sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ad hominem, Appeal to fear, Fallacy, Hoax, Netherlands fallacy, Obfuscation

Fine-Grained Analysis of in News Articles

Giovanni Da San Martino1 Seunghak Yu2 Alberto Barron-Cede´ no˜ 3 Rostislav Petrov4 Preslav Nakov1 1 Qatar Computing Research Institute, HBKU, Qatar 2 MIT Computer and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA 3 Universita` di Bologna, Forl`ı, Italy, 4 A Data Pro, Sofia, Bulgaria {gmartino, pnakov}@hbku.edu.qa [email protected], [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract One option to deal with the lack of labels for arti- cles is to crowdsource the annotation. However, in Propaganda aims at influencing people’s with the purpose of advancing a spe- preliminary experiments we observed that the av- cific agenda. Previous work has addressed erage annotator cannot detach her personal mind- propaganda detection at the document level, from the judgment of propaganda and , typically labelling all articles from a propa- i.e., if a clearly propagandistic text expresses ideas gandistic news outlet as propaganda. Such aligned with the annotator’s beliefs, it is unlikely noisy gold labels inevitably affect the quality that she would judge it as such. of any learning system trained on them. A We argue that in order to study propaganda in a further issue with most existing systems is the lack of explainability. To overcome these lim- sound and reliable way, we need to rely on high- itations, we propose a novel task: performing quality trusted professional annotations and it is fine-grained analysis of texts by detecting all best to do so at the fragment level, targeting spe- fragments that contain cific techniques rather than using a label for an en- as well as their type. In particular, we cre- tire document or an entire news outlet. ate a corpus of news articles manually anno- Ours is the first work that goes at a fine-grained tated at the fragment level with eighteen pro- level: identifying specific instances of propaganda paganda techniques and we propose a suit- able evaluation measure. We further design techniques used within an article. In particular, we a novel multi-granularity neural network, and create a corresponding corpus. For this purpose, we show that it outperforms several strong we asked six experts to annotate articles from BERT-based baselines. news outlets recognized as propagandistic and non-propagandistic, marking specific text spans 1 Introduction with eighteen propaganda techniques. We also Research on detecting propaganda has focused designed appropriate evaluation measures. Taken primarily on articles (Barron-Cedeno´ et al., 2019; together, the annotated corpus and the evalua- Rashkin et al., 2017). In many cases, there are no tion measures represent the first manually-curated labeled data for individual articles, but there are evaluation framework for the analysis of fine- such labels for entire news outlets. Thus, often all grained propaganda. We release the corpus (350K articles from the same news outlet get labeled the tokens) as well as our code in order to enable fu- arXiv:1910.02517v1 [cs.CL] 6 Oct 2019 way that this outlet is labeled. Yet, it has been ture research.1 Our contributions are as follows: observed that propagandistic sources could post objective non-propagandistic articles periodically • We formulate a new problem: detect the use to increase their (Horne et al., 2018). of specific propaganda techniques in text. Similarly, media generally recognized as objec- • We build a new large corpus for this problem. tive might occasionally post articles that promote a • We propose a suitable evaluation measure. particular editorial agenda and are thus propagan- distic. Thus, it is clear that transferring the label • We design a novel multi-granularity neural of the news outlet to each of its articles, could in- network, and we show that it outperforms troduce noise. Such labels can still be useful for several strong BERT-based baselines. training robust systems, but they cannot be used to 1The corpus, the evaluation measures, and the models are get a fair assessment of a system at testing time. available at http://propaganda.qcri.org/ Our corpus could enable research in propagandis- The eighteen techniques we consider are as fol- tic and non-objective news, including the devel- lows (cf. Table1 for examples): opment of explainable AI systems. A system that 1. . Using words/phrases with can detect instances of use of specific propagan- strong emotional implications (positive or nega- distic techniques would be able to make it explicit tive) to influence an audience (Weston, 2018, p. 6). to the users why a given article was predicted to be Ex.: “[. . . ] a lone lawmaker’s childish shouting.” propagandistic. It could also help train the users to spot the use of such techniques in the news. 2. or labeling. Labeling the ob- The remainder of this paper is organized as ject of the propaganda campaign as either some- follows: Section2 presents the propagandistic thing the target audience fears, hates, finds un- techniques we focus on. Section3 describes desirable or otherwise loves or praises (Miller, our corpus. Section4 discusses an evaluation 1939). Ex.: “Republican congressweasels”, “Bush measures for comparing labeled fragments. Sec- the Lesser.” tion5 presents the formulation of the task and 3. Repetition. Repeating the same message over our proposed models. Section6 describes our ex- and over again, so that the audience will eventually periments and the evaluation results. Section7 accept it (Torok, 2015; Miller, 1939). presents some relevant related work. Finally, Sec- tion8 concludes and discusses