Social media has become a weapon of war for Ukrainians, and through it, President Volodymyr Zelensky has emerged as a global star. His virtual appeals for international support, such as his recent message to Congress, and videos that show him and top Ukrainian officials bravely standing their ground in Kyiv are helping him win the fight for public opinion. Ordinary Ukrainians have followed his example, answering his administration’s call for an “IT army” by creating viral posts on Twitter and TikTok. They are effectively combatting a Russian disinformation strategy that has, in the recent past, wreaked havoc on democracies including the United States.
This wartime communications effort may use novel digital tools, but the strategy has roots in World War II, when the United States used multiple forms of communication—notably newer ones such as radio and motion pictures—to inspire, inform, and instruct soldiers and civilians alike. Newsreels, “patriotic shorts,” silver-screen features, and a flood of nontheatrical films kept millions of Americans connected to the war—and one another.
The effort worked because it functioned differently from the “black propaganda” campaign waged by Nazi Germany, one intended to spread lies and obscure the source of the false information. But we are still grappling with the consequences of that successful American media campaign today: It tethered democracy to both advertising and entertainment and gave political leaders new tools with which to manipulate their message. Zelensky’s innovations will no doubt have similar repercussions.
Prior to World War II, the political establishment—overwhelmingly dominated by Protestant white men—looked suspiciously on mass media and particularly Hollywood, an industry run by Jewish immigrants and initially popular with lower- and working-class audiences. Even as movies gained a large audience that politicians wanted to tap into, many worried that celebrity culture would undermine the democratic process by encouraging emotional reactions rather than rational thinking.
Developments abroad seemed to confirm such fears. Both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler worked to control communications and limit freedom of speech—indeed, their political power depended on creating an alternative reality through mass media based in a cult of personality and a distortion of facts. When Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to sell his New Deal agenda to the American people with radio and film, journalists warned against using the “black magic of mass suggestions” that fascist leaders deployed.
In response, Roosevelt emphasized the authenticity of his mass-mediated message. He highlighted how new technology allowed him to connect directly and honestly to the American people. Of course, it also helped him control a particular narrative of his programs and bypass his critics in the press. But the Roosevelt administration kept the focus on empowerment: More people could be in conversation with their president. This was, the administration insisted, democracy in action.