Before social media the impact propaganda had on society was limited by print media, radio, and television editors who controlled what was distributed for mass consumption. When this was the case propagandists found it extremely difficult to influence us. For instance, Al Qaeda’s earliest attempts to spark an American led war in Afghanistan were hampered by magazine, newspaper, and television editors who simply refused to share the images and video received from them depicting the torture and murder of Americans held by them. Al Qaeda resorted to suicide bombings when they learned editors would publicize those attacks, thus spreading the same message though unaware.
As it became possible for internet users to post content before it was screened we were exposed to the propaganda editors typically kept us from seeing. At that point many Americans, including myself, were exposed to some of the recordings al Qaeda was unable to air in the ’90s, at which point they indeed did spark interest in an American led war in Afghanistan. That was really weird for me because until then I was often the only Marine in the room talking about what should be done to deal with those extremists while everyone else railed about Iraq. Suddenly people who didn’t understand the region was capable of repelling our efforts if not conducted with care were falling prey to al Qaeda’s taunting.
I left the Marine Corps when it became obvious too many Americans would trust Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern powers to support military action there. We had for years pressed them to stop citizens and money from reaching the Saudis who maintained militant training camps in Afghanistan associated with terrorist activities. Their decision not to restrict travel there and not to come down hard on those who did or financially supported militants was only enough to convince those of us watching that they couldn’t be relied upon not to work us against them to maintain the upper hand in case our efforts were successful in allowing them to expand their influence in the region.
Of course I’m not bringing this up just because I want to rehash decisions made in the early 2000s. In fact I bring it up because I want to clarify what happened here in recent years, as propaganda was used to kill a clean energy project. It began with claims Central Maine Power was going to install massive metal towers along a path the size of the Jersey Turnpike that cut through virgin forest and escalated from there. Media outlets would not have allowed that initial salvo to spark interest in the destruction of that project, because there was no evidence to support those claims, but social media would. There a challenge to the plan developed by environmental scientists and politicians responding to emissions increases threatening reduction goals set by the New England governors and eastern Canada premiers (NEG-ECP) could be developed and unleashed as it matured.
If you’re concerned about emissions and aren’t familiar with the efforts taken by the NEG-ECP to this point you should acquaint yourself with them. They meet annually to discuss how reduction efforts are proceeding in the region and have been devising strategies to address shortcomings as a group for decades. That’s where it was first proposed hydroelectricity generated in Quebec be brought into New England to address emissions increases triggered by the closure of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and slow introduction of solar and wind.
New England’s emissions jumped 3.5% in 2020 and by a bit more in 2021. While Quebec was generating 3.4 terrawatt hours (TWh) at the cost of 0.3 million tons CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e), Massachusetts was struggling to produce 2.2 TWh at the cost of 13.6 MtCO2e. (For those not familiar with CO2 equivalency, it’s a method that allows all greenhouse gas emissions to be compared. Meaning the increased potency of methane relative to carbon dioxide, for instance, is factored in.) This is the comparison that led facilitators to begin working on the effort to construct a link between Quebec and New England. It was not motivated by financial implications as has often been said. If anything that comparison has gotten worse since, as emissions in Massachusetts were trending higher when the propaganda designed to challenge our faith in the institutions behind those assessments surfaced.
So we can be affected by propaganda even here in Maine. And when we are the impact can be long lasting and substantial, even for organizations that pride themselves on staying above the fray and focused on reasoned arguments. That happens because they too can be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information they’re forced to assess as environmentalists, legislators, and scientists triggered by propaganda add arguments to the mix. At that point propaganda is doing exactly what it’s meant to; raise doubts so progress is slowed and an opportunity to change course presents itself.
Jamie Beaulieu
Farmington, Maine
