Propaganda Techniques Propaganda Can Be Most Simply Defined As Any

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Propaganda Techniques Propaganda can be most simply defined as any information that is used to shape what people think, feel, or what they do. Reason and evidence are rarely provided to support the ideas, as propaganda seeks to manipulate the audience, not provide the most substantive argument. The information presented can be true or false, and the motives could be good or bad. The first step is to identify the propaganda, and then to understand its purpose so that we are not blindly manipulated by its use. The following techniques are strategies used to communicate the message of the propaganda. Appeal to fear: seeks to build support by causing the audience to be scared so they follow promoted ideas to protect themselves, others, society, nation, etc. Bandwagon: argues for support based on the idea that the audience should “join the crowd” because “everyone else is doing it”; sometimes presented as a binary choice (you’re either on one side or the other side) that ignores other possible choices. Effective because people desire to be on the winning side or part of a “movement” or group. Card-stacking: attempt to show the idea as better or worse than it really is, often by omitting facts so the information provided only supports one side. Glittering generality: use of virtue or emotionally appealing words that associate an idea with highly valued concepts and beliefs; usually an appeal to patriotism, desire for peace, freedom, or justice. The audience also wants to be connected with the positive idea, so they are more likely to believe the propaganda. (similar to name-calling, except this seeks to promote ideas through positive connections to a group or idea) Name-calling: use of negative words or ideas that associate an idea with disrespected beliefs so that the audience connects an idea or person/group with what is bad. Examples include leftist, right-wing, racist, commie, etc. As a result, the audience does not want to be connected with the negative idea. (similar to glittering generalities, except this seeks to promote ideas through negative connections to a group or idea) Plain Folks: convinces the audience that the idea is of the people or the common man and reflects the common sense of average people instead of authority figures or celebrities. Uses ordinary language or slang and mannerisms to communicate the idea is on the level with average person Slogans: use of brief phrase that is memorable and attaches emotion or idea with what is being promoted. Testimonial: cites quotations that may be in or out of context to support or reject an idea based on the opinion of a well-known person with a good reputation; connects that person’s opinion to the idea being promoted. Examples include statements from doctors, scientists, or celebrities, and may include technical jargon. (similar to transfer, but propaganda connects individual to what is being promoted). Transfer: linking the authority or high level of respect of one group to an idea so that the audience also respects the idea. Examples include use of a flag or symbols, victims that suffer in some way, or use of guilt-by-association. (similar to testimonial, but propaganda connects a group to what is being promoted) In addition to these propaganda techniques, logical fallacies (flawed reasoning) can be made in an argument. The main distinction is the intent and whether the information is deliberately manipulated to control or direct the audience. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
[Show full text]
Shaping News -- 1 --Media Power
Shaping News – 1 Theories of Media Power and Environment Course Description: The focus in these six lectures is on how some facts are selected, shaped, and by whom, for daily internet, television, and print media global, national, regional, and local dissemination to world audiences. Agenda-setting, priming, framing, propaganda and persuasion are major tools to supplement basic news factors in various media environments. Course Goals and Student Learning Objectives: The overall goal is to increase student awareness that media filter reality rather than reflect it, and those selected bits of reality are shaped to be understood. Student learning objectives are: 1. Demonstrate how media environments and media structures determine what information is selected for dissemination; 2. Demonstrate how and why different media disseminate different information on the same situation or event; 3. Demonstrate how information is framed, and by whom, to access the media agenda. Required Texts/Readings: Read random essays and research online that focus on media news factors, agenda-setting and framing Assignments and Grading Policy: Two quizzes on course content plus a 20-page paper on a related, student- selected and faculty-approved research paper. Shaping News – 1 Media Environments and Media Power This is the first of six lectures on the shaping on news. It will focus on the theories of media environments based on the assumption that media are chameleon and reflect the governmental/societal system in which they exist. The remaining five lectures are on: (2) elements of news; (3) agenda-setting and framing; (4) propaganda; (5) attitude formation; and (6) cognitive dissonance. Two philosophical assumptions underlying the scholarly examination of mass media are that (1) the media are chameleons, reflecting their environment, and (2) their power is filtered and uneven.
[Show full text]
Automated Tackling of Disinformation
Automated tackling of disinformation STUDY Panel for the Future of Science and Technology European Science-Media Hub EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 624.278 – March 2019 EN Automated tackling of disinformation Major challenges ahead This study maps and analyses current and future threats from online misinformation, alongside currently adopted socio-technical and legal approaches. The challenges of evaluating their effectiveness and practical adoption are also discussed. Drawing on and complementing existing literature, the study summarises and analyses the findings of relevant journalistic and scientific studies and policy reports in relation to detecting, containing and countering online disinformation and propaganda campaigns. It traces recent developments and trends and identifies significant new or emerging challenges. It also addresses potential policy implications for the EU of current socio-technical solutions. ESMH | European Science-Media Hub AUTHORS This study was written by Alexandre Alaphilippe, Alexis Gizikis and Clara Hanot of EU DisinfoLab, and Kalina Bontcheva of The University of Sheffield, at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). It has been financed under the European Science and Media Hub budget and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank all respondents to the online survey, as well as first draft, WeVerify, InVID, PHEME, REVEAL, and all other initiatives that contributed materials to the study. ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE Mihalis Kritikos, Scientific Foresight Unit To contact the publisher, please e-mail [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN Manuscript completed in March 2019.
