Propaganda and Mass Persuasion

Summary / Introduction

Propaganda and mass persuasion refer to organized efforts to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior toward desired ends, often by privileging certain beliefs and suppressing alternatives [1]. While persuasion can be ethical and deliberative, propaganda is typically understood as systematic, strategic, and frequently manipulative, emphasizing efficacy over truth [2][3].

Historically, propaganda has accompanied religion, nation-building, warfare, and social movements, extending today into advertising, politics, digital culture, and algorithmic media. Research across communication, psychology, sociology, political science, and neuroscience maps how messages attract attention, evoke emotion, travel across networks, and anchor durable beliefs [4][5][6].

---

Etymology and Definitions

The English word propaganda derives from the Latin propagare (“to spread, propagate”). It entered political vocabulary via the Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (“Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith”), established in 1622 to coordinate missionary communication [7].

During the 19th and 20th centuries, propaganda acquired a increasingly political and pejorative connotation, particularly after World War I, when states deployed mass persuasion campaigns on an unprecedented scale [8][9].

Harold Lasswell defined propaganda as “the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols” [10]. Jacques Ellul distinguished between agitation propaganda (arousing people to action) and integration propaganda (stabilizing society) [11]. Contemporary scholars classify propaganda as white (truthful and attributed), gray (ambiguous), or black (deceptive and misattributed) [12]. Boundaries blur between propaganda, public relations, public diplomacy, and education, complicating definitions [13].

---

Historical Development

Classical and Religious Roots

Classical rhetoric provided the earliest frameworks for systematic persuasion. Aristotle’s Rhetoric analyzed appeals to ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason), while Cicero and the Sophists demonstrated rhetoric’s political uses [14].

Religious institutions pioneered long-term propaganda: medieval Catholicism relied on ritual, art, and sermon traditions to transmit doctrine. The creation of the Propaganda Fide in 1622 formalized missionary persuasion as a global project [7].

#

Print Culture and Early Modern Propaganda

The printing press revolutionized persuasion by enabling mass dissemination. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation weaponized pamphlets and tracts to mobilize publics and delegitimize rivals [15]. National revolutions used print to spread identity and ideology, such as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense in 1776 [16]. Early modern states cultivated myths of origin, national histories, and civic rituals as forms of integrative propaganda [17].

#

World War I

World War I marked the first industrial-scale propaganda campaigns. Britain’s Wellington House and the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI) under George Creel orchestrated posters, films, and celebrity endorsements to mobilize enlistment, financing, and morale [18][19].

“Atrocity propaganda,” alleging brutal acts by enemy forces, illustrated propaganda’s potency but also its hazards; postwar revelations of exaggeration damaged credibility for decades [20].

#

Interwar and World War II

The interwar years saw professionalization of propaganda. Edward Bernays, often called the “father of public relations,” promoted consumerism and political messaging using psychological insights [21].

Authoritarian regimes created centralized propaganda ministries. In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels’ Reich Ministry of Propaganda orchestrated rallies, films like Triumph of the Will, and school curricula to normalize antisemitism and authoritarianism [22]. Fascist Italy used art, architecture, and mass spectacles to glorify the regime. Democracies also invested in propaganda: Allied powers produced newsreels, posters, and cultural programs to sustain morale and demonize the enemy [23].

#

Cold War and Decolonization

The Cold War entrenched propaganda as a global competition. The U.S. deployed Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to reach Eastern Bloc audiences, while the USSR practiced agitprop and dezinformatsiya [24].

Both blocs also used cultural diplomacy: jazz tours, film exchanges, and academic congresses were deployed to win influence among elites and publics [25]. Propaganda also played a role in decolonization struggles, where colonial powers and independence movements contested legitimacy and mobilized publics [26].

#

Digital and Platform Era

The rise of the internet and social platforms transformed persuasion. Algorithmic curation, memetic warfare, bot networks, and microtargeting allow personalized persuasion at scale [27]. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed how psychographic data could be harvested for political influence, raising ethical and regulatory debates [28]. Social media echo chambers, influencer marketing, and disinformation campaigns now blur lines between persuasion, propaganda, and entertainment [29].

