1

Anwar

Mass Media Affecting Public Opinion

Module Name: Media and Public Opinion

Module Code: 18MCOM18C
Module Leader: Dr. Shaden Shehab
Student Name/ID: Rija Anwar 166691
Due Date: March 21, 2019
2
Anwar
First of all, what is public opinion? It is basically a measure of what the public
thinks about a certain issue, topic, or individual. Public opinion, however, can be
managed and sculpted through mass media. Throughout the years, media has
played a big role in shaping the public’s opinion, attitudes, and beliefs. Researchers
have classified media as the fourth pillar of the seven pillars that influence a society;
the rest being: government, family, business, education, religion, and arts. The
media provides the public with information and most, if not all, depend heavily on it to
gain the news. In addition, media is a powerful tool that can steadily influence the
mindsets of individuals and the society as a whole.
Media is controlled by powerful entities that are positioned on top of the
societal pyramid. They decide what to broadcast and what not to, this process is
called “framing.” The media owners are only interested in making money and will not
present something to harm their interest groups, thus the media can be highly
biased. In addition, powerful politicians use it to spread their ideologies, also known
as agenda-setting. Furthermore, the influence of media is explained through the
cultivation theory, which states that media such as television has the power to
influence public opinion. Thus, media can shape the opinions of people through
constantly publicizing and repeating specific stories or stressing certain aspects of a
story.
The most popular way the media uses to influence people’s opinions and
attitudes is through “propaganda.” The most common definition of propaganda is the
dissemination of information, ideas, or rumors to either help or injure an organization
or individual. A few years back, propaganda was used in war, however, today it is
being used socially and politically in such smooth ways that the majority of the public
does not even know that their opinions are unintentionally being influenced by it. To
mention the highlight of this paper, how propaganda is being used in the media’s
portrayal of countries that have nuclear power.
The way propaganda can spread is through the press, television, internet,
newspapers, billboards, conferences, telephone, music, radio broadcasts, flyers,
movies, commercials and what not. Some of these options may seem odd, but this
just shows how subtly propaganda can influence an individual’s mind. In this paper,
the focus will be on the tactics used mainly by the press in covering events and
shaping the public’s opinion. According to Cialdini, an expert in persuasion, people
are way too busy to analyze all parts of an event, news, or situation that they see,
3
Anwar
thus, they rely on their previous knowledge or beliefs and respond without thinking.
This makes propaganda even more easier to spread. For instance, the use of the
name “Cialdini” and introducing him as an “expert” automatically makes people
believe the information they are being presented. Propagandists use this technique
all the time by using “credible titles” to spread their ideas.
This paper will discuss how the US media portrays the nuclear-powered
countries France and Pakistan. These countries were specifically chosen to show
how the US favors one atomic power over the other. France has been an ally to US
since the American Revolution and is a strong economic supporter. Thus, the US
has strong ties with France. However, the relationship between US and Pakistan is
not so strong, especially as Pakistan is a Muslim nation and has conflicts with the US
supporting Israel. Therefore, US has no interest in a “strong Pakistan.” Based on this
context, it is evident that US will portray France more positively than Pakistan. To
prove this point, certain examples will be analyzed based on the persuasion tactics
that the media uses to spread its propaganda. One thing is certain, all these tactics
follow this criterion: “it must be seen, understood, and remembered, and acted
upon.”
Case Study Pt1: Observing the US media’s coverage about Pakistan’s
achievement in the nuclear field, it is clear that propaganda is used to make Pakistan
look dangerous and turning the nation into an enemy rather than acknowledging it.
One of the methods used was “social proof” which means that humans process
information by observing what other people do that is similar to them or linking
information to social standards. Basically, an average US citizen is not an expert in
nuclear technology, thus, he/she looks to other’s opinions to form their own. A
technique used to defame Pakistan was to make it appear as “the friend of the
enemy.” In order to influence the US citizens into believing so, the media linked
Pakistan to already established enemies of the US such as “Libya, Iran, Iraq, and the
Soviet Union.” Ultimately, linking Pakistan to a country that the US public already has
a negative outlook on, will quickly allow the public to form their attitudes.
An article in the “Washington Post” used this tactic by starting the article with
a quote from the Iranian Foreign Minister who congratulated Pakistan. The quote
was as follows: “From all around the globe, Muslims are glad that Pakistan has this
capability.” [ CITATION Jos861 \l 1033 ]. By doing so, the article automatically linked
4
Anwar
Pakistan to Iran, using the “similarity propaganda tactic.” Any object that is placed
next to an already notorious object will be associated as bad. To make it more
worse, the article kept linking Pakistan to Syria and Libya.
As quoted: “Pakistan could share its nuclear power with other Islamic
countries or serve as their protector, has led concern to western specialists, who
fear that such power may fall into the wrong hands of terrorist-ridden countries like
Syria and Libya.”
This article is not the only one with such propaganda, there are several other
newspapers publishing the same content. In addition, an Israeli newspaper used the