future work. 4. Exaggeration or minimization. Either rep- resenting something in an excessive manner: mak- 2 Propaganda and its Techniques ing things larger, better, worse (e.g., “the best of the best”, “quality guaranteed”) or making some- Propaganda comes in many forms, but it can thing seem less important or smaller than it ac- be recognized by its persuasive function, sizable tually is (Jowett and O’Donnell, 2012, p. 303), target audience, the representation of a specific e.g., saying that an was just a joke. Ex.: group’s agenda, and the use of faulty reasoning “Democrats bolted as soon as Trumps speech and/or emotional appeals (Miller, 1939). Since ended in an apparent effort to signal they can’t propaganda is conveyed through the use of a num- even stomach being in the same room as the pres- ber of techniques, their detection allows for a ident”; “I was not fighting with her; we were just deeper analysis at the paragraph and the sentence playing.” level that goes beyond a single document-level judgment on whether a text is propagandistic. 5. Doubt. Questioning the credibility of some- Whereas the definition of propaganda is widely one or something. Ex.: A candidate says about his accepted in the literature, the set of propaganda opponent: “Is he ready to be the Mayor?” techniques differs between scholars (Torok, 2015). 6. /prejudice. Seeking to build For instance, Miller(1939) considers seven tech- support for an idea by instilling anxiety and/or niques, whereas Weston(2018) lists at least 24, panic in the population towards an alternative, 2 and Wikipedia discusses 69. The differences are possibly based on preconceived judgments. Ex.: mainly due to some authors ignoring some tech- “stop those refugees; they are terrorists.” niques, or using definitions that subsume the def- inition used by other authors. Below, we describe 7. Flag-waving. Playing on strong national feel- the propaganda techniques we consider: a curated ing (or with respect to a group, e.g., race, gender, list of eighteen items derived from the aforemen- political preference) to justify or promote an ac- tioned studies. The list only includes techniques tion or idea (Hobbs and Mcgee, 2008). Ex.: “en- that can be found in journalistic articles and can tering this war will make us have a better future in be judged intrinsically, without the need to retrieve our country.” supporting from external resources. 8. Causal oversimplification. Assuming one For example, we do not include techniques such as cause when there are multiple causes behind an card stacking (Jowett and O’Donnell, 2012, page issue. We include as well: the trans- 237), since it would require comparing against ex- fer of the to one person or group of people ternal sources of information. without investigating the complexities of an issue. 2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ex.: “If France had not declared war on , Propaganda_techniques; last visit May 2019. World War II would have never happened.” Doc ID Technique • Snippet 783702663 loaded language • until forced to act by a worldwide storm of outrage. 732708002 name calling, labeling • dismissing the protesters as lefties and hugging Barros publicly 701225819 repetition • Farrakhan repeatedly refers to Jews as Satan. He states to his audience [. . . ] call them by their real name, ‘Satan.’ 782086447 exaggeration, minimization • heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior 761969038 doubt • Can the same be said for the Obama Administration? 696694316 appeal to fear/prejudice • A dark, impenetrable and irreversible winter of persecution of the faithful by their own shepherds will fall. 776368676 flag-waving • conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! —Donald J. Trump 776368676 flag-waving • attempt (Mueller) to stop the will of We the People!!! It’s time to jail Mueller 735815173 causal oversimplification • he said The people who talk about the ”Jewish question” are gen- erally anti-Semites. Somehow I don’t think 781768042 causal oversimplification • will not be reversed, which leaves no alternative as to why God judges and is judging America today 111111113 • BUILD THE WALL!” Trump tweeted. 783702663 appeal to • Monsignor Jean-Franois Lantheaume, who served as first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington, confirmed that “Vigan said the . Thats all” 783702663 black-and-white • Francis said these words: Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do . . . If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. 729410793 thought-terminating cliches • I do not really see any problems there. Marx is the President 770156173 • President Trump —who himself avoided national military service in the 1960’s— keeps beating the war drums over North Korea 778139122 • “Vichy journalism,” a term which now fits so much of the mainstream media. It collaborates in the same way that the Vichy government in France collaborated with the Nazis. 778139122 • It describes the tsunami of vindictive personal that has been heaped upon Julian from well-known journalists, many claiming liberal credentials. , which used to consider itself the most enlightened newspaper in the country, has probably been the worst. 698018235 bandwagon • He tweeted, “EU no longer considers #Hamas a terrorist group. Time for US to do same.” 729410793 obfusc., int. , confusion • The cardinal’s office maintains that rather than saying “yes,” there is a possibility of liturgical “blessing” of gay unions, he answered the question in a more subtle way without giving an explicit “yes.” 783702663 • “Take it seriously, but with a large grain of salt.” Which is just Allen’s more nuanced way of saying: “Don’t believe it.”

