Ask A Genius 1164: Propaganda and Polls

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/12

*Interview conducted in October-November, 2024.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Russian propaganda is pervasive in Western societies. It’s cheap to produce and spread. 

Rick Rosner: According to the statistics I’ve heard, they’ve spent $300 million over the past decade. We’ve discussed that—it’s cheap to make people crazy via social media. What did your Russian propaganda expert say?

Jacobsen: Hang on. I’ll add a whole summary. She is part of an organization in Ukraine. She’s a Jewish woman connected through another colleague in Ukraine, and she specializes in this area. She framed it as tools and narratives of Russian propaganda within the context of Ukraine. She wanted to focus more on Ukrainian sovereignty and cultural life rather than Russian influence. This will take a bit, but I’ll go through it quickly, relative to an hour and a half of interviews.

She noted that, in general, there is a strategy of leveraging a variety of tools, including media, culture, religion, and sports, to disseminate narratives. These narratives are used to justify policies that undermine Ukrainian sovereignty. This does not necessarily mean territorial integrity; it could also refer to cultural sovereignty, where Russia is seen as the big brother and Belarus and Ukraine are seen as little brothers, too incompetent to make their own cultural decisions and should leave that to Russia, the Russian Federation as the big brother.

Rosner: That’s a pretty intense framing.

Jacobsen: She also noted significant targeting of youth—even children—and the use of campaigns over time by the government to turn the youth towards military recruitment. There have been tragic cases in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea as annexed territories. That’s a long time for a young person. During that period, they could be indoctrinated. Crimea was captured by Russia in 2014, yes. So, there has been indoctrination on the peninsula.

They have been militaristically propagandized into supporting Russia. It’s quite a tragic case. Then there is also the narrative of “denazification.” Denazification, especially around Ukraine, reaches an absurd point when you consider the idea of Nazis in Ukraine today—not in the ‘90s, but now—given that Zelensky, the head of state, is Jewish and a former comedian. According to this narrative, he would be considered a Jewish Nazi, which categorically makes no sense.

So, in a sense, I pose this as Russia’s greatest setup and Zelensky’s greatest punchline. There is an aspect of antisemitism that was probably present in the Soviet era, so there might be some believability for people who left Ukrainian territory in the ‘80s or ‘90s. They might now live in places like New York, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem. They might have experienced antisemitism back then and thus, without critical analysis, believe these narratives. But in the current context, it makes no sense.

Rosner: So, people who left in the ‘80s or ‘90s might find the antisemitic narrative believable?

Jacobsen: Yes, probably from the ‘80s and early ‘90s. There is a believability when people who left Ukrainian territory during a different regime now hear these stories. On face value, without critical analysis, it makes sense to them based on their own experiences. But in the current context, it’s a different situation.

Rosner: So, people can still be influenced by those outdated beliefs?

Jacobsen: It’s a distorted reality. It’s similar to how we, as Americans, might think Russian propaganda is just nonsense, but people in Crimea and Donetsk could be propagandized into believing that Ukraine has Nazis they need to fight against, for the Russian cause. It does not have to be that Russia is seen as “cool”; it’s more about making the case that Ukraine needs to be fought for because of these fabricated narratives. I can see that as a plausible argument being made, especially given the violence and annexation.

It’s a complex situation, especially with the denial of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the dismissal of their independence and right to self-determination. Any move toward Western alliances is seen as automatically against Russian security interests.

Rosner: So, there’s a lot of suppression of alternative voices?

Jacobsen: Yes, individuals are blacklisted, and there is sociopolitical and professional pressure from the Russian state. Artists and public figures who openly condemn the actions of the government face cancellation and censorship. It’s about controlling reality through information manipulation. You get this distorted reality, where pop stars align with the government, promoting the war machine to justify military actions.

Rosner: It’s a propaganda machine in full swing. It’s all about distorting reality to make Russian aggression seem justified.

Jacobsen:  That’s me filling in a blank as a non-expert. Now, other points: denial of Ukraine’s sovereignty. I touched on that. Maybe not necessarily Russia as the big brother, but the greater Russian world, where Belarus and Ukraine are the younger brothers who, as a moral argument, should have aligned interests with Russian interests.