---

Techniques of Propaganda and Persuasion

Propaganda operates through a wide array of techniques designed to maximize attention, emotional salience, and acceptance of the propagandist’s message. While media channels evolve—from posters and film reels to TikTok videos and algorithmic ads—the underlying logics of simplification, repetition, emotional appeal, and symbolic framing remain constant.

#

Rhetorical and Semiotic Techniques

Classical rhetoric established the triad of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason). Propagandists strategically deploy these appeals to make messages resonate. A wartime leader in uniform may project ethos, while visuals of bombed cities elicit pathos, and charts of enemy production rates invoke logos.

Framing is central: selecting aspects of reality to emphasize while downplaying others. For example, labeling taxation as “relief” versus “investment” primes distinct moral evaluations [30]. Euphemisms like “collateral damage” soften harsh realities, while dysphemisms such as “terrorist” vilify opponents.

Symbols, metaphors, and archetypes anchor propaganda in cultural memory: the eagle for American patriotism, the hammer and sickle for Soviet communism, or Guy Fawkes masks in digital activist movements. Repetition of these images builds cognitive fluency, increasing perceived truth [31].

#

Psychological Mechanisms

Social psychology reveals how propaganda exploits group dynamics. Conformity, shown in Solomon Asch’s experiments, demonstrates how individuals often align with majority opinion even when incorrect [32]. Propagandists amplify this tendency through rallies, orchestrated crowds, or fake social media consensus.

Obedience to authority, tested in Stanley Milgram’s shock experiments, illustrates compliance with commands perceived as legitimate [33]. Authoritarian propaganda often leans heavily on authority cues, such as uniforms, titles, and ceremonial displays.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) explains persuasion via central routes (careful argument evaluation) and peripheral routes (heuristics such as attractiveness or credibility) [34]. Cialdini’s six principles of influence—reciprocity, consistency, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity—appear widely in propaganda, from “limited-time offers” in advertising to patriotic appeals in politics [35].

Fear appeals are common, but their effectiveness depends on offering actionable solutions. Anti-smoking campaigns succeed when fear imagery is paired with cessation support. In contrast, exaggerated doomsday warnings may produce denial rather than action [36].

#

Media Forms and Channels

Each medium affords unique persuasive strategies. Posters and pamphlets compress messages into bold imagery and slogans: “I Want YOU for U.S. Army” remains an iconic WWI example [37]. Radio, intimate and immediate, was pivotal in the 1930s–40s: Hitler’s speeches leveraged mass emotion, while Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” built trust.

Film fuses narrative and spectacle. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will staged the Nazi regime as mythic destiny, while Frank Capra’s U.S. wartime series Why We Fight framed the conflict as moral necessity [38].

Television transformed persuasion through agenda-setting, soundbites, and imagery, as seen in the Kennedy–Nixon debates of 1960. In the digital age, social media amplifies shareable content, with memes, irony, and humor functioning as both satire and subtle propaganda [39]. Bot-driven campaigns manufacture consensus, while influencers exploit parasocial intimacy to persuade followers.

#

Behavioral Design and Nudges

Modern persuasion increasingly occurs through choice architecture. Defaults, salience, and interface design subtly steer behavior. Automatic organ donation enrollment increases participation dramatically [40]. Governments employ “nudge units” to encourage tax compliance, energy conservation, or healthy eating.

Digital platforms constantly nudge users with notifications, algorithmic recommendations, and gamified engagement metrics. While sometimes benign, critics argue such nudges exploit vulnerabilities in attention and reward systems, making them functionally indistinguishable from covert propaganda.

---

Applications of Propaganda and Persuasion

Political Communication

Politics remains the central stage for propaganda. Authoritarian regimes monopolize media, censor dissent, and flood the public sphere with symbolic rituals, portraits, and slogans. The Soviet Union used agitprop theater, posters, and films to promote socialist ideals, while Nazi Germany’s rallies embodied unity and strength.

Democratic systems rely less on coercion but still use sophisticated propaganda. Political campaigns deploy consultants, advertising agencies, and PR professionals to frame issues, manage crises, and mobilize turnout. Microtargeting in elections—via Facebook ads or geotargeted messaging—illustrates propaganda’s adaptation to digital democracy [41].