Table 1: Instances of the different propaganda techniques from our corpus. We show the document ID, the tech- nique, and the text snippet, in bold. When necessary, some context is provided to better understand the example.

9. Slogans. A brief and striking phrase that may 12. Thought-terminating cliche´. Words or include labeling and stereotyping. Slogans tend to phrases that discourage critical thought and mean- act as emotional appeals (Dan, 2015). Ex.: “Make ingful discussion about a given topic. They are America great again!” typically short, generic sentences that offer seem- 10. Appeal to authority. Stating that a claim is ingly simple answers to complex questions or true simply because a valid authority/expert on the that distract attention away from other lines of issue supports it, without any other supporting ev- thought (Hunter, 2015, p. 78). Ex.: “it is what it idence (Goodwin, 2011). We include the special is”; “you cannot judge it without experiencing it”; case where the reference is not an authority/expert, “it’s common sense”, “nothing is permanent ex- although it is referred to as in the liter- cept change”, “better late than never”; “mind your ature (Jowett and O’Donnell, 2012, p. 237). own business”; “nobody’s perfect”; “it doesn’t 11. Black-and-white fallacy, dictatorship. Pre- matter”; “you can’t change human nature.” senting two alternative options as the only pos- 13. Whataboutism. Discredit an opponent’s posi- sibilities, when in more possibilities exist tion by charging them with without di- (Torok, 2015). As an extreme case, telling the rectly disproving their (Richter, 2017). audience exactly what actions to take, eliminat- For example, mentioning an event that discred- ing any other possible choice (dictatorship). Ex.: its the opponent: “What about . . . ?” (Richter, “You must be a Republican or Democrat; you are 2017). Ex.: Today had a proclivity for not a Democrat. Therefore, you must be a Repub- whataboutism in its coverage of the 2015 Balti- lican”; “There is no alternative to war.” more and Ferguson in the US, which re- vealed a consistent refrain: “the oppression of Prop Non-prop All blacks in the US has become so unbearable that articles 372 79 451 the eruption of violence was inevitable”, and that avg length (lines) 49.8 34.4 47.1 avg length (words) 973.2 635.4 914.0 the US therefore lacks “the moral high ground to avg length (chars) 5,942 3,916 5,587 discuss issues in countries like Rus- sia and .” Table 2: Statistics about the articles retrieved 14. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Persuading an audi- with respect to the category of the media source: propagandistic, non-propagandistic, and all together. ence to disapprove an action or idea by suggest- ing that the idea is popular with groups hated in contempt by the target audience. It can refer to News Outlet # News Outlet # any person or concept with a negative connota- tion (Teninbaum, 2009). Ex.: “Only one kind of Freedom Outpost 133 The Remnant Magazine 14 Frontpage Magazine 56 Breaking911 11 person can think this way: a communist.” shtfplan.com 55 truthuncensored.net 8 Lew Rockwell 26 The Washington Standard 6 15. Red herring. Introducing irrelevant mate- vdare.com 20 www.unz.com 5 rial to the issue being discussed, so that every- remnantnewspaper.com 19 www.clashdaily.com 1 one’s attention is diverted away from the points Personal Liberty 18 made (Weston, 2018, p. 78). Those subjected to Table 3: Number of articles retrieved from news outlets a red herring argument are led away from the is- deemed propagandistic by /Fact Check. sue that had been the focus of the discussion and urged to follow an observation or claim that may be associated with the original claim, but is not We provided the above definitions, together highly relevant to the issue in dispute (Teninbaum, with some examples and an annotation , to 2009). Ex.: “You may claim that the death penalty our professional annotators, so that they can man- is an ineffective deterrent against crime – but what ually annotate news articles. The details are pro- about the victims of crime? How do you think sur- vided in the next section. viving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their ex- 3 Data Creation pense? Is it right that they should pay for their son’s murderer to be fed and housed?” We retrieved 451 news articles from 48 news out- lets, both propagandistic and non-propagandistic, 16. Bandwagon. Attempting to persuade the tar- which we annotated as described below. get audience to join in and take the course of ac- tion because “everyone else is taking the same ac- 3.1 Article Retrieval tion” (Hobbs and Mcgee, 2008). Ex.: “Would you vote for Clinton as president? 