Jacobsen: So, there’s a dismissal of Ukrainian independence and self-determination. Any move toward Western alliances is automatically seen as against Russian security.

Rosner: Right. Three other points, then we’ll get into more complex and nuanced points. The next one is the suppression of alternative voices. Individuals, like blacklisted artists and public figures, for example.

Jacobsen: Russian Kremlin created lists of individuals, in addition to discouraging organizations, producers, and collaborations with them. These individuals face sociopolitical and professional pressure from the Russian state, which began with the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. Any artist who has openly condemned the actions of the government faces cancellation and censorship. So, it creates a bubble of information.

When I read the works of cult experts, there’s this aspect of control, the coercive control: creating a distorted reality through the control and limitation of access to information and the type of information available to people. This can even extend to pop groups who are singing pro-war songs. My colleague showed me videos of what they’re presenting in huge stadiums, and there are manipulated metrics for popularity, like YouTube views. You get a distorted reality, with pop stars aligned with the government’s war machine, which then justifies military actions to reinforce Russian aggression.

Rosner: So, there’s a lot of manipulation of public perception?

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s right. 

Rosner: The actual history of Ukraine in relation to this narrative: the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and Ukraine became independent, but not exactly. They gave up their nuclear weapons because the Soviet Union had many nukes stationed in Ukraine, and Ukraine agreed to return the nukes to Russia in exchange for protection from the West. But the early governments of an independent Ukraine were highly corrupt and in Russia’s pocket. There has been a multi-decade effort to clean up government corruption in Ukraine, and that’s something the U.S. and Europe have been interested in because a non-corrupt Ukraine is better at holding off Russia. That effort has been slowly succeeding, but the war has complicated that.

But the war has acted as a purifying fire, right? Has any further corruption been cleaned up, or not?

Jacobsen: There has been a reduction of corruption, but every country has corruption—it’s a matter of scale and type. So, it’s two dimensions: one is categorical, and one is on a sliding scale. The type of corruption taking place is on one axis, and the severity of that corruption is on the sliding spectrum.

Rosner: But does fighting a war make people less tolerant of corruption within their country? Also, does the need for resources to fight the war squeeze out corruption?

Jacobsen: You could take a correlative approach. Since the war started, there has been a reduction in regular crime across Ukraine.

Rosner: And you’ve been there twice. What’s your experience with it? I’d guess it doesn’t seem particularly corrupt.

Jacobsen: It doesn’t seem so. People have to attend to curfews—11 p.m. to 5 a.m. in some cities, 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. in others.

Rosner: So curfews impact crime rates.

Jacobsen: If crimes happen overnight, curfews help reduce them. Clubs that operate after curfew may still exist, but if power is only running for a few hours a day and there’s no generator, then it’s not a place that can operate as usual.

Jacobsen: So, does the government turn off the power during curfew?

Rosner: Not exactly during curfew, but power is often limited. Sometimes, they run out of capacity or bomb the infrastructure. They bomb water and heat grids, making it harder to manage.

So, let’s finish up these points. It’s been a long session, but who cares?

Jacobsen: There’s apathy in the public in terms of accessing alternative information. In Russia, there is widespread apathy—people are just like, “Let Putin do what he wants. We want to live our lives.” I can understand that sentiment on an emotional level. But it’s also about having those alternative information sources. That’s one thing. Wanting that information is another. The apathy is a psychological barrier, not just a direct access barrier.

So, the final point: cultural channels in propaganda. There are probably five main ones: film and television, music, religion, sports, and video games. In film and television, there are many state-funded movies and television series that depict Ukrainians negatively. The characters are inept or need Russian help. There’s a singer named Shaman, promoted as a face of patriotism. These concerts and events often get public funding, elevating state narratives while dissent is blacklisted.

Rosner: Yes, but don’t all those productions kind of suck? Do Russians realize they suck? Wouldn’t they rather watch foreign productions that are better?

