Propaganda

1. Propaganda Card Stacking Glittering Generalities False Dilemma Lesser of Two Evils

2. persuasive function sizeable target audience representation of a specific group’s agenda use of faulty reasoning and/or emotional appeals Propaganda – 4 characteristics

3. Part 3: Card Stacking • Gives unfair advantage to one point of view • Presents counterpoint (other side) in its weakest form, or not at all • Honest information shared, but misleading • Present info out of context • Obscure (hide) important facts

4. Card Stacking • Emphasizes travel and adventure serving in the Marine Corps • Plays down considerable sacrifice required

5. Part 3: Card Stacking • Can be convincing because often rely on sound reasoning and facts • Problem – opposing perspectives downplayed or left out • Sometimes referred to “sin of omission”

6. Part 3: Card Stacking Example: A pharmaceutical company wants to test a new drug and advertises its need for volunteers to participate in the study. The advertisements emphasize the benefits of participating in the study. The drug’s possible side effects are mentioned in passing in a speedy voiceover at the end of the commercial.

7. Often, a propagandist will acknowledge alternative views, but in an oversimplified, dismissive way. Example: A group invites two experts on different sides of an issue to speak. The expert invited to support one side is a well-known, eloquent speaker, with extensive scientific credentials. The expert invited to represent the other side is a fringe scientist, known for a number of unconventional theories and for his loud, blustering demeanor.

8. Written or visual propaganda & Signing contracts • information that is not favorable to the propagandist’s case may be printed in a smaller typeface or in some way visually obscured. • people are often warned to read “the fine print.” That’s because often, the least attractive terms of a contract will appear in small, barely legible type.

9. Card Stacking - commercials

10. Are opposing viewpoints misrepresented? Does one side seem to be presented more thoroughly than the other? Does it seem that important factors are being ignored? When faced with possible instances of card stacking, ask yourself the following questions: • If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” card stacking is probably taking place.

11. Identify the audience and purpose for this advertisement, and discuss whether this is an example of card-stacking propaganda.

12. Part 4: Glittering Generalities • is a colorful term for the appealing but vague words that often appear in propaganda.

13. Part 4: Glittering Generalities

14. Glittering Generalities • are frequently used in advertising • also a prominent part of political discourse. • In the modern age of ten-second sound bites, glittering generalities can make or break a product’s reputation or a candidate’s campaign.

15. Glittering Generalities Example: I stand for freedom—for a strong nation, unrivaled in the world. My opponent believes we must compromise on these ideals, but I believe they are our birthright.

16. security freedom/liberty strength prosperity choice change equality Popular Glittering Generalities:

17. Glittering Generalities

18. Orange Cola: made from the best ingredients on earth Glittering Generalities • advertising slogans must be short and to the point • advertisers frequently use vague, positive words

19. Under what conditions are words like “freedom” and “choice” not glittering generalities? Use each word in a sentence that does not qualify as a glittering generality. • Words like “freedom” and “choice” often qualify as glittering generalities when they are left to stand alone, with no explanation. However, they are not glittering generalities when they are assigned specific meanings. • For example, “freedom” is not a glittering generality when used to describe emancipation from slavery (e.g., “The former slave had earned his freedom through years of hard labor”) Likewise, “choice” is not a glittering generality when it is used to refer to a specific kind of choice (e.g., “She was given the choice to rewrite the paper, but she chose, instead, to accept a failing grade”).

20. Part 5: False Dilemma • known by many names, including “black-and-white thinking,” “false dichotomy,” and “false choice” • reducing a complex argument to a small number of alternatives and concluding that only one option is appropriate

21. One product always works, and the other never works. One group intends to save the country, and the other is trying to ruin it. False Dilemma • In this kind of propaganda

22. You are either an ally or an enemy. False Dilemma • most often in political and ethical discourse • One option is described as being good, and the other is made to seem bad, or even evil • oversimplifies the situation and denies the existence of any neutral ground

24. If you aren’t using White Bright Detergent, your clothes are not clean. You can subscribe to Propaganda Weekly, or you can stay uninformed. Advertising often makes use of the false-dilemma technique as well.

25. Either you conserve gasoline, or you’re helping Hitler. Either you purchase a security system, or you do not love your family. Either you use a specific brand of detergent, or you wear filthy clothes. Either you agree with us, or you are a fool. The false dilemma reduces all choices to a simple matter of “either/or.”

27. Part 6: The Lesser of Two Evils • a specific type of false dilemma that offers two “bad” alternatives. • often used when the propagandist is trying to convince people to adopt a perspective they will be hesitant to accept. • to make the choice more appealing, an even worse alternative is presented as the only other option.

28. You don’t want to drive a fuel-efficient automobile? Try living under a terrorist regime! Senator Williams may have lied under oath, but at least he never embezzled money from his campaign, as his opponent did. The Lesser of Two Evils

29. The lesser of two evils technique is most effective when one of the possible choices is truly awful, as in this poster, which pits frugality against fascism.

30. The Lesser of Two Evils • It is always best to be suspicious of any message that purports to show you the onlytwo options available • When you’re faced with such a choice, consider each option on its own merits, and keep in mind that there are probably other, undisclosed alternatives.

31. Question • How is the lesser-of-two-evils technique similar to the false-dilemma approach? What sets these techniques apart from one another? • Both reduce a complex situation to a limited number of possibilities • Lesser of two evils offers two unpleasant alternatives

32. Create a caption to go with this image that would make the poster an example of lesser-of-two-evils propaganda.

33. Part 7: Pinpointing the Enemy • oversimplify complex problems by pointing out a single cause or a single enemy who can be blamed

35. Pinpointing the Enemy • When the enemy in question is blamed for problems that are actually someone else’s fault, this is a particular category of pinpointing the enemy known as scapegoating. • Blaming a scapegoat alleviates the guilt of those who are truly at fault, while providing a convenient explanation for the problem at hand.

36. Origin

37. Pinpointing the Enemy • Pinpointing the enemy works particularly well when the targeted group is already thought of as “the other.” • the Nazi portrayal of the Jewish people as the source of economic problems in Germany. • People who are easy to recognize by appearance or culture make perfect scapegoats; if they are easy to identify, they are easy to blame.

38. McDougal’s Burgers are responsible for the obesity epidemic in America. Megamart is responsible for the destruction of small businesses throughout the country. The big oil companies have stifled all talk of alternative energy sources for decades. Uncontrolled fishing by greedy commercial fishers has reduced the numbers of some fish to one-tenth of their original population. .

39. Question • How is pinpointing the enemy similar to name-calling? How are the two techniques different? • Both are frequently used to attack an individual. • However, pinpointing the enemy is often used to assign blame, while name-calling is usually used to discredit an opponent.