[Show full text]
Teacher's Guide
Teacher’s Guide Propaganda: What’s the Message? Time Needed: One to two class periods Learning Objectives. Students will be able to: Materials Needed: Differentiate between forms of persuasive media. Student worksheets, Gallery Walk copies Identify bias, propaganda, and symbolism in media. Copy Instructions: Identify forms of propaganda in use. Student packet (Six pages double-sided; class set) Gallery Walk (One copy for the room) STEP BY STEP TEACHER PREP Place each page of the Gallery Walk around the classroom and divide the class into seven groups prior to teaching this lesson. (The groups will be rotating through these during class.) ANTICIPATE by asking students how they might try to convince someone to do something. (Examples: parents to extend curfew, teacher to postpone a due date, choice of movie with friends, etc.) Ask students if there are any common techniques. DISTRIBUTE one student packet to each student. READ through the packet with the class, answering questions or clarifying terms along the way if needed. DIVIDE students into up to seven small groups to rotate through the Gallery Walk pages. INSTRUCT students to spend 3-5 minutes at each station and complete the Gallery Walk pages in their student packet. (Tip: use an egg timer to keep track of the pace) If you have time for an 8th station, you can ask the students to stop at the challenge page as well. REVIEW the answers to the stations. ASSIGN students to complete the two Activity pages in their packet as review. CLOSE by asking students to think of all the places these propaganda techniques can be found.
[Show full text]
False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Aﬃrmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
[Show full text]
Fallacies in Reasoning
FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
[Show full text]
The Fallacies of Argument
The Fallacies of Argument No matter what type of reasoning model is used, writers will sometimes make errors in logic. Such errors are called "logical fallacies," a term derived from the Latin fallere meaning "to deceive." Used unintentionally, these fallacies deceive writers into feeling that their arguments are more persuasive than they are. Even though an argument might be emotionally persuasive and even sound valid, a fallacy creates a flaw in the logic of an argument, thereby weakening its structure and inviting counterattacks. Not all fallacies are unintentional. Sometimes a fallacy is deliberately employed - for example, when the writer's goal has more to do with persuading than arriving at the truth. Every day we are confronted with fallacies in media commercials and advertisements. Likewise, every election year the airwaves are full of candidates' bloated claims and pronouncements rife with logical fallacies of all kinds. Whether to strengthen your own writing or to resist fallacies in the arguments of others, it makes sense to be aware of such conscious or unconscious deceptions in reasoning. Following are some of the most common fallacies of argument: A. Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise: Since a negative premise excludes a relationship between two of the terms (A is not B), the only kind of conclusion that can be arrived at logically is a proposition that excludes any relationship between one of these terms and a third term (B is not C). B. Affirming the Consequent: Starts with a hypothetical proposition: "If he makes concessions to the Iraqi ambassador, the prestige of the United States will decline." The consequent is affirmed: "The prestige of the United States has declined." The fallacy is then the conclusion drawn from this affirmation of the consequent: "He must have made concessions to the Iraqi ambassador." That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence.
[Show full text]
Fallacies There Are Many Types of Fallacies
Fallacies There are many types of fallacies. This list contains some of the more common fallacies that you’ll find in all kinds of arguments. Fallacies don’t tell you whether an argument’s conclusion is true or false; they simply don’t give you good reasons to believe that the conclusion is true. An argument based on only fallacies doesn’t contain good evidence. Come up with your own example of each fallacy. Fallacy Explanation Example Personal Attack Attacking an opponent instead of The senator is a self-serving (also known as Ad presenting an argument about politician; therfore, her position Hominem) an idea on this issue is wrong. Your Example Bad Motive Stating that the opponent is The senator has an investment based or has a personal motive in solar panels, so this legislation to take one side; that doesn’t for regulating solar panels is bad. address the logical argument Your Example Two Wrongs Saying one wrong action is okay The senator may have taken because of another wrong action money from large oil companies, but dozens of other senators have also. Your Example Straw Man Creating a fake argument for All home schooling laws give the other side that’s easy to tear away free diplomas for no work down and with no regulation; they should be eliminated. Your Example Learn more with GED Academy. | www.passGED.com Emotional Appeal Using emotion instead of We must fund this school district reasons and evidence to make bond if we care about our an argument children. Your Example Appeal to Fear Using the audience’s fear to try We must pass this law to to make them agree with the make prison sentences longer; claim otherwise your family might be attacked by criminals.