same approach. “The Jerusalem Post” also started the headline of their article by
quoting “Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi visits Islamabad a few days after the
announcement of the nuclear power in Pakistan.” The article seemed to focus on the
dangers of the “Islamic” bomb. Now, not only do these articles make Pakistan seem
as an ally of the enemy but also connect these countries through religion by using
the terms “Islam”, “Muslim”, “Terror”, and “Islamic bomb.”
These claims of an “Islamic bomb” and Pakistan’s connection with “Syria,
Libya, and Iran” are still spread across the US even after the Pakistani government
explained that it will not share its nuclear power with any other nation. Former Prime
Minister Nawaz Sherif stated, “No one should put a religious tag to the success
achieved by our nuclear scientists…It is wrong to call it an ‘Islamic bomb’.”
Similar tactics were found in an academic book by Rodney Jones, called the
“Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University,” the term
“Islamic bomb” was used several times to persuade the readers to believe that
nuclear power in South Asia is a threat to US. Jones not only linked Pakistan to
Libya but also to Soviet Union which Pakistan had no political relations with.
[ CITATION Rod811 \l 1033 ]. The propaganda tactic was to mention all enemies of the
US and link them to Pakistan and lead the US citizens into a state of paranoia, so
they do not support the nuclear technology in Islamic countries.
In conclusion, the propagandist tactics used were social proof, the theory of
similarity (linking Pakistan to an already established enemy), creating a faceless
enemy (claiming that Pakistan is not independent and will help enemies), and putting
religious tags and the dehumanization of the “Islamic bomb.” It is simply the way the
news was presented in both television and books that led to a propagandist
5
Anwar
approach. The way news is presented helps people think about a topic in a certain
context. In this case, the US public definitely thinks of Pakistan as threatening.
Case Study Pt2: Another way the US media framed Pakistan was through
portraying the stability of Pakistan. The media portrays Pakistan as unstable while
discussing nuclear power. It creates a sense that Pakistan is not worthy of the
nuclear advancement. This tactic is called labeling the enemy as “barbaric or
uncivilized.”
In the quote-of-the-day in “Washington Post,” “Abdul Qadeer Khan, the
Pakistani engineer behind the nuclear bomb” was quoted as follows: “I am one of the
kindest persons in Pakistan. I feed the birds, I feed ants in the morning. I feed
monkeys that come down the mountain.” This quote clearly gives the impression that
Pakistan is not advanced and gives a “poor feeling” by suggesting “monkeys.” It will
certainly make the reader question the quality of nuclear advancement in the
country.
This tactic is very indirect, and the quote has no connection to the nuclear
bomb until the last two lines: ~Abdul Qadeer Khan “(father of the Islamic bomb.)”
(“Quote of the day 38”) [ CITATION The981 \l 1033 ].
In “Los Angeles Times” article, the propaganda became clearer. It listed
Pakistan as “one of the most unstable regions.” The article continues by stating that
a former MIT agent, Weiner, says that “he is concerned that if Pakistan becomes
more unstable it might be urged to sell its nuclear technology.” [ CITATION Ham98 \l
1033 ]. This is when the article uses a reliable and expert source to make people
believe the propaganda even more.
Case Study Pt3: To compare how the US media favors one country over the
other it is necessary to show how US media makes France’s nuclear power
unrelated to threat. France tested its first atomic bomb in 1960. The media turns
something bad into something good when it supports their ideology. The article from
the “Chicago Tribune” on the French nuclear power omitted the war-related side of
the bomb and turned into focusing on politics. It stated that “the nuclear technology
ultimately strengthens President de Gaulle’s position when the soviet Premier visits
France.” Also, the article goes on to state the effects of nuclear technology on
France and how it will “restore the French influence and power... and also have
better relations with NATO.” This tactic is called “reprogramming,” in which the
6
Anwar
author shifts focus from the threats of nuclear weapons to French diplomacy, and to
demobilization of weapons. [ CITATION Bla60 \l 1033 ].
A “New York Times” article went on to say that “by joining the nuclear club,
France gains a bigger voice to talk about disarmament initiatives and increase
peacekeeping,” this article suggests the reader that the nuclear bomb was
developed to increase French influence and not for threats, making the idea of
nuclear technology more logical to the reader. The way the information is presented
and through various propaganda techniques the readers slowly become comfortable
with a possibly dangerous situation. [ CITATION WEK60 \l 1033 ].
The result? The US citizens regarded the Pakistani nuclear advancement as
rather dangerous and Pakistan as unworthy of such technology. Whereas, the public
opinion on the French nuclear bomb was certainly more positive and rather thought
of France as an ally and a worthier nation for such technology, all due to the
strategic presentation of information and facts on television, newspapers, radio, and
books.
7
Anwar

Works Cited
Blaire, G. (1960, February 14). De Gaulle Claims Worl Atomic Role as Test Succeeds. The new
York Times. Retrieved from The NewYork Times.

Fahim, H. (1998). What Islamic Bomb. The Los Angeles Times.

Jones, R. (1981). Nuclear Proliferation. Sage.

Kenworthy, W. E. (1960). Aides in Capital Resigned to Test. The New York Times.

Nye, J. S. (1986, November 9). Pakistan's Bomb Could Kill Us. Retrieved from The
Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1986/11/09/pakistans-bomb-
could-kill-us-all/ddee25b3-ae4e-4dcc-b272-070cdd166c88/?
utm_term=.990b7d645640

Post, T. W. (1998, june 1). Quote of the day.