57% say yes.” First, we selected 13 propagandistic and 36 non- propagandistic outlets, as labeled by 17. , intentional vagueness, confu- Media Bias/Fact Check.3 Then, we retrieved arti- sion. Using deliberately unclear words, so that the cles from these sources, as shown in Table2. Note audience may have its own interpretation (Supra- that 82.5% of the articles are from propagandistic bandari, 2007; Weston, 2018, p. 8). For instance, sources, and these articles tend to be longer. when an unclear phrase with multiple possible meanings is used within the argument, and, there- Table3 shows the number of articles re- fore, it does not really support the conclusion. Ex.: trieved from each propagandistic outlet. Over- “It is a good idea to listen to victims of theft. all, we have 350k word tokens, which is compa- Therefore, if the victims say to have the thief shot, rable to standard datasets for other fine-grained then you should do it.” text analysis tasks, such as named entity recog- nition, e.g., CoNLL’02 and CoNLL’03 covered 18. Straw man. When an opponent’s proposition 381K, 333K, 310K, and 301K tokens for Spanish, is substituted with a similar one which is then re- Dutch, German, and English, respectively (Tjong futed in place of the original (Walton, 1996). We- Kim Sang, 2002; Tjong Kim Sang and De Meul- ston(2018, p. 78) specifies the characteristics of der, 2003). the substituted proposition: “caricaturing an op- posing view so that it is easy to refute.” 3http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ 3.2 Manual Annotation Annotations spans (γs) +labels (γsl) We aim at obtaining text fragments annotated with a1 a2 0.30 0.24 a a 0.34 0.28 any of the 18 techniques described in Section2 3 4 (see Figure1 for an example). Since the time re- a1 c1 0.58 0.54 a2 c1 0.74 0.72 quired to understand and memorize all the pro- a3 c2 0.76 0.74 paganda techniques is significant, this annotation a4 c2 0.42 0.39 task is not well-suited for crowdsourcing. We part- nered instead with a company that performs pro- Table 4: γ inter-annotator agreement between an- 4 fessional annotations, A Data Pro. Appendix A notators spotting spans alone (spans) and spotting shows details about the instructions and the tools spans+labeling (+labels). The top-2 rows refer to the provided to the annotators. first stage: agreement between annotators. The bottom We computed the γ inter-annotator agree- 4 rows refer to the consolidation stage: agreement be- ment (Mathet et al., 2015). We chose γ because tween each annotator and the final gold annotation. (i) it is designed for tasks where both the span and its label are to be found and (ii) it can deal with overlaps in the annotations by the same annotator5 (e.g., instances of doubt often use name calling or loaded language to reinforce their message). We computed γs, where we only consider the iden- tified spans, regardless of the technique, and γsl, where we consider both the spans and their labels. Let a be an annotator. In a preliminary exer- Figure 1: Example given to the annotators. cise, four annotators a[1,..,4] annotated six articles independently, and the agreement was γs = 0.34 and γsl = 0.31. Even taking into account that Overall the percentage is 53% (5, 921 out of γ is a pessimistic measure (Mathet et al., 2015), 11, 122), and for each annotator is a1 = 70%, these values are low. Thus, we designed an an- a2 = 48%, a3 = 57%, a4 = 31%. Observ- notation schema composed of two stages and in- ing such percentages together with the relatively volving two annotator teams, each of which cov- low differences in Table4 between γs and γsl for ered about 220 documents. In stage 1, both a1 and the same pairs (ai, aj) and (ai, cj), we can con- a2 annotated the same documents independently. clude that disagreements are in general not due to In stage 2, they gathered with a consolidator c1 to the two annotators assigning different labels to the discuss all instances and to come up with a final same or mostly overlapping spans, but rather be- annotation. Annotators a3 and a4 and consolida- cause one has missed an instance in the first stage. tor c2 followed the same procedure. Annotating the full corpus took 395 man hours. 3.3 Statistics about the Dataset Table4 shows the γ agreements on the full cor- The total number of technique instances found pus. As in the preliminary annotation, the agree- in the articles, after the consolidation phase, is ments for both teams are relatively low: 0.30 and 7, 485, with respect to a total number of 21, 230 0.34 for span selection, and slightly lower when la- sentences (35.2%). Table5 reports some statistics beling is considered as well. After the annotators about the annotations. The average propagandis- discussed with the consolidator on the disagreed tic fragment has a length of 47 characters and the cases, the γ values got much higher: up to 0.74 average length of a sentence is 112.5 characters. and 0.76 for each team. We further analyzed the On average, the propagandistic techniques are annotations to determine the main cause for the half a sentence long. The most common ones are disagreement by computing the percentage of in- loaded language and name calling, labeling with stances spotted by one annotator only in the first 2, 547 and 1, 294 occurrences, respectively. They stage that are retained as gold annotations. appear 6.7 and 4.7 times per article, while no other technique appears more than twice. Note that rep- 4http://www.aiidatapro.com 5See (Meyer et al., 2014; Mathet et al., 2015) for other etition are inflated as we asked the annotators to alternatives, which lack some properties; (ii) in particular. mark both the original and the repeated instances.