#

Advertising and Commercial Persuasion

Commercial persuasion mirrors political propaganda. Edward Bernays famously reframed cigarettes as “torches of freedom” for women, linking consumption with liberation [42]. Over the 20th century, advertising shifted toward emotional branding and identity marketing: Apple products are associated with creativity, Nike with determination.

Contemporary marketing deploys data-driven targeting: algorithms serve tailored ads based on browsing history and psychographic profiles. Emotional resonance is increasingly engineered, not merely intuited.

#

Military Information Operations

Propaganda has always been integral to war. Psychological operations (PSYOPs) target both enemy forces and civilian populations. During Vietnam, the Chieu Hoi program distributed millions of leaflets promising safe passage to defectors [43]. In the 1991 Gulf War, coalition forces dropped leaflets urging Iraqi troops to surrender.

In modern conflicts, Russia has combined cyberattacks, fabricated news, and social media bots to destabilize adversaries, an approach dubbed “hybrid warfare” [44]. These tactics blur distinctions between war, propaganda, and information manipulation.

#

Public Health and Social Campaigns

Propaganda techniques also advance public health and safety. Anti-smoking campaigns illustrate the power of sustained persuasion: graphic imagery, bans, and taxation reduced smoking rates worldwide [45].

HIV/AIDS campaigns in the 1980s initially relied on fear but later incorporated efficacy messaging and peer education. During COVID-19, governments employed dashboards, celebrity endorsements, and appeals to social solidarity—though inconsistent messaging sometimes fueled distrust [46].

#

Religion and Social Movements

Religious institutions have long practiced propaganda through ritual, iconography, and missionary work. The Catholic Church’s global missionary activity exemplifies integrative propaganda, while televangelism demonstrates adaptation to broadcast and online media.

Social movements, whether for civil rights, feminism, or climate action, use propaganda-like strategies—slogans, marches, symbols, charismatic leadership—to mobilize supporters. The line between democratic persuasion and manipulative propaganda is often contested.

#

Digital Platforms and Microtargeting

The digital age has introduced precision tools for persuasion. Social media enables microtargeted ads, delivering content to users based on behavioral and psychographic data. The 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum highlighted the role of opaque digital advertising and coordinated disinformation [47].

Algorithms optimized for engagement often promote polarizing or sensational content. Scholars warn of “rabbit hole” dynamics, where users are steered toward more extreme material. Influencers further blur the line between persuasion, lifestyle branding, and political mobilization, using their perceived authenticity to shape follower beliefs.

---

Scientific and Psychological Foundations

The study of propaganda and persuasion intersects with communication theory, social psychology, and neuroscience. Scholars have developed models to explain how information is transmitted, how audiences process it, and why certain messages persist.

#

Communication Models

Harold Lasswell’s model (1948) articulated propaganda in terms of: Who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect? [48]. This formula structured much of mid-century communication research.

Agenda-setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) shows that media do not tell people what to think, but rather what to think about. By emphasizing some issues and ignoring others, propaganda sets the public agenda [49].

Framing theory (Entman, 1993) examines how messages define problems, assign causes, and prescribe solutions [50]. For example, framing climate change as a scientific crisis elicits different responses than framing it as an economic or moral issue.

Spiral of silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) posits that individuals remain silent when they perceive themselves as a minority, reinforcing dominant opinions [51]. Propaganda leverages this dynamic by amplifying the appearance of consensus.

The two-step flow model (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) argues that mass media effects are mediated by opinion leaders—journalists, clergy, influencers—who interpret messages for broader audiences [52].

#

Psychology of Persuasion

Persuasion exploits both rational deliberation and cognitive shortcuts. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) distinguishes between central processing (deep, effortful consideration) and peripheral processing (surface-level cues like attractiveness or authority) [34].

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) highlights how group membership shapes message reception: appeals framed around in-group pride or out-group threat are more persuasive [53].

Fear appeals are effective when coupled with efficacy: anti-drunk-driving campaigns that show graphic crashes but also provide helpline numbers succeed more than fear alone [36].

