Abstract

Propaganda is not only treacherously misleading, abused it is dangerous.

Article

The report that there have bee 178 cases of anti-asian aggression in Australia in the last fortnight throws a questioning spotlight on blatant propaganda, particularly against China, in recent times, not least by the ABC, which often broadcasts such material from the BBC but contributes much of its own by word or omission. The occasion when we read a report by its China 'Special Commentator, Birtles, without derogatory sinophobic propaganda will itself be news. One has only to listen to the reporters' vocal gymnastics, accompanied by suitable music, to be aware of what is being used. An interviewee, no doubt an opponent of the government, answers in Chinese, which is translated by the reporter with little stammers and accentuations and pauses which are not present in the interviewee's intonation.

The latest consists of the totally unevidenced theory that the covid-19 appeared because China was developing was developing weapons of germ warfare and the virus escaped. Some especially nasty suggestions said that China was testing it on its own people. one of the first to utter it was Bronwyn Bishop, which says enough as to its acceptibility. It is easy to invent such a thing - in response, China suggested that the CIA had attacked China by releasing the virus in the Chinese city. At least, that would have the supporting suggestion that the US is trying to defeat China's rise to economicpower.

More current is the criticism of China's handling of the virus after it appeared, a matter reaised by Trump to deflect attention from his own abysmal defence of his nation after the warning of the experience of other contries, conduct which he continues to pursue in various ways, and wcriticism which attracts supportfrom his supporters likeMinister Dutton, also of the far right.

It iss likely that the Chinese government made mistakes, and may well have deliberately downplayed the severity of the threat.  It is justifiable to raise such matters, but it is not so to do it in a grossy misleading way, and particularly without recourse to mitigating factors.  These have been mentioned by some international experts, but are aired usually late at night, and only once. One does not hear an accompanying  accknowledgement of China's success in countering the threat.

Some  are that it was desirable to avoid panic (Australia very properly seriusly understated the number of casualties in the Japanese airraids oon Darwin), the difficulty in counting the number of persons who died from the virus (the UK has the same difficulty because of the large number of victims who die in their own home and not in a hospital, and because the authorities are very busy iin other directions, such as halting the spread of the virus), and that the virus was a new phenomenon, and the nature and extent of its threat was at first difficult to assess (at least, this had become apparent to the UK and the USA long before it struck them, and well in time to allow them to take mitigating steps such as proved so successful in China), and avoidance of antipatetic propaganda (the West had for some time engaged in anti-Chinese propaganda, and in particular was very critical of the government's "authoritarian" shutdown and arrest of delinquent persons on the streets who were not observing it  Julian Marshall of the BBC was pressing an expert to the effect that cities, towns and villages all over Chiina, rather than the hotspots, had been shut down, to the resentment of the people, which was corrected by the experrt. A complaint as to the figures and transparency is just a blind, even if it be correct up to a point. 

It was plain from an early time that the virus was dangerous, very infectius, and properly opposed only by drastic means, which those who were more tender as to the health of the economy than to the health of liviing people,were loath to adopt, and the attacks on China misuses its transgressions, not fairly and reasonably stated, as a diversion of fair criticism of the grossly untoward delay of some governments to take adequate measures for public safety and a seriously dangerous rush to remove them prematurely.

The Chinese  general success in development and trade has made the West fearful of its growing power and,more seriously, its attraction to people when, not if, Western economies falter badly through excessive greed. China'ssuccess in controlling the virus, compared with the most unfortunate consequences of putting the economy ahead of human lives in the calculations of the US and UK governments would make it very useful for them, and their followers, to divert public attention from the difference by inventing or exaggerating criticism of the Chinese original response to the original attack of the disease.

There may be some merit in a genuine suggestion of an inquiry which might better warn the world against future like catastrophes, and that the origin of the virus in China should be investigated, but having regard to the dreadful responses in the US and the UK, one might test the sincerity of the motive of those who are pressing for the inquiry by examining whether and to what extent they have pressed for the inclusion of those subjects in it. This could be supplemented by an examination of the number of times, if any, when they have been critical of those responses.The timing is significant.Though it might well wait until the entire picture is available, the proposed inquiry at this time could not be better designed to distract attention when the grave consequences of the proposer's dilatory conduct is becoming so dramatic.

Further, it is an indication that the push for an inquiry is mostly propaganda is that the original demand was made by Trump (and followed by his clients) in reelection mode rather than by a reasonably civil mode as a quiet diplomatic approach.

The method is constant and general, and ddiscounts any positive conduct with illogicaltwists.  One writer, pretending to be intellectually balanced, acknowledged that President Xi was very assiduous, if brutal, in rooting out corruption in the governing ranks, but then added that none came from his supporting clique. That may or may not be true, but even if it were, it might have been fair to have pointed out that because of his action on corruption there would have been few corrupt ones among his supporters, and, perhaps more tellingly, if he wereas assiduous as acknnowledged, he would not have allowed corrupt ones to be within his clique.  No such fair observation was made.  Instead, there was a snide suggestion that, though he was so strongle opposed to corruption, he practised it himself by favouring his own clique.