Propaganda Technique inst avg. length T

loaded language 2,547 23.70 ± 25.30 t1 (c=1) t2 (c=2) t3 (c=3) name calling, labeling 1,294 26.10 ± 19.88 repetition 767 16.90 ± 18.92 exaggeration, minimization 571 45.36 ± 35.55 doubt 562 123.21 ± 97.65 s1 (c=1) s2 (c=2) s3(c=2) s4 (c=4) appeal to fear/prejudice 367 93.56 ± 74.59 flag-waving 330 61.88 ± 68.61 S 121.03 ± 71.66 causal oversimplification 233 Figure 2: Example of gold annotation (top) and the pre- slogans 172 25.30 ± 13.49 appeal to authority 169 131.23 ± 123.2 dictions of a supervised model (bottom) in a document black-and-white fallacy 134 98.42 ± 73.66 represented as a sequence of characters. The class of thought-terminating cliches 95 34.85 ± 29.28 each fragment is shown in parentheses. s1 goes beyond whataboutism 76 120.93 ± 69.62 t1’s proper boundaries; s2 and s3 partially spot t2, but 94.58 ± 64.16 reductio ad hitlerum 66 fail to identify it entirely; s spots the exact boundaries red herring 48 63.79 ± 61.63 4 bandwagon 17 100.29 ± 97.05 of t3, but fails to assign it the right label. obfusc., int. vagueness, confusion 17 107.88 ± 86.74 straw man 15 79.13 ± 50.72 We define the following function to handle par- all 7,485 46.99 ± 61.45 tial overlaps between fragments with same labels: Table 5: Corpus statistics including instances per tech- |(s ∩ t)| nique and their avg. length in terms of characters. C(s, t, h) = δ (l(s), l(t)) , (1) h where h is a normalizing factor and δ(a, b) = 1 if 4 Evaluation Measures a = b, and 0 otherwise. In the future, δ could be refined to account for custom distance functions Our task is a sequence labeling one, with the fol- between classes, e.g., we might consider mistak- lowing key characteristics: (i) a large number of ing loaded language for name calling or labeling techniques whose spans might overlap in the text, less problematic than confusing it with Reduction and (ii) large lengths of these spans. This requires ad Hitlerum. Given Eq. (1), we now define vari- an evaluation measure that gives credit for par- ants of precision and recall able to account for the tial overlaps.6 We derive an ad hoc measure fol- imbalance in the corpus: lowing related work on named entity recognition 1 X (NER) (Nadeau and Sekine, 2007) and (intrinsic) P (S, T ) = C(s, t, |s|), (2) plagiarism detection (PD) (Potthast et al., 2010). |S| s ∈ S, While in NER, the relevant fragments tend to be t ∈ T short multi-word strings, in PD —and in our pro- 1 X paganda technique identification task— the length R(S, T ) = C(s, t, |t|), (3) |T | varies widely (cf. Table5), and instances span s ∈ S, from single tokens to full sentences or even longer t ∈ T pieces of text. Thus, in our precision and re- We define Eq. (2) to be zero if |S| = 0 and call versions, we give partial credit to imperfect Eq. (3) to be zero if |T | = 0. Following Potthast matches at the character level, as in PD. et al.(2010), in Eqs. (2) and (3) we penalize sys- Let document d be represented as a sequence of tems predicting too many or too few instances by characters. A propagandistic text fragment is then dividing by |S| and |T |, respectively, e.g., in Fig- represented as t = [ti, . . . , tj] ⊆ d. A document ure2 P ({s2, s3},T ) < P ({s3},T ). Finally, we includes a set of (possibly overlapping) fragments combine Eqs. (2) and (3) into an F1-measure, the T . Similarly, a learning algorithm produces a set S harmonic mean of precision and recall. with fragments s = [sm, . . . , sn], predicted on d. Having a separate function C to be responsible A labeling function l(x) ∈ {1,..., 18} associates for comparing two annotations gives us some ad- s ∈ S to one of the eighteen techniques. Figure2 ditional flexibility that is missing in standard NER gives examples of gold and predicted fragments. measures that operate at the token/character level. For example, in Eq. (1) we could easily change the 6The evaluation measures for the CoNLL’02 and factor that gives credit for partial overlaps by be- CoNLL’03 NER tasks, where an instance is considered prop- erly identified if and only if both the boundaries and the label ing more forgiving when only few characters are are correct (Tsai et al., 2006), are not suitable in our context. wrong. Token Token Token Sentence Token Token Token 5 Tasks and Proposed Models Label 1 Label 2 Label N Label Label 1 Label 2 Label N ...... L g1 L g2 We define two tasks based on the corpus described CLS T1 T2 TN CLS T1 T2 TN in Section3:( i) SLC (Sentence-level Classifica- BERT BERT tion), which asks to predict whether a sentence (a) BERT (b) BERT-Joint contains at least one propaganda technique, and Sentence Token Token Token Sentence Token Token Token Label Label 1 Label 2 Label N Label Label 1 Label 2 Label N L ...... (ii) FLC (Fragment-level classification), which g1,2

w wg1 ...... o g1 g1 f f asks to identify both the spans and the type of pro- o o g2 g2 paganda technique. Note that these two tasks are ......

CLS T T T of different granularities, g1 and g2, i.e., tokens for 1 2 N CLS T1 T2 TN FLC and sentences for SLC. We split the corpus BERT BERT into training, development and test, each contain- (c) BERT-Granu (d) Multi-Granularity Network ing 293, 57, 101 articles and 14,857, 2,108, 4,265 Figure 3: The architecture of the baseline models (a-c), sentences. and of our proposed multi-granularity network (d).

5.1 Baselines Each task has a separated classification layer Lgk We depart from BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), as it that receives the feature representation of the spe- has achieved state-of-the-art performance on mul- cific level of granularity gk and outputs ogk . The tiple NLP benchmarks, and we design three base- dimension of the representation depends on the lines based on it. embedding layer, while the dimension of the out- BERT. We add a linear layer on top of BERT put depends on the number of classes in the task. and we fine-tune it, as suggested in (Devlin et al., The output og generates a weight for the next 2019). For the FLC task, we feed the final hid- k granularity task gk+1 through a trainable gate f: den representation for each token to a layer Lg2 that makes a 19-way classification: does this to- wg = f(og ) (4) ken belong to one of the eighteen propaganda tech- k k niques or to none of them (cf. Figure3-a). For the The gate f consists of a projection layer to one SLC task, we feed the final hidden representation dimension and an activation function. The result- for the special [CLS] token, which BERT uses to ing weight is multiplied by each element of the represent the full sentence, to a two-dimensional output of layer Lgk+1 to produce the output for task gk+1: layer Lg1 to make a binary classification. BERT-Joint. We use the layers for both tasks ogk+1 = wgk ∗ ogk+1 (5) in the BERT baseline, Lg1 and Lg2 , and we train for both FLC and SLC jointly (cf. Figure3-b). If wgk = 0 for a given example, the output of BERT-Granularity. We modify BERT-Joint to the next granularity task ogk+1 would be 0 as well. transfer information from SLC directly to FLC. In our setting this means that, if the sentence-level

Instead of using only the Lg2 layer for FLC, we classifier is confident the sentence does not con- concatenate L and L , and we add an extra g1 g2 tain propaganda, i.e., wgk = 0, then ogk+1 = 0

