Propaganda Techniques
What are Propaganda Techniques? They are the methods and approaches used to spread ideas that further a cause - a political, commercial, religious, or civil cause.
Why are they used? To manipulate the readers' or viewers' reason and emotions; to persuade you to believe in something or someone, buy an item, or vote a certain way.
Transfer: In this technique, an attempt is made to transfer the prestige of a positive symbol to a person or an idea. For example, using the American flag as a backdrop for a political event makes the implication that the event is patriotic in the best interest of the U.S.
False Analogy: In this technique, two things that may or may not really be similar are portrayed as being similar. When examining the comparison, you must ask yourself how similar the items are. In most false analogies, there is simply not enough evidence available to support the comparison.
Plain Folks: This technique uses a folksy approach to convince us to support someone or something. These ads depict people with ordinary looks doing ordinary activities.
Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out. The technique embodies a "keeping up with the Joneses" philosophy.
Either/or fallacy: This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues, and negates all attempts to find a common ground.
Faulty Cause and Effect: This technique suggests that because B follows A, A must cause B. Remember, just because two events or two sets of data are related does not necessarily mean that one caused the other to happen. It is important to evaluate data carefully before jumping to a wrong conclusion.
Social Disapproval. This is a technique by which the propagandist marshals group acceptance and suggests that attitudes or actions contrary to the one outlined will result in social rejection, disapproval, or outright ostracism. The latter, ostracism, is a control practice widely used within peer groups and traditional societies. Heaping negative and shaming accusations on someone can emotionally wear them out even if they are right. This can be countered with having a fellowship group to support them. Sometimes name-calling is used to vilify the opposite view.
Vivid examples - especially dramatic case histories -- often influence judgments more than dull but more accurate quantitative examples. For example, inviting the single child with a birth defect to the town hall meeting may overwhelm the fact that there are fewer birth defects in the neighborhood than in most similar residential areas.
Confusion techniques can create perceptions of toxicity, injury, or disease. For example, illogical but eloquent rhetoric delivered with an air of certainty can create such perceptions if a few clear alarming phrases are woven into the message. If the release of something harmless to humans is announced along with discussions of studies indicating cancer, birth defects, or brain damage in animals, concern or alarm may ensue. A classic technique is to pose an alarming question as the headline of a speech, article, or broadcast, e.g., "Are your children in danger?" We commonly hear announcements that "bad chemicals" or "known carcinogens" are out there, without objective data to clarify whether the type, amount, and location of the substance could actually hurt anyone. When someone questions the plausibility of the alleged toxic exposures, advocates may self- righteously respond that reasonable people have a right to worry, -- as though people who try to alleviate unnecessary worry are violating the rights of others.
Social proof is the tendency to believe what most people believe. If an advocate creates the impression that "everyone knows" that someone is lying and covering up facts, there is a subtle implication that those who disagree are somehow flawed and lacking in credibility. Identifying a few people who believe a proposition, and encouraging them to go public (especially repeatedly) creates the impression that lots of people are experiencing something real. Repeated affirmations create the impression that the assertion is true.
Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out. The technique embodies a "keeping up with the Joneses" philosophy.
Unstated assumption is a type of propaganda message which forgoes explicitly communicating the propaganda's purpose and instead states ideas derived from it. This technique is used when a propaganda's main idea lacks credibility, and thus when mentioned directly will result in the audience recognizing its fallacy and nullifying the propaganda.
Sources:
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-war_rhetoric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_war_during_the_Russo-Georgian_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_ideas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Western media:
Pro-war rhetoric according to Reid1.
Territorial appeals pro-war rhetoric according to Reid
Territorial appeals threaten the audience's "sense of territoriality" (Reid 260). The audience is more likely to support entering the war on the defensive rather than offensive side because of an actual or threatened invasion.
2. Optimistic appeal
The optimistic appeal assures the audience that victory is inevitable should they enter into war
Example: Russia is a regional power and very weak (Obama)
Rhetorical framework of Robert Ivie
1. Force vs. freedom
This tactic portrays to the audience that they are entering war to provide freedom, and the opponent to force their values upon others (Ivie 284). This is accomplished by implying that the opponent is violent, while the audience's nation is willing to negotiate (Ivie 284).
2. Irrational vs. rational
This topos holds that the enemy is portrayed as irrational, responding "more to animalistic drives than principles of law" (Ivie 288). The enemy has an unenlightened intellect, not based on reason. Rhetors use this argument to prove that when an enemy such as this threatens the well-being of the world, even for a nation committed to neutrality and peace, war is the only choice (Ivie 289).
3. Aggression vs. defense
This idea portrays the enemy as the voluntary aggressor and the nation of the audience as the passive victims of aggression, only entering into war to ensure security (Ivie 290). "While the savage has acted against order, the victim has been forced to respond in its defense" (Ivie 290). Ivie describes the actions as either "voluntary" and "initial" or "involuntary" and "defensive" (Ivie 290). The purpose of this topos is to lay the blame on the enemy and justify reasons for the victimized nation to engage in action.
Media War Games
The battle lines are drawn: it's East versus West in a good old fashioned media cold-shoulder war, with each side firing 24 hour news cycle broadsides at each other with alacrity. It's Mutually Assured Mass-Media Destruction: Crimedia Wars - and the stakes are high - who will win the War of Perception?
