Learn to Recognize Propaganda
Find a Conversation
| 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.

Pages
I actually didn't quite get the sock puppet reference....but here's some cute ones:
Those are definitely cuter than the ones I've seen!
The comment was in reference to this thread:
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=16869.1
Oh OK. For my part, despite some accusations that this is what I have done (to the point that I've been accused of actually faking my nationality) I've had the same screen name/identity for over 6 years and have never had another.
I did not mean to imply that you were misinformed or hysterical. On the contrary, I think you are very rational but there are too many here who ARE (in my opinion) misinformed and hysterical for a rational debate to actually take place. The "hysterical ones" and their sock puppets would jump in and not allow it. I have watched it over and over and just shook my head.
I understand where you are coming from about McCain and the subtle "plain folks" picture, and I can agree a little, there, but I disagree about Barack Obama. He has come right out and claimed to be raised by a single mother who was on food stamps, when that is actually a huge stretch of the truth.
I do agree about Bill Clinton.
That's good (because I really AM who I say I am and I've never misrepresented myself on the board).
:o)
<>
I'm glad and I also agree with you that it's frustrating to try and have a rational discussion about the war around here (or about anything else for that matter ;o).
<<...but I disagree about Barack Obama. He has come right out and claimed to be raised by a single mother who was on food stamps...>>
Well, I don't quite agree here because looking at his background and upbringing, it is obvious that at times it was very disruptive. Both his parents were students and his father left when he was
Actually Obama uses two forms of propaganda when describing his "humble beginnings" - "plain folks", and "card stacking".
Obama describes his parents as a "goat herder from Kenya" and a "girl from Kansas". When in fact his father held a Master's degree from Harvard and became a very prominent economist who was also very politically connected. He was hardly just a goat herder as he leads people to believe. (card stacking)(plain folks)
His mother was a liberal political activist who was actually born in Kansas, but her family left there before she was six years old. So painting her as "girl from Kansas" has the implications that she was raised in the Midwest, when she actually grew up in Texas, California, and the very stylish and sophisticated Mercer Island. Also, she applied for food stamps when she was working on her PHD! I don't think that food stamps were meant to be used by people who were using them while getting advanced degrees. They are for poor people who cannot make it any other way. She had wealthy parents. If she needed charity - why not ask them instead of asking me and the other taxpayers? (card stacking) (plain folks)
Obama also paints his grandparents as "plain folks". He tells how his grandmother worked in a defense plant during the war while his grandfather was a soldier. He doesn't mention that they went on to become wealthy and that he was raised in a very comfortable home. Because of their success and stature in the community Obama attended the most expensive private school in Hawaii. He has no basis for pretending that he came from "plain folks" when both of his parents were high achieving intellectuals and his grandparents were also very successful. (card stacking) (plain folks).
His mixed race is an entirely different issue and I'm sure that there were problems during the sixties in that regard, but that really has nothing to do with him trying to pass himself off as just like most of America when he had a very privileged background indeed.
Pages