[Show full text]
Teaching About Propaganda
R. Hobbs & S. McGee, Journal of Media Literacy Education 6(2), 56 - 67 Available online at www.jmle.org The National Association for Media Literacy Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education 6(2), 56 - 67 Teaching about Propaganda: An Examination of the Historical Roots of Media Literacy Renee Hobbs and Sandra McGee Harrington School of Communication and Media, University of Rhode Island Abstract Contemporary propaganda is ubiquitous in our culture today as public relations and marketing efforts have become core dimensions of the contemporary communication system, affecting all forms of personal, social and public expression. To examine the origins of teaching and learning about propaganda, we examine some instructional materials produced in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA), which popularized an early form of media literacy that promoted critical analysis in responding to propaganda in mass communication, including in radio, film and newspapers. They developed study guides and distributed them widely, popularizing concepts from classical rhetoric and expressing them in an easy-to-remember way. In this paper, we compare the popular list of seven propaganda techniques (with terms like “glittering generalities” and “bandwagon”) to a less well-known list, the ABC’s of Propaganda Analysis. While the seven propaganda techniques, rooted in ancient rhetoric, have endured as the dominant approach to explore persuasion and propaganda in secondary English education, the ABC’s of Propaganda Analysis, with its focus on the practice of personal reflection and life history analysis, anticipates some of the core concepts and instructional practices of media literacy in the 21st century. Following from this insight, we see evidence of the value of social reflection practices for exploring propaganda in the context of formal and informal learning.
[Show full text]
35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected]
Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Sexy Technical Communications Open Educational Resources 3-1-2016 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Cherie Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm Part of the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Steve and Miller, Cherie, "35. Logic: Common Fallacies" (2016). Sexy Technical Communications. 35. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources at DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sexy Technical Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve and Cherie Miller Sexy Technical Communication Home Logic and Logical Fallacies Taken with kind permission from the book Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense by J. Steve Miller and Cherie K. Miller Brilliant People Believe Nonsense [because]... They Fall for Common Fallacies The dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters the desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic. ― George Eliot, in Silas Marner In the last chapter we discussed passages where bright individuals with PhDs violated common fallacies. Even the brightest among us fall for them. As a result, we should be ever vigilant to keep our critical guard up, looking for fallacious reasoning in lectures, reading, viewing, and especially in our own writing. None of us are immune to falling for fallacies.
[Show full text]
Democracy and Disinformation (Glbl S343e)
DEMOCRACY AND DISINFORMATION (GLBL S343E) Asha Rangappa Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs Summer 2020 Overview of Course This course explores the evolution of information warfare as a national security threat to the United States. Beginning with the KGB’s use of “active measures” during the Cold War, the course looks at how propaganda and disinformation campaigns became central to the Putin regime and how social media has facilitated their expansion and impact. Using Russia’s efforts in the 2016 election as an example, students will examine how the First Amendment places limitations on the U.S.’s ability to counter such operations in the United States and explore how strengthening critical thinking and American social capital might be effective prophylactics against these efforts. At the end of this course, students should be able to: 1. Understand the history, tactics, and goals of Russian disinformation operations in the United States and worldwide; 2. Analyze the ways in which propaganda and disinformation manipulates consumers’ cognitive biases; 3. Recognize self-created vulnerabilities in American society which have been magnified by social media platforms and exploited by Russian intelligence; 4. Develop policy solutions that address the multi-faceted nature of disinformation and its impact on American democracy. Required Texts (in order of reading for the course) 1. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone 2. Amy Chua, Political Tribes 3. Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) 4. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (chapters will be posted on Canvas) 5. Clint Watts, Messing with the Enemy You may use the link below to order your books at the Yale Bookstore: Yale Bookstore ordering site In addition to the books above, assigned articles, videos, and selected chapters of other books will be posted on Canvas for the weeks they are assigned.
[Show full text]
Dataset of Propaganda Techniques of the State-Sponsored Information Operation of the People’S Republic of China
Dataset of Propaganda Techniques of the State-Sponsored Information Operation of the People’s Republic of China Rong-Ching Chang Chun-Ming Lai [email protected] [email protected] Tunghai University Tunghai University Taiwan Taiwan Kai-Lai Chang Chu-Hsing Lin [email protected] [email protected] Tunghai University Tunghai University Taiwan Taiwan ABSTRACT ACM Reference Format: The digital media, identified as computational propaganda provides Rong-Ching Chang, Chun-Ming Lai, Kai-Lai Chang, and Chu-Hsing Lin. a pathway for propaganda to expand its reach without limit. State- 2021. Dataset of Propaganda Techniques of the State-Sponsored Informa- tion Operation of the People’s Republic of China. In KDD ’21: The Sec- backed propaganda aims to shape the audiences’ cognition toward ond International MIS2 Workshop: Misinformation and Misbehavior Min- entities in favor of a certain political party or authority. Further- ing on the Web, Aug 15, 2021, Virtual. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5 pages. more, it has become part of modern information warfare used in https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn order to gain an advantage over opponents. Most of the current studies focus on using machine learning, quantitative, and qualitative methods to distinguish if a certain piece 1 INTRODUCTION of information on social media is propaganda. Mainly conducted Propaganda has the purpose of framing and influencing opinions. on English content, but very little research addresses Chinese Man- With the rise of the internet and social media, propaganda has darin content. From propaganda detection, we want to go one step adopted a powerful tool for its unlimited reach, as well as multiple further to providing more fine-grained information on propaganda forms of content that can further drive engagement online and techniques that are applied.
[Show full text]