19-dimensional classification layer Lg1,2 on top of and there would be no propagandistic technique that concatenation to perform the prediction for predicted for any span within that sentence. Simi- FLC (cf. Figure3-c). larly, when back-propagating the , if wgk = 0 for a given example, the final entropy loss would 5.2 Multi-Granularity Network become zero; i.e. the model would not get any in- We propose a model that can drive the higher- formation from that example. As a result, only ex- granularity task (FLC) on the basis of the lower- amples strongly classified as negative in a lower- granularity information (SLC), rather than simply granularity task would be ignored in the high- using low-granularity information directly. Fig- granularity task. Having the lower-granularity as ure3-d shows the architecture of this model. More the main task means that higher-granularity infor- generally, suppose there are k tasks of increas- mation can be selectively used as additional infor- ing granularity, e.g., document-level, paragraph- mation to improve the performance, but only if the level, sentence-level, word-level, subword-level, example is not considered as highly negative. We character-level. show this in Section 6.3. For the loss function, we use a cross-entropy loss Spans Full Task Model with sigmoid activation for every layer, except for PRF1 PRF1 the highest-granularity layer Lg , which uses a K BERT 39.57 36.42 37.90 21.48 21.39 21.39 cross-entropy loss with softmax activation. Un- Joint 39.26 35.48 37.25 20.11 19.74 19.92 like softmax, which normalizes over all dimen- Granu 43.08 33.98 37.93 23.85 20.14 21.80 sions, the sigmoid allows each output component Multi-Granularity of layer Lg to be independent from the rest. Thus, k ReLU 43.29 34.74 38.28 23.98 20.33 21.82 the output of the sigmoid for the positive class Sigmoid 44.12 35.01 38.98 24.42 21.05 22.58 increases the degree of freedom by not affecting the negative class, and vice versa. As we have Table 6: Fragment-level experiments (FLC task). L two tasks, we use sigmoid activation for g1 and Shown are two evaluations: (i) Spans checks only softmax activation for Lg2 . Moreover, we use a whether the model has identified the fragment spans weighted sum of losses with a hyper-parameter α: correctly, while (ii) Full task is evaluation wrt the ac- tual task of identifying the spans and also assigning the correct propaganda technique for each span. LJ = Lg1 ∗ α + Lg2 ∗ (1 − α) (6) Again, we use BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for the contextualized embedding layer and we place Table6 shows that joint learning (BERT-Joint) the multi-granularity network on top of it. hurts the performance compared to single-task BERT. However, using additional information 6 Experiments and Evaluation from the sentence-level for the token-level classi- fication (BERT-Granularity) yields small improve- 6.1 Experimental Setup ments. The multi-granularity models outperform We used the PyTorch framework and the pre- all baselines thanks to their higher precision. This trained BERT model, which we fine-tuned for our shows the effect of the model excluding sen- tasks. We trained all models using the follow- tences that it determined to be non-propagandistic ing hyper-parameters: batch size of 16, sequence from being considered for token-level classifica- length of 210, weight decay of 0.01, and early tion. Nevertheless, the performance of sentence- stopping on validation F1 with patience of 7. For level classification is far from perfect, achieving optimization, we used Adam with a learning rate an F1 of up to 60.98 (cf. Table7). The information of 3e-5 and a warmup proportion of 0.1. To deal it contributes to the final classification is noisy and with class imbalance, we give weight to the binary the more conservative removal of instances per- cross-entropy according to the proportion of posi- formed by the Sigmoid function yields better per- tive samples. For the α in the joint loss function, formance than the more aggressive ReLU. we use 0.9 for sentence classification, and 0.1 for word-level classification. In order to reduce the 6.3 Sentence-Level Propaganda Detection effect of random fluctuations for BERT, all the re- Table7 shows the results for the SLC task. We ported numbers are the average of three experi- apply our multi-granularity network model to the mental runs with different random seeds. As it is sentence-level classification task to see its effect standard, we tune our models on the dev partition on low granularity when we train the model with a and we report results on the test partition. high granularity task. Interestingly, it yields huge performance improvements on the sentence-level 6.2 Fragment-Level Propaganda Detection classification result. Compared to the BERT base- Table6 shows the performance for the three base- line, it increases the recall by 8.42%, resulting in lines and for our multi-granularity network on the a 3.24% increase of the F1 score. In this case, the FLC task. For the latter, we vary the degree to result of token-level classification is used as addi- which the gate function is applied: using ReLU is tional information for the sentence-level task, and more aggressive compared to using the Sigmoid, it helps to find more positive samples. This shows as the ReLU outputs zero for a negative input. the opposite effect of our model compared to the Note that, even though we train the model to pre- FLC task. Note also that using ReLU is more ef- dict both the spans and the labels, we also evalu- fective than using the Sigmoid, unlike in token- ated it with respect to the spans only. level classification. Model Precision Recall F1 8 Conclusion and Future Work

