Propaganda

[Gonad the Barbarian]

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

Propaganda Techniques
Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common "tricks of the trade" used by successful propagandists (Marlin 102-106: Propaganda Critic: Introduction). These seven techniques are called:

Name Calling
Glittering Generalities
Transfer
Testimonial
Plain Folks
Card Stacking
Band Wagon

These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.The techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis are further refined by Aaron Delwich in his website, Propaganda where he "discusses various propaganda techniques, provides contemporary examples of their use, and proposes strategies of mental self-defense." By pointing out these techniques, we hope to join with others who have written on this topic to create awareness and encourage serious consideration of the influence of contemporary propaganda directed at us through the various media and suggest ways to guard against its influence on our lives.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Other Techniques.html

Other Techniques
Modern communication constantly assails us with thirty to sixty second messages and images designed to catch our attention and influence us. Catchy slogans and phrases are substituted for well-reasoned arguments. Audiences become so overwhelmed with these messages that they begin to automatically accept the explanation offered without taking the time or good judgment to notice what is being directed towards them or how it might be influencing them. Propagandists employ these other techniques, including them logical fallacies, to influence our opinion and behavior (Hacker 44).

Fear: Propagandists play on an audience's fear that something bad will happen to them unless they do what has been suggested to them.

Humor: Humor is another powerful tool of persuasion. If you can make people laugh you can persuade them.

Repetition: Propagandists use this technique to drum the message into the target audience's subconscious by repeating keywords or phrases over and over until resistance to the message weakens. The target audience eventually accepts the message often without even realizing it. Adolph Hitler emphasized the need for repetition in propaganda. "Now the purpose of propaganda is not continually to produce interesting changes for the few blasé little masters, but to convince; that is, to convince the masses. The masses, however, with their inertia, always need a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and they will lend their memories only to the thousand fold repetition of the most simple ideas" (qtd. in Rhodes 139).

Red Herring: Propagandists use this diversionary tactic to draw one's attention away from the real subject. Guard against this technique by showing how the argument has gotten off track and bring it back to the issue at hand.

Symbols: Propagandists use words, designs, place, ideas and music to symbolize ideas and concepts with emotional content.

Faulty Cause and Effect: Propagandists claim that the use of a product creates a positive result without providing any supporting evidence.

Compare and Contrast: Propagandists lead the audience to believe that one product is better than another without offering real proof. This technique is similar to Faulty Cause and Effect.

Loaded Words: Propagandists use powerful words like peace and patriotism because they arouse a strong emotional response.

Hyperbole: Propagandists use exaggeration or "hype" to create impressive sounding words that are nonetheless meaningless and vague.

Slogans: Propagandists use catchy slogans or phrases that are easily remembered in place of a complicated and perhaps more accurate explanation.

Simple Solution: Propagandists use this technique to provide simple solutions for complex answers. Facts are reduced to right and wrong, good or evil. Propagandists attempt to get people to accept information because it appears to be concise and goes straight to the heart of the matter. This makes it easy for people to make a decision without having to have to think about important issues or verify the facts.

In both techniques pages, we have outlined the most common methods used by propagandists to influence their audience. We believe that the best way to guard against persuasive techniques is to be aware of these methods and how they work. In other words, information is the best defense. The more we know about propaganda techniques and how they work the better we can resist its influence. To paraphrase, if it sounds too simplistic, too one-sided, or too slanted to be true, it probably is.

Just some points I think we should all keep in mind while discussing things here. Better yet, keep them in mind in your day-to-day life. We're all being bombarded by propaganda every day. Recognizing it when you see it undercuts its influence.

 

[Murloc]

I can see the simple solution, repetition, name calling and hyperbole things being used everyday in populist politics. Too bad that you can't cure ignorance.

Anyway it's a good idea to keep these in mind, the discussion is better if we avoid them.
Sometimes it's not even voluntary.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

These are really subsets of the general class of logical fallacies. Yes, worth understanding so they can both be avoided in one's own words and to avoid being influenced by them from others.

 

[Jaskalas]

• Card Stacking?
• How to moderate?

Drudge Headlines:

Gas prices rise 32 days straight...
Increase 51 cents in 2 months...
Up 96% under Obama...

Failing to mention the fact that gas prices crashed in synch with the economy prior to January 2009. While technically true, it's absolutely intellectually dishonest. Gas was at its highest point ever summer 2008, and it is NOT 96% above that.

Which propaganda technique is this exactly, did I guess card stacking right?