Inoculation theory (McGuire, 1964) suggests that exposing people to weak counter-arguments builds resistance, analogous to vaccination. This principle underlies contemporary media literacy campaigns designed to pre-bunk misinformation [54].

#

Neuroscience of Persuasion

Neuroscience provides insight into why propaganda resonates. The amygdala activates in response to emotionally charged stimuli, enhancing attention and memory for fear-evoking messages [55]. The prefrontal cortex regulates reasoning and cognitive control, mediating evaluation of argument strength.

The ventral striatum and dopaminergic reward circuits respond to social approval, likes, and shares, helping explain compulsive engagement with persuasive online content [56]. Neuroimaging studies show that repetition enhances fluency and perceived truth—a mechanism underlying the “illusory truth effect” [57].

Memory research also shows that corrections of misinformation may inadvertently reinforce falsehoods if not carefully framed, a challenge for counter-propaganda strategies [58].

---

Case Studies

World War I Atrocity Narratives

During World War I, British propaganda circulated sensational accounts of German atrocities, including exaggerated reports of civilian massacres and mutilations. While effective in sustaining morale and recruitment, postwar investigations revealed embellishments, leading to long-term distrust of official propaganda [20].

#

Nazi Germany

Nazi propaganda exemplified systematic state control of culture. Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda coordinated newspapers, radio, cinema, education, and public spectacles. Films such as Triumph of the Will and Jud Süss combined cinematic artistry with ideological indoctrination, normalizing antisemitism and glorifying Hitler [22]. Propaganda fused aesthetics with authoritarianism, making loyalty an emotional as well as cognitive commitment.

#

Cold War Disinformation

The Soviet Union’s active measures included forged documents, planted news stories, and manipulated photographs to discredit adversaries. For example, Operation INFEKTION in the 1980s spread the false claim that the U.S. created HIV/AIDS as a bioweapon [59]. The U.S., meanwhile, invested in Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and cultural diplomacy to project democratic values [24]. Both blocs recognized propaganda as central to the “battle for hearts and minds.”

#

Public Health Campaigns

Propaganda can also support public goods. The anti-smoking campaigns of the late 20th century used graphic imagery, public bans, and taxation to shift norms and behaviors, dramatically reducing smoking prevalence [45]. Campaigns around HIV prevention and vaccination similarly deploy persuasive messaging, balancing fear with efficacy.

#

Cambridge Analytica and Digital Influence

The Cambridge Analytica scandal (2018) revealed how Facebook data had been harvested to construct psychographic profiles used in political advertising during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Brexit referendum [28]. While scholars debate the effectiveness of psychographic targeting, the scandal underscored the opacity of digital advertising and the ethical risks of data-driven persuasion.

#

Russia and Hybrid Warfare

In recent years, Russia’s disinformation campaigns around Ukraine and Western elections have combined cyberattacks, fake news, and bot amplification. These efforts seek to undermine trust in institutions, polarize societies, and paralyze decision-making. Such “hybrid warfare” demonstrates how propaganda can now operate across military, political, and digital domains simultaneously [44].

---

Ethics and Criticism

Persuasion vs. Manipulation

The distinction between persuasion and propaganda is contested. Some scholars argue that all mass persuasion involves some degree of simplification and emotional appeal, making propaganda inseparable from ordinary communication [2]. Others maintain that propaganda becomes unethical when it involves systematic deception, suppression of alternatives, or exploitation of psychological vulnerabilities [3].

Critics argue that propaganda undermines autonomy by bypassing rational deliberation. Defenders counter that persuasion is unavoidable in politics and public life, and that ethical evaluation should focus on intent, transparency, and outcomes. For instance, public health campaigns against smoking are often described as propaganda but are generally defended as legitimate because they promote collective well-being.

#

Democratic Vulnerability

In democracies, propaganda raises concerns about manufactured consent. Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent (1988) argued that media structures privilege elite interests, subtly steering public opinion [60]. Astroturf campaigns simulate grassroots movements, eroding trust in authentic civic participation.

Social media introduces new vulnerabilities: algorithmic curation can create echo chambers, while disinformation campaigns exploit polarization. These dynamics threaten democratic deliberation by fragmenting the public sphere.

#

Beneficial Propaganda?