Jacobsen: Most people are savvy. They accept it as what’s available, but they see through it. It’s too pander-y.

Rosner: Yes, especially with film and television. And then music?

Jacobsen: Music, too. The Russian Orthodox Church has demonstrated how state propaganda and religious authority intertwine. Clergy encourage their congregations to pray for the military. So, it’s all part of a coordinated effort.

Rosner: Sports, too—using spins on situations to foster a narrative of Russian resilience and superiority. I have another question. Social media propaganda, targeted at America and other Western democracies, operates out of a building in Saint Petersburg and has done so for years. Does this propaganda operate from a core location? Is there a little industrial park where all these efforts are coordinated?

Jacobsen: I do not know.

Rosner: There’s one building. You can look it up for the crap that goes on Twitter, for instance, and on Facebook, which is being worked on by people in that building. I’m sure they work hard generating propaganda 24 hours a day, but I’d bet you those people are treated well, and they have fun, because they’re coming up with persuasive lies. I assume it’s like writing comedy, trying to come up with persuasive bullshit. I assume these would be creative types who are happy to not be fighting in Ukraine and have a nice job making up stuff all the time, egging each other on to come up with this shit. And they probably have nice snacks.

Jacobsen: Maybe. Maybe. There’s a whole thing about militaristic video games, and that’s another part of the appeal to youth.  

Rosner: In a related vein, we have 18 days to go before the general election in the U.S., and everybody anticipated that the bullshit would be flying fast. It pretty much is. A lot of Harris voters, including me, are a little offended and demoralized. There’s this thing… are you familiar with the PolyMarket?

Jacobsen: You mentioned this the other day, and I am not.

Rosner: Well, yes. So it’s where people put their money where their political instincts are, and the PolyMarket is giving Trump a 60% chance of winning. Except, you can game the market if you’ve got a ton of money by placing bets on what you want to happen, which pushes the market in your direction. Also, I’ve read that Peter Thiel—this billionaire who owns PolyMarket has been paying Twitter influencers or ex-influencers to tweet about PolyMarket, to get the news about what it thinks about Trump’s chances out there in order to demoralize Harris voters. So there’s that.

So, it’s manipulation at a different level. There are also polling trends showing the race tightening. There are so many pollsters now. There are probably 40 pollsters working the election, maybe more when you look at smaller races. The governor’s race in New Hampshire is a big one. Dozens of pollsters, and it only takes a few minutes to check out any individual pollster to see if they’re run by Republicans, neutral people, or Democrats. Sometimes, you can’t tell.

But nobody has the time to check out whether the pollsters are biased or not. So, you see this swarm of polls, and you have no idea whether they’re legitimate or just bullshit. So it’s a little disheartening. But then if you look at early voting numbers—have we talked about early voting numbers?

So, polls can be manipulated, and PolyMarket can be, and is, being manipulated. But what’s more difficult to manipulate is early voting data. About 10% of voters have already turned in their vote-by-mail ballots or voted early in states that allow that. A little more than 7% of those votes have been received and tallied. Some states keep track of the genders of the voters, and some keep track of their political party affiliations. You can compare that with previous elections to see that maybe Harris isn’t as fucked as the PolyMarket would have you believe.

For instance, in 2020, in early voting, Democrats outvoted Republicans by 1.3%. Now, the Dems are outvoting Republicans by 6%, and the margin that Trump won Florida by in 2020 was 3.36%. So, if these early voting numbers are any indication, Florida is closer to being in play than the polls would indicate.

And there’s more optimism in other areas. Six states report gender, and those states show that, looking at 3.4 million votes across those states, women are outvoting men by 10%, 55 to 45. That’s a good sign for Harris because women tend to vote for Harris over Trump by 14%, while men vote for Trump over Harris by 16%. So, the more women voting, the more likely you’ve got an advantage for Harris.

And Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 17% or 16.5%, which will probably come down as more early votes are registered, but if anything like in 2020, which was a Biden victory, in early voting, Dems outvoted Republicans by 14.3%. So, these numbers are at least as meaningful as poll numbers.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.