All-Propaganda 23.92 100.0 38.61 We have argued for a new way to study propa- BERT 63.20 53.16 57.74 ganda in news media: by focusing on identifying BERT-Granu 62.80 55.24 58.76 the instances of use of specific propaganda tech- BERT-Joint 62.84 55.46 58.91 niques. Going at this fine-grained level can yield MGN Sigmoid 62.27 59.56 60.71 more reliable systems and it also makes it possible MGN ReLU 60.41 61.58 60.98 to explain to the user why an article was judged as propagandistic by an automatic system. All-propaganda Table 7: Sentence-level (SLC) results. In particular, we designed an annotation schema is a baseline which always output the propaganda class. of 18 propaganda techniques, and we annotated a sizable dataset of documents with instances of these techniques in use. We further designed an Thus, since the performance range of the token- evaluation measure specifically tailored for this level classification is low, we think it is more ef- task. We made the schema and the dataset publicly fective to get additional information after aggres- available, thus facilitating further research. We sively removing negative samples by using ReLU hope that the corpus would raise interest outside as a gate in the model. of the community of researchers studying propa- ganda: the techniques related to and the 7 Related Work ones relying on might provide a novel setting for the researchers interested in Argumen- tation and Sentiment Analysis. Propaganda identification has been tackled mostly We experimented with a number of BERT-based at the article level. Rashkin et al.(2017) created models and devised a novel architecture which a corpus of news articles labelled as belonging outperforms standard BERT-based baselines. Our to four categories: propaganda, trusted, , or fine-grained task can complement document-level satire. They included articles from eight sources, judgments, both to come out with an aggregated two of which are propagandistic. Barron-Cede´ no˜ decision and to explain why a document —or an et al.(2019) experimented with a binarized version entire news outlet— has been flagged as poten- of the corpus from (Rashkin et al., 2017): propa- tially propagandistic by an automatic system. ganda vs. the other three categories. The corpus labels were obtained with distant supervision, as- We are collaborating with A Data Pro to expand suming that all articles from a given news outlet the corpus. In the mid-term, we plan to build an share the label of that outlet, which inevitably in- online platform where professors in relevant fields troduces noise (Horne et al., 2018). (e.g., journalism, mass ) can train their students to recognize and annotate propa- A related field is that of computational argu- ganda techniques. The hope is to be able to ac- mentation which, among others, deals with some cumulate annotations as a by-product of using the logical fallacies related to propaganda. Haber- platform for training purposes. nal et al.(2018b) presented a corpus of Web fo- rum discussions with cases of fal- Acknowledgments lacy identified. Habernal et al.(2017, 2018a) in- troduced Argotario, a game to educate people to This research is part of the Tanbih project,7 which recognize and create fallacies. A byproduct of Ar- aims to limit the effect of “”, propa- gotario is a corpus with 1.3k annotated ganda and media bias by making users aware with five fallacies, including ad hominem, red her- of what they are reading. The project is de- ring and irrelevant authority, which directly relate veloped in collaboration between the MIT Com- to propaganda techniques (cf. Section2). Differ- puter Science and Artificial Intelligence Labora- ently from (Habernal et al., 2017, 2018a,b), our tory (CSAIL) and the Qatar Computing Research corpus has 18 techniques annotated on the same Institute (QCRI), HBKU. set of news articles. Moreover, our annotations aim at identifying the minimal fragments related to a technique instead of flagging entire arguments. 7http://tanbih.qcri.org/ References Benjamin D Horne, Sara Khedr, and Sibel Adali. 2018. Sampling the news producers: A large news and fea- Alberto Barron-Cede´ no,˜ Giovanni Da San Martino, Is- ture data set for the study of the complex media land- raa Jaradat, and Preslav Nakov. 2019. Proppy: A scape. In International AAAI Conference on Web system to unmask propaganda in online news. In and , ICWSM ’18, Stanford, CA, USA. Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, AAAI ’19, pages 9847–9848, Hon- John Hunter. 2015. Brainwashing in a large group olulu, HI, USA. awareness training? The classical conditioning hy- pothesis of brainwashing. Master’s thesis, Uni- Alberto Barron-Cedeno,´ Israa Jaradat, Giovanni versity of Kwazulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Da San Martino, and Preslav Nakov. 2019. Proppy: Africa. Organizing the news based on their propagandistic content. Information Processing & Management, Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell. 2012. What is 56(5):1849–1864. propaganda, and how does it differ from ? In Propaganda & Persuasion, chapter 1, pages 1–48. Lavinia Dan. 2015. Techniques for the Translation of Sage Publishing. Slogans. In Proceedings of the Interna- tional Conference Literature, Discourse and Multi- Yann Mathet, Antoine Widlocher,¨ and Jean-Philippe cultural Dialogue, LDMD ’15, pages 13–23, Mures, Metivier.´ 2015. The unified and holistic method Romania. gamma (γ) for inter-annotator agreement mea- sure and alignment. Computational Linguistics, Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and 41(3):437–479. Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- Christian M. Meyer, Margot Mieskes, Christian Stab, standing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. DKPro agreement: An the North American Chapter of the Association for open-source Java library for measuring inter-rater Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- agreement. In Proceedings of the International nologies, NAACL-HLT ’19, pages 4171–4186, Min- Conference on Computational Linguistics, COL- neapolis, MN, USA. ING ’14, pages 105–109, Dublin, Ireland.