Some scholars propose the idea of “beneficial propaganda” for campaigns that advance pro-social goals such as public health, environmental sustainability, or human rights [61]. Examples include anti-smoking drives, climate change messaging, and campaigns against drunk driving. Critics warn, however, that legitimizing propaganda on utilitarian grounds risks normalizing manipulation, undermining trust in institutions, and blurring boundaries between education and indoctrination.

#

Platform Governance and Cognitive Liberty

The rise of algorithmic persuasion has generated debates about platform responsibility. The European Union’s Code of Practice on Disinformation and Digital Services Act impose transparency requirements on platforms regarding political ads and disinformation [62]. In the United States, debate continues over reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Philosophers and legal scholars increasingly invoke cognitive liberty—the right to mental self-determination—as a framework for protecting individuals against pervasive persuasion, whether via state propaganda, corporate advertising, or algorithmic manipulation [63].

---

Cultural Representations

Propaganda has been a recurring theme in literature, film, television, and popular culture. These cultural representations often serve as both critiques and reinforcements of propaganda itself.

#

Literature

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) depicted a dystopia in which propaganda was inseparable from reality, with “doublethink” and “Newspeak” institutionalizing manipulation [64]. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) envisioned a society pacified not through terror but through pleasure, distraction, and engineered consent [65]. Both remain touchstones for cultural discussions of propaganda and mass persuasion.

#

Film and Television

Propaganda has been both a subject and a tool of cinema. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935) epitomized state propaganda through aesthetic glorification of the Nazi regime [22]. By contrast, satirical works like Wag the Dog (1997) dramatized media manipulation in democratic contexts. John Carpenter’s They Live (1988) portrayed subliminal messages embedded in advertising, a metaphor for consumerist manipulation. Contemporary series like Black Mirror examine how digital platforms amplify persuasion and disinformation [66].

#

Popular Culture and Memes

Music, comics, and internet memes reflect and critique propaganda. Bands like Rage Against the Machine and Pink Floyd used propaganda imagery to critique war and conformity. Online memes both parody and propagate political narratives, illustrating how participatory culture can recycle symbols in ways that amplify, distort, or subvert their original meanings [67].

---

Technology and Future Directions

AI and Synthetic Media

Generative artificial intelligence has dramatically lowered the cost of creating persuasive content. Deepfakes and synthetic voices allow propagandists to fabricate convincing video or audio evidence, undermining public trust in media [68]. While detection technologies are advancing, the “liar’s dividend” means that the possibility of manipulation allows real evidence to be dismissed as fake.

#

Algorithmic Persuasion and Echo Chambers

Social media platforms optimize for engagement, often amplifying divisive content. Recommendation algorithms may inadvertently radicalize users by steering them toward progressively extreme material. Research shows that interventions such as “pre-bunking” misinformation, increasing exposure diversity, and adding friction to sharing can mitigate these effects, though they often conflict with business incentives [69].

#

Immersive Media and Gamification

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) intensify presence and emotional impact, raising concerns about immersive propaganda. Gamification techniques—points, streaks, badges—are used to promote education, fitness, and pro-social behaviors but may also be exploited to manipulate political or consumer behavior [70]. Militaries have experimented with VR for training, while advertisers explore AR for branded experiences.

#

Governance and Regulation

Efforts to regulate propaganda and disinformation are growing worldwide. The European Union’s Digital Services Act mandates transparency and accountability in online content moderation. Civil society groups advocate for stronger media literacy programs, transparency in political advertising, and independent auditing of algorithms [62]. Scholars emphasize the need for interdisciplinary approaches to study propaganda across platforms, languages, and cultures, and call for recognition of cognitive liberty as a human right [63].

