How good are you at spotting propaganda in the wild?
Propaganda is a powerful tool designed to shape opinions and behaviors, often with a specific agenda in mind. It involves the deliberate dissemination of information, whether true or false, to influence public perception and drive particular outcomes.
Propaganda is all around us every day, trying to influence our thoughts and behavior. It is the billboard you pass on the way to work, the comment you read on a news article, the speech from your favorite politician. As Americans, we are bombarded by it on all sides, in all areas of life. Research suggests we each see around 500 ads per day.
Back in 1937, as the world was witnessing the rise of Hitler's anti-Semitic propaganda and aggressive expansion, a group of esteemed scholars in New York City saw the urgent need to study this phenomenon scientifically. They founded the Institute for Propaganda Analysis with a clear mission: to equip the public with the critical tools to understand and evaluate media messages. This institute aimed to shed light on the mechanics of propaganda and even provided educational resources for teachers to address its effects in their classrooms. One of these resources was a book called "The Fine Art of Propaganda," which delved into both the social and psychological aspects of propaganda and outlined the methods used by propagandists.
In this blog post, we'll explore the seven key tools of propaganda and how you can spot them in action. By understanding these tactics, you'll be better equipped to navigate the often murky waters of media messaging and make more informed decisions.
For each tool below we have provided the Find Art of Propaganda definition, a real-world example, and questions to ask to better understand the author’s intentions.
1. Name-Calling
“giving an idea a bad label - is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.”
The words used in name-calling are called omnibus words, which means they have different meanings and emotional reactions from different people.
What does the name mean?
Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
Is an idea that serves my best interests and the best interests of society, as I see them, being dismissed through giving it a name I don’t like?
Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?
2. Glittering Generalities
“associating something with a “virtue word” — is used to make us accept and approve the thing without examining the evidence.”
The words used for glittering generalities are called “virtue words” - they are often words that are cherished by society, but ultimately mean different things to different people. This propaganda device is Name Calling in reverse.
What does the virtue word really mean?
Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection to the real meaning of the word?
Is an idea that does not serve my best interests and the best interests of society, as I see them, being “sold” to me merely through its being given a name that I like?
Leaving the word itself out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?
3. Transfer
“carries the authority, sanction and prestige of something respected and revered over to something else in order to make the latter acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.”
Transfer relies heavily on the use of symbols, quotes, or images to stir emotions and influence opinions. It aims to link the approval or disapproval of one thing to another, leveraging the audience’s feelings toward the respected or disapproved object to shape their views on the new subject.
What is the author’s proposal, stated as simply and concretely as possible?
What are the meanings of the things from which the author is seeking to Transfer authority, sanction and prestige?
Is there any legitimate connection between the subject and the respected and revered thing, person or institution?
Disregarding the trick, what are the merits of the proposal alone?
4. Testimonial
“consists in having some respected or hated person say that a given idea or program or product or person is good or bad.”
Testimonials are a rhetorical device that can be a fair way to emphasize a legitimate idea. However, they can also misrepresent an idea by sugar-coating falsehoods or misinformation.
Who or what is quoted in this testimonial?
Why should we regard this reason as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information or reliable opinion on the subject in question?
What does the idea amount to on its own merits without the testimonial?
5. Plain-Folk
“is the method by which a speaker attempts to convince his audience that he and his ideas are good because they are ‘of the people.’”
The plain-folk technique is used to build trust by making the propagandist appear as an average, everyday person who shares the same values and concerns as the audience. This technique often involves using colloquial language, relatable anecdotes, and presenting oneself in a humble and approachable manner. In the example below, Pepsi tries (and ultimately fails) to associate its brand with popular political movements around the globe such as Black Lives Matter.
What is the speaker’s background, and how is it being presented?
Are there any attempts to use common experiences or language to establish a connection with the audience?
Does the idea or proposal genuinely reflect the interests of the common people, or is it being manipulated to appear that way?
What are the merits of the idea or proposal without considering the speaker’s portrayal as a common person?
6. Card-Stacking
“involves the selection and use of facts or falsehoods, illustrations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or the worst possible case for an idea, program, person or product.”
Card-stacking is a technique that manipulates information to make one side of an argument look favorable while the other side is buried or ignored. It can involve cherry-picking data, using misleading statistics, or presenting a biased narrative to sway opinions. In this example, we see the author position itself as “unbiased,” but the data and “facts” presented clearly point to a singular point of view on the subject.
What facts or pieces of information are being presented, and what might be missing?
Are there any contradictions or inconsistencies in the argument?
How are the statistics or data being used, and are they being presented in a fair and balanced manner?
What is the broader context, and how might additional information change the perspective on the idea or proposal?
7. Bandwagon
“‘everybody — at least all of us — are doing it,’ [...] the propagandist attempts to convince us that all members of a group to which we belong are accepting his program and that we must therefore follow our crowd and ‘jump on the bandwagon.’”
The bandwagon technique appeals to the desire to be part of the majority or a popular movement. It exploits the fear of missing out and the comfort of conformity to persuade people to adopt certain behaviors, beliefs, or products.
What evidence is provided to show that “everyone” is adopting this idea or behavior?
Are there social pressures or appeals to conformity being used to sway opinions?
Is the idea's popularity being used the primary reason to accept it?
What are the independent merits of the idea, regardless of its popularity or the number of people supporting it?
Why It Matters
Propaganda is a tool that intentionally disguises the author’s true agenda. And while historically Public Relations and propaganda have somewhat close ties (the “Father of Public Relations,” Edward Bernays, did base his corporate work on his experience with wartime propaganda, after all), public relations is most successful when practitioners maintain transparency and honesty, even in a crisis. Recognizing propaganda tactics in the communications around you can help you maintain honesty in your own communications.
Comments