Folks may legitimately not know the distinction. They may even cling to the bitter end to their truth. Is this anything to moderate? I caution against that - it's what sharp eyes and a tongue are for dealing with. Fellow posters may reply and set the record straight. Doesn't mean anyone will believe us, but the proper context would still be given.

Is there another way to handle it?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm fine with allowing propaganda that's "technically" true to be open for debate. That's what a forum like this should be for. Parsing out facts and truth from assertions and beliefs. But I do have issue with allowing the use of labels meant to evoke a subconscious emotional response. Take "Obamacare" for example. It is meant to directly evoke any negative feelings of the president and transfer them on to the ACA. It also feeds the hyperbole of being a government takeover with it being an implicit assertion of Obama(taking over health)care. And there's a difference between explicitly making that claim and leaving it exposed for debate and implicitly repeating it with every mention of the word.

Also, claiming that the name "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is every bit as much propaganda is a pretty week argument because it is an accurate and explicit statement of the overall intent of the legislation. Is it favorable naming? Absolutely. Is the legislation perfect in achieving these goals? No. But the title is not particularly misleading of intent or emotionally evocative as opposed to say the Clear Skies Act or the Patriot Act respectively. But being the proper and actual names of those pieces of legislation makes it impossible not to use the propaganda contained within while discussing them (which no doubt was the point). If there was an assault weapons ban either officially or unofficially called the "protect our children act" or something much catchier I'd have issue with that as well.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The problem with "propaganda" is that people disagree about what it is in exactly the same ways as they disagree about the underlying subjects. As one obvious example, there are people who think Fox News Channel is little more than a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and conservative interests. They want the word "News" removed from the name. And there are other people who think FNC is the only reliable news source on cable TV.

If we're going to start trying to legislate what terms we're allowed to use, then we're going to make this place a lot more work than is necessary.

For example, a stimulus bill was passed in 1989. It has some long and involved name, that nobody ever uses. People just call it the "Stimulus Bill". Well, some right-wingers think that name in and of itself is deceptive. They call it the "Porkulus Bill" or other similar names.

And then there are, as already mentioned, the bills whose names are themselves a type of spin. It's routine.

Want a good example? People who support abortion rights call themselves "pro-choice". People who oppose abortion rights call themselves "pro-life". These terms have been in widespread use for decades.

But some people don't like them. Strong abortion rights advocates take issue with "pro-life". They say they are pro-life too, and that people who oopose abortion rights should be called "anti-choice".

And of course, the other side is the same. They complain that "pro-choice" is a bad term that diminishes the loss of life caused by abortion. No, they say, it's not "pro-choice", it's "pro-death".

Google either of those terms and see for yourself.

There's no way to get agreement on these things. So the only sensible solution is to use terms that are in common use in the media and the general population, as long as they are not overtly offensive. As has been discussed (to death) on the sticky thread in P&N, "Obamacare" is the term most often used to refer to the health control bill. It is not an offensive term, and it's used by left and right and Obama himself. So "Obamacare" is fine. Calling Obama "Obummer" or modifying common terms into stuff like "Porkulus" is not. Similarly, it is "Fox News Channel", not "Faux News Channel" or "Fox Propaganda Network" or anything else.

I absolutely will NOT support banning terms in common use just because some people don't like them. Because there will be no end of it, and I didn't sign up for this with the idea that every thread was going to involve an argument over semantics.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I understand your position but I've tried to make it abundantly clear that my issue is not simply just personal dislike of the term.

And since you bring it up, would "Faux News" be appropriate for referring to Fox News here or not?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I understand your position but I've tried to make it abundantly clear that my issue is not simply just personal dislike of the term.

I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything else. You say the term is meant to be pejorative, but that is just your personal opinion. Once again, you have the small problem of the guy who wrote the bill embracing the term.

This is also not the first time a name has been attached to a bill in this manner.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing inherently derogatory about "Obamacare".

An example of a deliberately derogatory name would be "The Unaffordable Care Act".

And since you bring it up, would "Faux News" be appropriate for referring to Fox News here or not?

No. Just as PMSNBC would not be appropriate.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything else.

Well that's the point of really good propaganda, you don't see it as such. I outlined the specifics in my previous posts and I don't know how I can make it any more plain.

You say the term is meant to be pejorative, but that is just your personal opinion.

Just mine? No. Take a look at the people who coined and popularized the term and their motivation in doing so. Not exactly the work of Obama or ACA supporters.

Once again, you have the small problem of the guy who wrote the bill embracing the term.

Mitt Romney embracing the term only proves my point (ha). Actually, you implying that Obama wrote the bill really does. There's that subtle influence at work.