Jean Goodwin. 2011. Accounting for the force of the Clyde R. Miller. 1939. The Techniques of Propaganda. appeal to authority. In Proceedings of the 9th Inter- From “How to Detect and Analyze Propaganda,” an national Conference of the Ontario Society for the address given at Town Hall. The Center for learning. Study of Argumentation, OSSA ’11, pages 1–9, On- tario, . David Nadeau and Satoshi Sekine. 2007. A sur- vey of named entity recognition and classification. Lingvisticae Investigationes Ivan Habernal, Raffael Hannemann, Christian Pol- , 30(1):3–26. lak, Christopher Klamm, Patrick Pauli, and Iryna Martin Potthast, Benno Stein, Alberto Barron-Cede´ no,˜ Gurevych. 2017. Argotario: Computational argu- and Paolo Rosso. 2010. An evaluation framework mentation meets serious games. In Proceedings for plagiarism detection. In Proceedings of the In- of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ternational Conference on Computational Linguis- ral Language Processing, EMNLP ’17, pages 7–12, tics, COLING ’10, pages 997–1005, Beijing, China. Copenhagen, Denmark. Hannah Rashkin, Eunsol Choi, Jin Yea Jang, Svitlana Ivan Habernal, Patrick Pauli, and Iryna Gurevych. Volkova, and Yejin Choi. 2017. Truth of varying 2018a. Adapting serious game for fallacious argu- shades: Analyzing language in fake news and polit- mentation to German: pitfalls, insights, and best ical fact-checking. In Proceedings of the 2017 Con- practices. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Interna- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language tional Conference on Language Resources and Eval- Processing, EMNLP ’17, pages 2931–2937, Copen- uation, LREC ’18, Miyazaki, Japan. hagen, Denmark.

Ivan Habernal, Henning Wachsmuth, Iryna Gurevych, Monika L Richter. 2017. The Kremlin’s platform for and Benno Stein. 2018b. Before name-calling: Dy- ‘useful idiots’ in the West: An overview of RT’s ed- namics and triggers of ad hominem fallacies in web itorial strategy and of impact. Technical argumentation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Confer- report, Kremlin Watch. ence of the North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- Francisca Niken Vitri Suprabandari. 2007. Ameri- guage Technologies, NAACL-HLT ’18, pages 386– can propaganda in John Steinbeck’s The Moon is 396, New Orleans, LA, USA. Down. Master’s thesis, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Renee Hobbs and Sandra Mcgee. 2008. Teaching about propaganda: An examination of the historical Gabriel H Teninbaum. 2009. Reductio ad Hitlerum: roots of media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Trumping the judicial Nazi card. Michigan State Education, 6(62):56–67. Law Review, page 541. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang. 2002. Introduction to the CoNLL-2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning, CoNLL ’02, pages 155–158, Taipei, Taiwan. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Natural Lan- guage Learning, CoNLL ’03, pages 142–147, Ed- monton, Canada. Robyn Torok. 2015. Symbiotic radicalisation strate- gies: Propaganda tools and neuro linguistic pro- gramming. In Proceedings of the Australian Se- curity and Intelligence Conference, pages 58–65, Perth, Australia. Richard Tzong-Han Tsai, Shih-Hung Wu, Wen-Chi Chou, Yu-Chun Lin, Ding He, Jieh Hsiang, Ting- Yi Sung, and Wen-Lian Hsu. 2006. Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recog- nition. BMC bioinformatics, 7:92. Douglas Walton. 1996. The straw man fallacy. Royal Academy of Arts and . Anthony Weston. 2018. A rulebook for arguments. Hackett Publishing.

A Annotation Guidelines We provided the definitions in Section 2 together with some examples and an annotation schema, to our professional annotators, so that they could manually annotate news articles. The annotators performed their task following the instructions dis- played in Figure A.1. In order to help them, we built the flowchart displayed in the same figure. It partitions the set of techniques hierarchically and can be traversed by answering a series of ques- tions. These instructions and the flowchart were always available to the annotators, next to the an- notation interface (cf. Figure 1). As an example of the process for generating the questions, the first subdivision is inspired by the following descrip- tion of propaganda: “Propaganda comes in many forms, but you can recognize it by [. . . ] the use of faulty reasoning and/or emotional appeals”. The description distinguishes between logical fallacies and techniques appealing to emotions. We aim at identifying propagandistic techniques in news ar- • Exaggeration: killing a grandma, stomaching the ticles. We provide you with a news article and a flowchart presence of a person to guide you through the identification of propaganda tech- Use the flowchart as your guide to spot propaganda. If you niques. The definition of each technique is shown when set- are not sure about a propaganda technique (any rounded box ting the mouse pointer on the name of the technique in the in the flowchart), just click on it and a new page will open flowchart. You are free to annotate single words, phrases, with and examples when necessary. [cf. Sec- or sentences, but we encourage you to select the minimal tion 2] amount of text in which the propaganda technique appears. TIPS 1. Let us look at the flowchart [below] • Some sentences might be tricky. Please try to select the right technique(s) 2. Let us look at an example which includes four propa- ganda techniques [cf. Figure 1] • Your emotions have nothing to do with the articles, as you are requested to spot propagandistic techniques, • Name calling: the democrats are being called ”babies” not their message: try to distance yourself from the contents and avoid being biased. • Black-and-white fallacy: obstruction vs • One text fragment may include more than one tech- • Loaded language: stupid, petty, killing nique at the same time

Figure A.1: Instructions as provided to the professional annotators in the Anafora-based annotation process (top). Flowchart to drive the identification of propaganda techniques (bottom).