Turn on captions!
Why are they used? To manipulate the readers' or viewers' reason and emotions; to persuade you to believe in something or someone, buy an item, or vote a certain way.
Transfer: In this technique, an attempt is made to transfer the prestige of a positive symbol to a person or an idea. For example, using the American flag as a backdrop for a political event makes the implication that the event is patriotic in the best interest of the U.S.
False Analogy: In this technique, two things that may or may not really be similar are portrayed as being similar. When examining the comparison, you must ask yourself how similar the items are. In most false analogies, there is simply not enough evidence available to support the comparison.
Plain Folks: This technique uses a folksy approach to convince us to support someone or something. These ads depict people with ordinary looks doing ordinary activities.
Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out. The technique embodies a "keeping up with the Joneses" philosophy.
Either/or fallacy: This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues, and negates all attempts to find a common ground.
Faulty Cause and Effect: This technique suggests that because B follows A, A must cause B. Remember, just because two events or two sets of data are related does not necessarily mean that one caused the other to happen. It is important to evaluate data carefully before jumping to a wrong conclusion.
Social Disapproval. This is a technique by which the propagandist marshals group acceptance and suggests that attitudes or actions contrary to the one outlined will result in social rejection, disapproval, or outright ostracism. The latter, ostracism, is a control practice widely used within peer groups and traditional societies. Heaping negative and shaming accusations on someone can emotionally wear them out even if they are right. This can be countered with having a fellowship group to support them. Sometimes name-calling is used to vilify the opposite view.
Vivid examples - especially dramatic case histories -- often influence judgments more than dull but more accurate quantitative examples. For example, inviting the single child with a birth defect to the town hall meeting may overwhelm the fact that there are fewer birth defects in the neighborhood than in most similar residential areas.
Confusion techniques can create perceptions of toxicity, injury, or disease. For example, illogical but eloquent rhetoric delivered with an air of certainty can create such perceptions if a few clear alarming phrases are woven into the message. If the release of something harmless to humans is announced along with discussions of studies indicating cancer, birth defects, or brain damage in animals, concern or alarm may ensue. A classic technique is to pose an alarming question as the headline of a speech, article, or broadcast, e.g., "Are your children in danger?" We commonly hear announcements that "bad chemicals" or "known carcinogens" are out there, without objective data to clarify whether the type, amount, and location of the substance could actually hurt anyone. When someone questions the plausibility of the alleged toxic exposures, advocates may self- righteously respond that reasonable people have a right to worry, -- as though people who try to alleviate unnecessary worry are violating the rights of others.
Social proof is the tendency to believe what most people believe. If an advocate creates the impression that "everyone knows" that someone is lying and covering up facts, there is a subtle implication that those who disagree are somehow flawed and lacking in credibility. Identifying a few people who believe a proposition, and encouraging them to go public (especially repeatedly) creates the impression that lots of people are experiencing something real. Repeated affirmations create the impression that the assertion is true.
Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out. The technique embodies a "keeping up with the Joneses" philosophy.
Unstated assumption is a type of propaganda message which forgoes explicitly communicating the propaganda's purpose and instead states ideas derived from it. This technique is used when a propaganda's main idea lacks credibility, and thus when mentioned directly will result in the audience recognizing its fallacy and nullifying the propaganda.
Sources:
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-war_rhetoric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_war_during_the_Russo-Georgian_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_ideas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Western media:
Pro-war rhetoric according to Reid1.
Territorial appeals pro-war rhetoric according to Reid
Territorial appeals threaten the audience's "sense of territoriality" (Reid 260). The audience is more likely to support entering the war on the defensive rather than offensive side because of an actual or threatened invasion.
2. Optimistic appeal
The optimistic appeal assures the audience that victory is inevitable should they enter into war
Example: Russia is a regional power and very weak (Obama)
Rhetorical framework of Robert Ivie
1. Force vs. freedom
This tactic portrays to the audience that they are entering war to provide freedom, and the opponent to force their values upon others (Ivie 284). This is accomplished by implying that the opponent is violent, while the audience's nation is willing to negotiate (Ivie 284).
2. Irrational vs. rational
This topos holds that the enemy is portrayed as irrational, responding "more to animalistic drives than principles of law" (Ivie 288). The enemy has an unenlightened intellect, not based on reason. Rhetors use this argument to prove that when an enemy such as this threatens the well-being of the world, even for a nation committed to neutrality and peace, war is the only choice (Ivie 289).
3. Aggression vs. defense
This idea portrays the enemy as the voluntary aggressor and the nation of the audience as the passive victims of aggression, only entering into war to ensure security (Ivie 290). "While the savage has acted against order, the victim has been forced to respond in its defense" (Ivie 290). Ivie describes the actions as either "voluntary" and "initial" or "involuntary" and "defensive" (Ivie 290). The purpose of this topos is to lay the blame on the enemy and justify reasons for the victimized nation to engage in action.
Media War Games
The battle lines are drawn: it's East versus West in a good old fashioned media cold-shoulder war, with each side firing 24 hour news cycle broadsides at each other with alacrity. It's Mutually Assured Mass-Media Destruction: Crimedia Wars - and the stakes are high - who will win the War of Perception?
Turn on captions!
Click to view