Learn to Recognize Propaganda

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Learn to Recognize Propaganda
29
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 9:34am

It seems that many of us need to become aware of the various propaganda techniques and how they are used to manipulate the public.

No matter what "side" you are on, it is wise to be able to recognize these when you hear them and try to sort out truth from half truths and lies of your own side as well as from the other.

Here are 7 of the most common propaganda Techniques that are being used.

Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. The audience must decide what is missing. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique: Are facts being distorted or omitted? What other arguments exist to support these assertions? As with any other propaganda technique, the best defense against Card Stacking is to get as much information that is possible before making a decision.

Plain Folks: Propagandists use this approach to convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart. Propagandists have the speaker use ordinary language and mannerisms to reach the audience and identify with their point of view. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions before deciding on any issue when confronted with this technique. Is the person credible and trustworthy when they are removed from the situation being discussed? Is the person trying to cover up anything? What are the facts of the situation? When confronted with this type of propaganda consider the ideas and proposals separately from the personality of the presenter.

Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).

Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests a number of questions we should ask ourselves if we are confronted with this technique: What do the slogans or phrases really mean? Is there a legitimate connection between the idea being discussed and the true meaning of the slogan or phrase being used? What are the merits of the idea itself if it is separated from the slogans or phrases?

Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves these questions when confronted with this technique. What is the speaker trying to pitch? What is the meaning of the thing the propagandist is trying to impart? Is there a legitimate connection between the suggestion made by the propagandist and the person or product? Is there merit in the proposal by itself? When confronted with this technique, question the merits of the idea or proposal independently of the convictions about other persons, ideas, or proposals.

Testimonial: Propagandists use this technique to associate a respected person or someone with experience to endorse a product or cause by giving it their stamp of approval hoping that the intended audience will follow their example. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique. Who is quoted in the testimonial? Why should we regard this person as an expert or trust their testimony? Is there merit to the idea or product without the testimony? You can guard yourself against this technique by demonstrating that the person giving the testimonial is not a recognized authority, prove they have an agenda or vested interest, or show there is disagreement by other experts.

Bandwagon: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don't join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don't jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions when confronted with this technique. What is the propagandist's program? What is the evidence for and against the program? Even though others are supporting it, why should I? As with most propaganda techniques, getting more information is the best defense. When confronted with Bandwagon propaganda, consider the pros and cons before joining in.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:02pm
I think this is important for both sides to see.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 1:33pm

Obama-Biden use the "Plain Folks" form of propaganda. Neither one has humble roots. Here is an expose' from a man I admire, Michael Medved.

Democrat Fakery on Obama, Biden "Working Class" Origins
by Michael Medved

Both Joe Biden and Barack Obama appeal to the public with
outrageously phony stories about their working class, blue collar
backgrounds.

For Biden, the masquerade is particularly reprehensible since his pose
as a "lunch bucket" Democrat from gritty Scranton, Pennsylvania played
a prominent role in his selection as Senator Obama's running mate.

For instance, Kerry Kennedy (daughter of Bobby Kennedy) recently told
the New York Times Magazine: "In this election, the fact that Joe
Biden is a Catholic with a working-class background is going to play
an important role in bringing Catholics who might otherwise vote
Republican back to the fold." The Economist called Biden "a perfect
example of a lunch bucket Democrat made good" and the Boston Globe
hailed him as "an Irish-Catholic lunch bucket Democrat" - even though
his father's family ancestry was entirely English. At the Democratic
convention the Washington Post reported that Biden "accepted the vice
presidential nomination of the Democratic Party with a speech that
harkened back to his working-class roots in Scranton."

These descriptions suggest that Biden himself -- or at least his
parents-- toiled in factories or coal mines, but his actual background
counts as considerably more genteel, comfortable and white collar. His
grandfather won election to the state Senate in Pennsylvania and his
own father never supported the family with manual labor. Chicago
Tribune columnist Steve Chapman bothered to look up the obituaries for
the candidate's father (Joseph Robinette Biden, Sr.) who died in 2002.
The News-Journal of Wilmington reported that at the time of his
marriage in 1941, the older Biden "was working as a sales
representative for Amoco Oil Co. in Harrisburg."

The summary of his career went on: "Biden also was an executive in a
Boston-based company that supplied waterproof sealant for U.S.
merchant marine ships during World War II. After the war, he co-owned
an airport and crop dusting service on Long Island." After relocating
his family to Delaware, Biden, Sr. "worked in the state first as a
sales manager for auto dealerships and after in real-estate
condominium sales."

In none of these jobs would the older Biden have carried a "lunch
bucket" or brandished a union card. The job descriptions -
"executive," "co-owner," "sales-manager," "real-estate condominium
sales" identify him as solidly white collar and managerial, and in no
sense working class.

