Dismantling a propaganda wall: a manual
A week ago, I wrote a letter trying to understand. Today, my letter is a call to action.
From my friend’s words and from accounts by other Russians abroad, I understood this: there’s an iron wall. That wall separates facts from “Putin’s facts”. The wall consists of three blocks:
(i) the propaganda (aka the Russian TV set presenting “Putin’s facts” only),
(ii) the psychology (humans are pretty good at denying actual facts when they are too painful to comprehend),
(iii) the shutting down of information channels (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are blocked in Russia, and there are plans of full government control of the Internet).
Can we make a hole in this wall? And then dismantle it block by block?
I’m a realist. I know that walls do not fall overnight. But every dent counts. After a critical mass of dents has been reached, the wall starts crumbling, and ultimately falls.
Here’s the call to action. Regardless of whether you are based in Russia or overseas, you can call or e-mail ordinary Russians. Sounds too simple to work? But all the powerful social movements started from the simple acts of thinking and talking. The act of putting in the sweat, by talking to others, not only brews change under the surface, but also creates a strong movement where people are connected by bonds much tighter than the reactionary click-and-share activism on Facebook or Twitter. So argues Gal Beckerman, an editor at The New York Times Book Review, in his book “The Quiet Before”.
Yes, but won’t we antagonize Russians even more?
The common way these conversations go is antagonizing the two parties. It’s only expected: how can you convey any message at all if your set of facts is exactly opposite to those of your interlocutor. Facts — mind you — not interpretations! — are opposite. Bombarding people with facts (which they believe are false) creates resentment, not understanding.
Is there a solution? Active listening and building trust. For example, the “Call Russia” web-site (which is a one-stop-shop for calls to Russia, with one “call” button, automatically generated phone numbers, conversation starters etc.) mentions how establishing your connection to Russia helps build trust. So does asking questions and being genuinely curious. Speaking from the place of compassion is more likely to open somebody’s mind than delivering a lecture. After all, the best we can do is open people’s minds, not change them.
Yes, talking to our own families is hard. So call a stranger
In opening somebody’s mind, emotion is an enemy. There are too many examples of Ukrainians finding that relatives in Russia don’t believe it’s a war. It seems that sharing photos or video footage doesn’t work either— Russians believe it’s photoshopped. And there’s the ultimate inhumanity of this: Russia won’t allow the bodies of Russian soldiers to be delivered to their families.
In family conversations emotions tend to run high. Many Russians have broken off ties with their families, adding to the heartbreak. So call a stranger instead. When talking to a stranger, you are more likely to treat the conversation as a scientist — studying a strange, strange phenomenon of people living inside a propaganda machine.
If you are willing to dig deeper, Adam Grant writes about proven psychological techniques to help others rethink their stance. For example, instead of attacking, acknowledge something in your opponent’s words that you agree or empathize with (for example, the hardship in Russia). Focus on 1–2 most important / strongest points instead of many weak ones. Ask questions instead of attacking or preaching (for example, What evidence would change your mind?).
Are you a celebrity?
If you think people never change their minds, think again. Here’s a story of Daryl Davis: the black musician who converts Ku Klux Klan members. Davis is one of the most celebrated jazz pianists in the world. Imagine being in Daryl’s shoes and being told “You know, this is the first time I ever sat down and had a drink with a black person.” What would you do? Well, Daryl simply asked “Why?”
If you are a celebrity, you have the power to start conversations. Why not use this power for good? Many Russian celebrities reportedly spoke up against the war. Why not keep those conversations going?
How to keep information channels open to Russians?
Dismantling the wall of Putin’s disinformation is no small task. It requires that information flows freely to Russia. For those Russians motivated to access information, how do they circumvent the extreme censorship of social networks in Russia?
One solution is to use the communication channels still functioning: YouTube, Telegram, and WhatsApp, for example, are still alive and well. Twitter is also accessible, via its new privacy-protected version. BBC has also brought its shortwave radio broadcasting back to Russia. The shortwave is likely to reach the older generation who still remember listening to Soviet-era BBC through it.
Final words
I’m an economist, so I think in terms of equilibria. What I see right now is an emergence of separating equilibrium: with anti-Putin folks leaving Russia en masse, while those supporting him staying in Russia. That is a very scary equilibrium, because it leaves the inside-Russia world of self-perpetuating lies left to its own devices.
So why would I spend my time advocating for talking to Russians in Russia? The reason is simple. Ukraine cannot change its geography. Neither can Russia. And that leaves just one sustainable way to stop the bloodshed: for Russians to realise and rebel against their leader sending Russian troops for brutal manslaughter of Ukrainian civilians.