Forum Post: Learn about propaganda
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 1:32 p.m. EST by Faithntruth
(997)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Absolutely, there are trolls in the forum, but without meaning to sound paranoid, it is likely there are those who are posing as supporters and have nefarious intentions. The best way to recognize subtle and not so subtle manipulation is to learn what it looks like. I found a site that is comprehensive, but not overwhelming.
I challenge everyone to pick a type of propaganda and post an example from the forum!
When you recognize it in any post, say so in a reply. And examine your own posts to see if you use propaganda techniques, unintentionally.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_techniques
Thank you for this link. The most prominent propaganda machine is our mainstream media. It is the corporate mouthpiece for the Military Industrial complex...all the way from MSNBC, CNN to Fox News...
Please read the first amendment of the constitution, then read about the incident in Boston again.
OWS is not pushing any agenda. Therefore your entire point is a misdirection.
Look, no offense, but... this whole site is a kind of propaganda. In fact, any site or blog that pushes one opinion and a set of goals is, by the rules you posted via the sourcewatch link, propagandist.
To quote from the "glittering generalities" page, which I think most specifically relates to this movement, "when a person is asked to do something in 'defense of democracy' they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom. " Also, "A common element of glittering generalities are intangible nouns that embody ideals, such as dignity, freedom, fame, integrity, justice, love and respect." (Found here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Glittering_generalities ) Given how often phrases or words like “democracy,” “corporation,” “the 1%,” “corporate mouthpiece” and “justice” are tossed out, I’ll argue that even if not all of these are necessarily positive, they can qualify as glittering generalities; they’re so quickly slapped on as generalizing labels.
Another example of a propagandist technique: Reporting on the response of the BPD ( http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-solidarity-100-arrested-occupy-boston/ ), an OWS post makes the claim that "this is what a police state looks like, " in large, bolded, capitalized letters. Given that no one was gunned down, run over by tanks, or had their family dragged off for imprisonment or public execution, I'll argue America's about as far from a police state as you can get. (The fact that this site, much less the actual movement, proves my point.) This, instead, sounds like fear-mongering, as again defined by your source ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fear ). In many ways, OWS is fueled by fear--fear that we, the so-labeled “99%,” will never crawl out of our present, miserable circumstances, defined by crippling debt, unemployment, homelessness, or lack of health care.
Now, before someone starts shouting angry things and accusing me of being one of those non-supporters with "nefarious intentions," let me go on to say that a propagandist site isn't necessarily bad; it can certainly promote a good cause. In any case, it promotes an opinion and usually attempts to address the concerns of a large number of people. But it also ends up being extremely self-selecting. Posts that question the motivations and claims--yes, even in a non-trolling fashion—are shot down, or responded to with empty accusations, and frequently some name-calling, or questioning of the poster's intelligence. In order to not devolve into one long repetitive and single-sided rant, OWS must continue to consciously raise points made by the opposition, and address them in a civil (read, without name-calling, generalizations or use of slogans or catchphrases) fashion. As such, I encourage you to, when you find those so-called nefarious posers, address the points they make. Don't write it off as some underhanded conspiracy to lure supporters away from the cause. After all, nothing strengthens a cause quite like its ability to rise to the challenge, and successfully refute contrary claims with sound logic.
I agree. I've even found that they scrub their websites of information. I was writing a paper for college and trying to find a photo from when Muslims were being rounded up and detained....none! I could find none! I finally went to BBC and they still had one photo.