realise that, unlike cake, CPEC cannot be shared equally among the provinces. It has to take the shortest or easiest route connecting raw material, production, and export. And, therefore, immediate gains will be disproportionate in nature. If all provinces insist that each and every CPEC-related project be equally divided – the entire agreement may become economically unviable. Or, at the very least, offer much reduced benefits on a nation-wide scale.

And yet, some politicians are prioritising electoral support over concrete proposals aimed at meeting the project’s shortfalls, such as amending the country’s flawed taxation system or putting the National Finance Commission in order.

I will stand alongside all critics of this government who seek to develop this economic opportunity, and there are many politicians and economists who are doing so. But I still find it amazing when they say, “design it to our specifications, however uneconomical that may be or we will incite the people to the point where they will rise up and sabotage it.”

Andrew Korybko, a young Russian strategist, in his recent book “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change” cites two examples of US interference on this front. The first is in the Caucasus where the US is intervening against Russia’s “Eurasian corridor”. The second is in Pakistan where CPEC remains firmly on the American radar. The concept of “Hybrid Wars” is to target economic corridors that might benefit ‘enemy’ powers by taking on regions vulnerable to subversion through perception management; such that existing schisms among peoples are played up to create or assist domestic insurgencies.

Is that what these few errant politicians really wish to do?

The writer is a retired Brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)