Propaganda Techniques

A repost from http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm. Most of the Sources for this article have been pulled. I think these techniques should be learned to recognise propaganda on the internet. I am reposting this in the hope that it remains out there for people to study and learn.

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

Bandwagon:

Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.

(See also Argumentum ad Populem or Argument to the Masses)

Card stacking:

Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.

Glittering Generalities:

Glittering generalities was one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also occurs very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved. For example, when a person is asked to do something in "defense of democracy" they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom and rights. When coming across with glittering generalities, we should especially consider the merits of the idea itself when separated from specific words.

Lesser of Two Evils:

The "lesser of two evils" technique tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often implemented during wartime to convince people of the need for sacrifices or to justify difficult decisions. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy country or political group. One idea or proposal is often depicted as one of the only options or paths. When confronted with this technique, the subject should consider the value of any proposal independently of those it is being compared with.

Name Calling:

Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising. It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.

Pinpointing the Enemy:

Pinpointing the enemy is used extremely often during wartime, and also in political campaigns and debates. This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy. Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong. When coming in contact with this technique, the subject should attempt to consider all other factors tied into the situation. As with almost all propaganda techniques, the subject should attempt to find more information on the topic. An informed person is much less susceptible to this sort of propaganda.

Plain Folks:

The plain folks propaganda technique was another of the seven main techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The plain folks device is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person. The propagandist will often attempt to use the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes. Also, the propagandist, especially during speeches, may attempt to increase the illusion through imperfect pronunciation, stuttering, and a more limited vocabulary. Errors such as these help add to the impression of sincerity and spontaneity. This technique is usually most effective when used with glittering generalities, in an attempt to convince the public that the propagandist views about highly valued ideas are similar to their own and therefore more valid. When confronted by this type of propaganda, the subject should consider the proposals and ideas separately from the personality of the presenter.

Simplification (Stereotyping):

Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil. This technique is often useful in swaying uneducated audiences. When faced with simplification, it is often useful to examine other factors and pieces of the proposal or idea, and, as with all other forms of propaganda, it is essential to get more information.

Testimonials:

Testimonials are another of the seven main forms of propaganda identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.


Transfer:

Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.

Am I writing propaganda?

Reading this definition:
"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. This is contrasted to impartially providing information."

Am I trying to influence people? Not really. I do this for myself. I don't care if people read this, although I do have fans. In fact, I am very pleased with who my fans are! That's part of the reason I blow off the booboisie.

I don't worry about blog ranking, prizes, or any of that guff.

I am doing this to let off steam.

The other point is that I can't persuade some people no matter how cogent my arguments. I could come up with the most definitive analysis of why the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment is bullshit, yet these people won't accept it.

It's the Michael Bellesiles/John Lott syndrome: Bellesiles is "all lies", yet Lott is "gospel".

Yeah, yeah, I still have more Michael Bellesiles apologia, but not here. The point I am making is that Bellesiles Arming America was trashed with a broad brush.

Somehow, I think reading Arming America is akin to having read The Satanic Verses. For those not in the know, The Satanic Verses was so hard to get through there was something called the "Page 19 Club" for anyone who could get past Page 19!

I am proud to say that I a member of that organisation!

On the other hand, I think a lot of people who trashed Arming America withouth having held a copy, let alone having read it.

And you are totally insane if you read all this post (not really)! But, it's not propaganda!

You're not as smart as you think...

I've wanted to follow up on my corollary to my previous post about brainwashing and propaganda.

That's brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, influence, manipulation or the subversion of an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.

Part of recognizing propaganda techniques is to know what they are and how they are used. Most people don't, which is why they are easily swayed.

Of course, the emotional techniques, especially those used by the "gun cretins" is highly effective and pretty much text book for being propaganda techniques.

I have a great example that I won't give, except in generalities, where a "gun cretin" is so oblivious of propaganda techniques that his argument shoots him in the foot. The premise of his argument is stated after something he wants to portray as false. Actually, it's buttressed by what he is trying to disprove. Fortunately, the way he states it, he ends up stating what he believes to be false.

I am being purposefully vague since I agree with what he believes is false. I have shared this with other people who agree with me that he is being unintentionally counterproductive to his cause. On the other hand, I don't want to publicly point out that he is supporting my point of view if this fucker is so clueless as to miss what he is doing!

Thank you for being a total dildo and not being able to spot that, guy! If only you knew what a dumbfuck you were being maybe you might get your shit together. Then again...

The problem goes to something I commented on in Man With the Muckrake's Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action post:

You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a Pavlovian manner. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is.

Therefore, facts tell nothing to him, even if you shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures: he will refuse to believe it.

These people don't want to think. They don't want to challenge their beliefs. They restrict their reading and/or viewing material. The idea is to insulate people from any opposing points of view, to persuade them of a point of view. Any material that might be contradictory to the "line" is censored and taken out of context to change meaning.

We could hope that people discover critical thinking, although that seems highly unlikely given the strong anti-intellectual bias in the US. The ability to think critically involves three things:

1. An attitude of being disposed (state of mind regarding something) to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences,
2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
3. Some skill in applying those methods.

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent(relevant) information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.

The problem is that one needs to challenge one's beliefs, especially in the light of contradictory evidence.

A Corollary to my previous post.

I have to admit to being curious as to how most Americans can remain ignorant and brainwashed by special interests: especially those that work against their interest.

I was going to call this post "wedge issues" since that is partly how americans can be distracted.

Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."

Ever notice how the gun crowd likes to use their little cliche sayings, which I am not going repeat here. But they are so simple. The use of slogans is referred to as thought-stopping techniques because it does just that. Simple phrases that make one believe.

Until they are examined in detail.

Then they like to give black and white choices and use fear. Such as refutation through emotion: "Well, how will you like it if your girlfirend is raped if guns are removed from the public."

That's why those who support regulations on guns are referred to as "anti-gun". They must not like guns because they will tolerate regulation. That makes those who support regulation "against" us.

This technique is relatively new, but you'll see a lot more of it in the future. Someone will say to his supporters, "These guys work for the enemy, don't believe a word they say. Their lies will only poison your mind."

It's a black and white choice, which makes it easier to remain stuck in their position.

Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is. Therefore, people aren't really going to work too hard to challenge their opinions.

Neither are they going to want to hear they are wrong no matter how well supported the refutation.

Watching the media...

I have to admit a fair distrust in the media: especially the US media since it is pretty much run by corporate bosses (even NPR). The Beeb may be slightly more trustworthy, but I think the average journo is basically a frustrated PR person.

The problem is that the media and PR has far exceeded just giving me information. I have made a few posts about how there is a lot of disinformation out there in the political arena.

I also mentioned how PR firms can be used to flood out opposition. Then this piece comes out about Fake Grassroots Letters Oppose Climate Bill. It seems that PR firms were sending out forged letters in the name of the Hispanic advocacy group Creciendo Juntos and the local branch of the NAACP opposing a climate bill. Fortunately, they were caught out.

I found this super list of sites where you can check out the media
http://ahwoo.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!A63DC3F437782D49!1105.entry?sa=930637252

This is a list of resources you can use in order to cross-check and reference topical news stories from around the world, so as to try and get a picture of what’s truth and what’s agenda driven reporting. Even with this list, you’ll have to educate your brain to discriminate between the lines, but it may help. Good luck and remember one thing – at the end of the day we’re all just puppets of that big ole PR machine in the sky.