This is also not the first time a name has been attached to a bill in this manner.

Name another Obama____.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing inherently derogatory about "Obamacare".

Again, I outlined it plain as day in my previous posts.

An example of a deliberately derogatory name would be "The Unaffordable Care Act".

No. Just as PMSNBC would not be appropriate.

Fair enough.

 

[Greenman]

It's only propaganda if you don't agree with it. Otherwise it's a valid argument.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's only propaganda if you don't agree with it. Otherwise it's a valid argument.

I agree with "Faux News" but have the same issue using it in what's supposed to remain serious discussion.

How about that quip Mike Huckabee made about "Obomneycare?"

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sorry, but I'm not planning on spending the rest of my day individually assessing each name you come up with.

The point of this place is simple: discuss things and be reasonable.

 

[Craig234]

..."Obamacare" is the term most often used to refer to the health control bill. It is not an offensive term, and it's used by left and right and Obama himself. So "Obamacare" is fine. Calling Obama "Obummer" or modifying common terms into stuff like "Porkulus" is not. Similarly, it is "Fox News Channel", not "Faux News Channel" or "Fox Propaganda Network" or anything else.

Actually, you're only half-right. For supporters of Obama and the Affordable Healthcare Act, "Obamacare" isn't a pejorative.

But for the other side, it generally is.

A recent poll found that when Republicans were asked, 'Do you support immigration reform with a path for citizenship with certain conditions met;, 60% approved.

But when they asked the same question only prefacing it with the statement that President Obama supported the policy, only 39% agreed.

The very word 'Obama' is an irrational 'hot word' for many on the right that is a pejorative. So they'll say "Obamacare" with a sneering, seething hatred like the name condemns it.

That's how the brain works. Studies recently have found that people have biological reactions to the words and images of the 'other side' that they hate. So for many on the right, the very name Obama is a pejorative, creating feelings of hate. It's why racial epithets have such power - it dehumanizes the other group and becomes pejorative.

That's why there have been disagreements over the 'N word', whether it's best to make it socially unacceptable - while some black leaders instead say it should be 'reclaimed' and thereby robbed of its power. It's why stereotypes that mean nothing by themselves, are pejoratives - people fill them with hate. I love to eat certain fruits - but to a racist, a black person eating a watermelon is a shortcut pejorative, just by mentioning it they can express their hatred, even though there's nothing terribly bad on face value.

And that's why Obama embraced the term 'Obamacare', because not doing so would only legitimize the view that its very name was bad and something he was afraid of. If he allowed that, he'd be greatly hurt in the debate over the program so he had to reclaim the word from its pejorative use by the right, when Romney introduced it in the debate to score points with the right.

It is good to understand when a word has taken on the strong pejorative meaning for some people.

It works on any side - remember when the right created "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to try to name the very negative reaction the very name Bush got from many on the left.

Their point - sometimes with some validity, sometimes not - was that the discussion would never get to the issue before the name Bush triggered a lot of hate instead.

An example with some validity - as Gleen Greenwald recently notes - on the drone program, numerous Obama supporters have said 'they're ok with the program, but if it were Bush they wouldn't be'. The position isn't merely that they trust one more than the other, which is reasonable, but that they ignore the long-term impoications because of the preference for one over the other - that they suspend their 'principles' for Obama that they would not for a Republican. That's just how people work.

So, don't underestmate the pejorative value of a term like 'Obamacare' for many people. For a lot of people, that's the entire discussion - it has 'Obama' so they hate it.

The propagandist Frank Luntz has made an industry out of taking an issue and focus testing 100 phrases about it and while 90% of the people might be against him with nearly all the phrases, he finds one that gets people to agree - and then he suggests that the right-wing 'Noise Machine' use only that phrase, to win the public opinion.

There are countless examples, but a classic is describing the rich, who have shifted so much wealth from everyone else into their pockets, as 'job creators'.

So 'the billionares have increased their wealth hundreds of percent at your expense' instead becomes a debate over whether you want to hurt jobs by reducing their wealth.

And really, many of the phrases which change names are meant to increase accuracy.

Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced", but the evidence clearly shows the opposite - which is why they say it. Is "Faux News" propaganda - or anti-propaganda?

The Bush Administration, as another example, had a practice of Orwellian names - when they wanted a bill that would gut protections against pollution for the benefit of polluters, they named it the "Clean Skies Act" (another Frank Luntz name, I hear). So is referring to the act as the "Dirty Skies Act" that more accurately describes the bill propaganda, or anti-propaganda?