The future Senator, in fact, attended Archmere Academy, a posh
Catholic prep school and helped his parents to pay the steep tuition
(which today stands at more than $18,000) by taking a summer (but not
a school year) job. Though his academic record remained decidedly
spotty (graduating 506th of 688 in his class at the University of
Delaware) he still won prompt admission to law school and proceeded to
win election at age 27 to the county council of the suburb where he
was raised, and then to the U.S. Senate at age 29 (where he has served
ever since). The talk of his "hardscrabble upbringing" or overcoming
"daunting obstacles to rise to local leadership" is purest myth. Yes,
his home town of Scranton is a famous example of rust belt decline,
but even such struggling cities feature local gentry and families
(like the Bidens) living in the upper middle class. The failure of
major media to expose the deceptive image of "lunch bucket Joe" is one
of innumerable examples of journalistic malfeasance in this electoral
season.

While Biden makes false claims of working class roots, Obama tells
similarly misleading tales of his own background of purported hardship
and poverty. He describes his father as "a goat-herder from Kenya" and
his mother as "a struggling single mom who had to take food stamps to
feed the family." He talks of being raised by his simple, Midwestern
grandparents, and identifies them as "a grandmother who worked in a
defense plant during the war while her husband marched with Patton's
army in Europe."

This description has been repeated so often and so lovingly by Obama's
acolytes that no one seems willing to point its blatant distortions.
Obama's father was hardly a simple goat herder, but rather the holder
of a Masters degree from Harvard who became a prominent, politically-
connected economist when he returned to Kenya. His struggling single
mom also held advanced degrees - including a Masteers and a PhD in
anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her periods of financial
hardship related to her pursuit of graduate studies and her many years
of field work in "rural development" in remote sections of Indonesia.

Moreover, even Obama's endlessly repeated description of his parents
as "a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas" is less than
accurate. While indeed born in Wichita, his mother and her parents
left Kansas at the end of World War II (before her sixth birthday) and
she grew up in Texas, California and, most significantly, on Mercer
Island, Washington-a stylish and woodsy suburb of Seattle. Obama's
mother was an academic star and ardent student leftist (who used to
hang-out in a hallway designated as "Anarchist's Alley) at Mercer
Island High School, then - as now - admired as the top public high
school in the state of Washington.

Meanwhile, Obama talks of his grandparents' activities during four
years of World War II, but seldom mentions in speeches their
professional achievements during and after the time of his birth in
1961. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, worked as manager of a
furniture store while his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, enjoyed
conspicuous success as a banker. After studying at two of the finest
state universities in the nation (University of California, Berkeley,
and the University of Washington) his grandmother became vice
president of a bank on Mercer Island, and then held a similar position
with the Bank of Hawaii (where she worked for 26 years) after the
family's move to Honolulu. In writing about Obama's grandmother, USA
Today said "she blazed a feminist trail in Hawaii banking circles in
the late 1960's and early 1970's and rose to become one of the Bank of
Hawaii's first female vice presidents....'Was she ambitious? She had
to be to become a vice president,' said Clifford Y.J. Kong, 82, who
was a senior credit officer at the bank at the time. 'She was a top
notch executive to get appointed.'"

Oddly, Senator Obama loves to cite his grandmother's brief experience
as "Rosie the Riveter" in a defense plant during the war but never
publicly discusses her three decades as a banking executive in
Washington state and Hawaii. Her prominence and success certainly help
to explain his admission to the exclusive Punahou School - by far the
most prestigious (and expensive) private academy in the islands.

Like Biden, Obama has no basis whatever for describing his family
background as impoverished or even "working class" - his parents were
both high-achieving intellectuals, and the grandparents who raised him
were successful business people. Not all bankers count as fabulously
wealthy but no one could describe a prominent banking executive like
his grandmother as downtrodden or disadvantaged.

Since the New Deal, Democrats have developed the annoying habit of
demonizing business people and glamorizing the working class: a stupid
prejudice that's produced glaring misrepresentations about the origins
of both their national candidates and a stubborn refusal to
acknowledge who these senators really are.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 11:59am

Good article.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 12:00pm

Excellent advice.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 12:15pm

Whoa Nelly!!!


Doesn't seem like you

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-22-2008
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 12:20pm
LOL - that's why I didn't respond to this in the first place!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 12:23pm
Seems you only think Democrats spread propaganda, well, I think the Republicans do a pretty darn good job themselves. I was appalled when I read in FactCheck that politicians can lie and distort during their cmpaignes!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 12:25pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-22-2008
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 12:29pm
I loved that show!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 1:00pm
Please explain the irony and hypocrisy. I am genuinely confused.

Pages