Similar propaganda is directed at Russia and Putin.  A BBC broadcast said that Putin recently said that Russia was relatively free of the virus,but overnight stated that there were over a thosand cases of infection,as if there were a contradiction and without actually challengiing the first statement.  It said that there were lines of ambuances at hospitals, which might well be so, but itwould be unremarkable (In the UK, an invalidin an ambulance was obliged to wait until over 80 hospitals were cntacted to find one who would take him. The broadcast continued that,of all things, there was in Russia an absence of public manifestations of applause of health workers because the Russian goveernment wanted to have only one 'hero' in the country, Putin.  It did not advert to an earlier account that the Red Army Choir had produced a rousing song in favourof the doctors who were treating the virus sufferers.

The unfortunate point is that when propaganda is used, it is usually abused as an excuse to prepare the population to accept governmentalbehavious which they would nt otherwise accept if fully informed. .  "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which was used to justify the death of in excess 10,000 Iraquis in the first 24 hours, is an example. The Domino propaganda, which was used to justify our entry into the Vietnamwar still has not occurred.

The West uses Mr Navalny, who is the equivalent of Pauline Hanson in the public's estimation, as a source of slanted propaganda against the Russian President.  They say that he was arrested for taking part in a peaceful protest, but omit to say tht he has deliberately chosen to takepart in an illegal protest, without applying for a permit so that he will be arrested in front ofthe Western television cameras. They imply that it is an at of political suppression when he is sentenced for slandering aa war veteran, as in fact he did because the veteran publicly supported the President. Somuch for Navalny's love of democratic free speech, but the point is that it is a reasonable law in Russsia's eyes to respect their war veterans who gavvee so muchfor their country, butthe BBC turns his prosecution for a clear,and rather nasty offence into an accusation that he is the victim of it all. Then he went on a hunger strike until the West threatened Russia with'consequences'if he died. Then he gave up his hunger strike, but the West propagandists had had their gift. The propagandists are grossly dishonest with their choice and spin.

In China, the ABC's corresspondents would find some dissenters to attack the government. In a population of that sizee, there would certainly be some, but the government has the support of a high proportion of the population, whom for some reason the reporters did not interview. They would constantly produce negative material while never - never - producing one unqualified article of praise for the government'sbetter works.  It would be surprising if there were none, having regard to the degree to which it has relieved the people of desperate poverty, and contained COVID-19 so successfully, despite that it was the first country to be hit. No doubt there are issues for which it can be justly criticised, provided it is done without spin, but balanced reporting requires better than that which has been provided.

A recent example is the widespread reporting that the Chinese military wereplanning biological warfare along the lines of Covid. The soource was given as 'a leak', a convenient excuse for failing to provide revelation of a reliable source. It was a deliberate lie,since the source wasa chinese book which had been wideely published, so that it could not have been a 'leak'; and what iit had said was that the US was practisiing biological warfare on China. It was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Anbother was the pejorative description of China's aircrafts' breaching Taiwan's 'air defence zone', which is outside its territorial limits and to which it has no legal right, while applauding the presence of Australian and US warships in waters outside China's legitimate territory in order to establish the international right to freedom of navigation in international waters. The propaganda's problem is compounded by the recent exposure of a US nuclear submarine, also in international waters but close to China, which came to light when it collided with another object. Its necessary secrecy means that it was not a demonstration and exercise of legal rights.  One might imagine the nature of the propaganda if it were shown that a Chinese submarine was found to be lurking outside Los Angeles! It might well be, but it is the maifestation that would allow the noise. It is not the presence of submarines in such places that is the point - it is quite reasonable that they should be performing their legitimate tasks. The point is in the difference in the treatment of the news.

Again, the news was widely and frequently broadcast that President Xi did not attend the world conference on climate change, but it was hardly mentioned that he was sending a personal message, and the content of his message has not been revealed. Nor, espite the frequent mentions that China is the greatest overall contributor to the total result is it often mentioned that China's deleterious emissions are multiple times less per capita than the US or Australia. Nor that China's contribution began much later that that of the other major contributors.

More subtle is the use of expressions. Russia and China are said to 'veto' otherwise unanimous motions of the security council of the UN. When the US does it in protection of Israel, it merely 'votes agaiinst' the motion, but in precisely the same way and with the same result.

It is certain that it happens in China and Russia too, but that does not justify its infliction upon us, who are supposed to live in a liberal democracy with honest governmental instrumentalities, and a democracy wich depends on a properly informed population..  If the publlic is not properly informed, we could have such things as 178 cases of anti-asian agression in our country in a fortnight, and that would be a dreadful thing. A war would be worse than another Vietnam.

The danger is that if the West and particularly the US,which we slavishly follow, ddoes not wish to find that it does notwish to have China as the leading economic country, it may start a war on false pretences, having laid the groundwork for public acceptance by false propaganda. It would not do that?? Vietnam, Iraq!!! If you deceive meonce, shame on you.  Ifyou deceive me twice,shameon me.