---

References

1. Jowett, G., & O’Donnell, V. (2018). Propaganda & Persuasion (7th ed.). SAGE.
2. Stanley, J. (2015). How Propaganda Works. Princeton University Press.
3. Marlin, R. (2013). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion (2nd ed.). Broadview.
4. Bernays, E. (1928). Propaganda. Liveright.
5. Perloff, R. (2020). The Dynamics of Persuasion (7th ed.). Routledge.
6. Snow, N., & Taylor, P. (2008). Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. Routledge.
7. Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (1622). Vatican archives.
8. Taylor, P. (2003). Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda. Manchester University Press.
9. Welch, D. (2013). Propaganda: Power and Persuasion. British Library.
10. Lasswell, H. (1927). Propaganda Technique in the World War. MIT Press.
11. Ellul, J. (1962). Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. Knopf.
12. Black, E. (2001). The Public Relations Industry. Routledge.
13. Corner, J. (2007). “Mediated Persona and Political Culture.” Media, Culture & Society.
14. Aristotle. Rhetoric. (trans. Kennedy). Oxford University Press.
15. Eisenstein, E. (1980). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge.
16. Paine, T. (1776). Common Sense. Philadelphia.
17. Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge.
18. Creel, G. (1920). How We Advertised America. Harper & Brothers.
19. Aulich, J., & Hewitt, J. (2007). Seduction or Instruction? First World War Posters. Manchester.
20. Horne, J., & Kramer, A. (2001). German Atrocities, 1914. Yale.
21. Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A Social History of Spin. Basic.
22. Welch, D. (2002). Nazi Propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft. Palgrave.
23. Hovland, C., Lumsdaine, A., & Sheffield, F. (1949). Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton.
24. Rid, T. (2020). Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
25. Puddington, A. (2000). Broadcasting Freedom: VOA and RFE/RL. University Press of Kentucky.
26. Prashad, V. (2007). The Darker Nations. New Press.
27. Tufekci, Z. (2015). “Algorithmic Harms Beyond FB and Google.” Colorado Tech Law Journal.
28. Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). The Cambridge Analytica Files. The Guardian.
29. Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network Propaganda. Oxford.
30. Entman, R. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication.
31. Fazio, L., et al. (2015). “Repetition Increases Perceived Truth.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
32. Asch, S. (1955). “Opinions and Social Pressure.” Scientific American.
33. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. Harper & Row.
34. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and Persuasion. Springer.
35. Cialdini, R. (2021). Influence (new & expanded ed.). Harper Business.
36. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). “Fear Appeals and Public Health Campaigns.” Health Education & Behavior.
37. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). “The Agenda-Setting Function.” Public Opinion Quarterly.
38. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal Influence. Free Press.
39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks/Cole.
40. McGuire, W. (1964). “Inoculation Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
41. Phelps, E. A. (2006). “Emotion and Cognition.” Annual Review of Psychology.
42. Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). “Pleasure Systems in the Brain.” Neuron.
43. Lewandowsky, S., et al. (2012). “Misinformation and its Correction.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
44. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. Pantheon.
45. Sunstein, C. (2016). The Ethics of Influence. Cambridge University Press.
46. O’Neill, O. (2002). A Question of Trust. Cambridge.
47. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). “Deep Fakes.” California Law Review.
48. Weitzner, D. (2023). “Media Provenance Standards.” W3C Draft Reports.
49. Guess, A., et al. (2023). “Digital Media Literacy Interventions.” PNAS.
50. Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive Games. MIT Press.
51. Barberá, P. (2015). “Birds of the Same Feather.” Political Analysis.
52. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg.
53. Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. Chatto & Windus.
54. Levinson, B. (1997). Wag the Dog (film).
55. Carpenter, J. (1988). They Live (film).
56. Brooker, C. (2011–2019). Black Mirror (TV series).
57. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in Digital Culture. MIT Press.
58. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). “Deep Fakes and the Liar’s Dividend.” California Law Review.
59. Rid, T. (2020). Active Measures. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
60. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. Pantheon.
61. Stanley, J. (2015). How Propaganda Works. Princeton University Press.
62. European Commission. (2022). Digital Services Act. Brussels.
63. Bublitz, J. C. (2013). “Cognitive Liberty.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
64. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg.
65. Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. Chatto & Windus.
66. Brooker, C. (2011–2019). Black Mirror. Channel 4/Netflix.
67. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in Digital Culture. MIT Press.
68. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). “Deep Fakes and the Liar’s Dividend.” California Law Review.
69. Guess, A., et al. (2023). “Digital Media Literacy Interventions.” PNAS.
70. Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive Games. MIT Press.

Topics

Propaganda