Common Propaganda Techniques



Ms. Muzaurieta’s Handy List of

Common Propaganda Techniques

(Thanks to .)

Remember, propaganda is persuasive communication that seeks to persuade by manipulating emotional response and meaning-laden symbols, and not via the informed analysis of people participating in argument and debate. Propaganda is deliberately biased, and only pretends to present information fairly. It can be revealed (i.e., advertising) or concealed (e.g., political speeches); either way, the goal is to convince the audience to agree without realizing it has been influenced.

The 4 stratagems of influence are prepersuasion, source of credibility, construction of the message, and emotions. Specific techniques that use different combinations of these stratagems, and questions that can help you get past the propaganda’s influence, are listed here.

• Cardstacking—In cardstacking, also called Framing, the presentation of information favors one side. Think about how information is presented, and how it could be presented differently. This can be done with words (see Loaded Language below) or visuals. Example: a newspaper series about an election campaign that includes bigger font, longer articles, and/or larger (or more flattering) pictures of one candidate.

o How is information presented?

o Does the presentation favor one side?

o How could it be presented differently?

o What are the merits of the idea itself, separate from how it is presented?

( Loaded Language—With this technique, words are carefully chosen to make a person, group or event sound better or worse. Even phrases that seem neutral can imply a value judgment. Examples: A military organization might be called the national army, a separatist movement, freedom fighters, or terrorists; a candidate could be described as “struggling to succeed despite the attacks of a ruthless adversary” or “foolishly insisting on running for office despite impossible odds.”

o What does the word really mean? Is it a “bad name”? A “virtue word”?

o Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?

o Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don’t like, or “sold” to me by giving it a name I like?

o Leaving the loaded language out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

• Name calling—links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. Uses words/phrases with a negative emotional charge. Wants you to form a judgment to reject and condemn without considering the evidence.

• Glittering generalities—links a person, or idea, to a positive symbol. Uses positive or “virtuous” words/phrases. Wants you to form a judgment to approve and accept without considering the evidence.

• Euphemisms—pacifies the audience by making an unpleasant reality more palatable, using nicer words for unpleasant things. Especially common with war terms.

( False connections

• Transfer—connects the authority, sanction and prestige of something respected to the idea being “sold.” This can involve actually getting the approval of, for example, the Church, or just using prayer or the symbols of the Church without its official support. Science and medicine are often called upon as well.

o In the most simple and concrete terms, what is the proposal of the speaker?

o What is the meaning of the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?

o Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the revered thing, person or institution?

o Leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the proposal viewed alone?

• Testimonial—not about citing a qualified source, but rather citing individuals who are not qualified to make judgments, as when celebrities endorse political candidates.

o Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?

o Why should we regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

o What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the Testimonial?

( Special appeals

• Plain folks—the speaker attempts to convince the audience that he, and his ideas, are “of the people.” Used to disguise great wealth, for example, or the benefits of wealth.

o What are the propagandist’s ideas worth when divorced from his or her personality?

o What could he or she be trying to cover up with the plain-folks approach?

o What are the facts?

• Bandwagon—appeals to a crowd en masse, and harnesses their fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals; no one wants to be left out.

o What is this propagandist’s program?

o What is the evidence for and against the program?

o Regardless of the fact that others are supporting this program, should I support it?

o Does the program serve or undermine my individual and collective interests?

• Fear—implies disaster will result if audience does not follow a specific, advised course of action, which is the fear-reducing behavior. There are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.

o Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?

o How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?

o Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?

o When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker’s proposal?

( Logical fallacy

o Is there enough data to support the speaker’s predictions about the future?

o Can I think of other ways that things might turn out?

o If there are many different ways that things could turn out, why is the speaker painting such an extreme picture?

• Bad logic—more than just a poorly thought out conclusion; deliberately manipulates logic so that illogical conclusions can be drawn. Ex.: all cats eat food + all dogs eat food = all cats are dogs.

• Unwarranted extrapolation—based on a few small facts, makes huge predictions about the future. Ex. The USA had a recession in 1993, and again now; we are headed for a terrible crash!

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download