You need to read this.

I feel the need to write about propaganda techniques because I see so many of them being used in relation to this election. I have studied these techniques through my studying of logic and writing. You would be surprised how often they are used- every commercial, TV show, movie, newspaper article, political forums, and magazine article. Yes, I said EVERY ONE. There is no such thing as neutrality. Everyone has an opinion. If not when they start, then by the time they have finished their research for their article or show. This bias is difficult, if not impossible to keep out of the finished product, though it may be subtle. Those who know propaganda techniques, (and even some who don’t) sometimes use them unintentionally, but they always use them.

Propaganda Techniques

Definition- propaganda techniques are the methods and approaches used to spread ideas that further a cause and cause people to agree with you. That cause can be political, commercial (“Buy my product”), religious, or civil.

Name calling (also called an ad hominem attack): This is calling the opponent bad names and attacking his person, history, education, etc. instead of his opinion or ideas. It is used instead of explaining the attacker’s opinion or finding facts to support it.

An example of this would be;

Making fun of Bush’s intelligence instead of defending your call for more taxes.

Calling Obama “The chosen one” (in sarcasm) instead of answering why his healthcare plan is bad.

Making fun of McCain’s age instead of explaining why we need out of Iraq immediately.
Saying Palin should be home taking care of her family and that Trig isn’t really her baby (a totally unfounded accusation) instead of explaining why she may not be qualified for office.

Glittering Generalities- the use of “happy” words that make you feel good about a person or idea. These can not be proved.

Example:
“New and Improved!” Newer than what and improved how?
“Faster acting!” Faster than what?

“Just like Grandma used to use?” Invoking nostalgia. There is a reason Grandma quit using it!

“Clinton is an honest man.” Actually said by Tom Brokahv. He went on to explain that it was possible to lie and be honest as long as you believed in abortion rights (???)

Words like "good," "honest," “intelligent,” "fair," and "best" are examples of "glad" words.

Transfer: The use of something you like in order to make you like something entirely different.

Example:
Michael Jordan says I should buy certain shoes. How does he know? Is he an orthopedist? A fashion expert? How exactly does being good at basket ball qualify him to tell me what shoes to wear?

Doris Day is voting for Obama (I have no idea if this is true. Her’s was just the first name that popped into my head:-) So what? Is she a tax or health care expert? Constitutional lawyer? How does making a living by pretending qualify her to pick a president? Why is her opinion on this subject better than mine? Now if the subject were leading men that are easy to work with that would be different.
Did you know that the tallest candidate always wins? This is a transfer of our preference for height. How tall you are has no bearing on how good of a leader you are.

Using the American flag as a backdrop for a political event makes the implication that the event is patriotic and in the best interest of the U.S.

False Analogy- the comparing of two things as if they are similar when they are not.

Example:
Homosexual rights compared to racial rights.

Homeschooling compared to racism.

Plain Folks- depicting ordinary looking people doing ordinary activities.

Example:
A commercial showing an ordinary family (mom, dad, two children, wearing normal clothes) watching their brand new wide screen TV. This leaves you with the unconscious impression that all normal families have wide-screen TVs.

Card Stacking- This term comes from stacking a deck of cards in your favor. Card stacking is used to slant a message. Key words or unfavorable statistics may be omitted, leading to a series of half-truths. Keep in mind that an advertiser or political commentator is under no obligation "to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

I have observed this often, especially in politics. I recently saw a clip of a four woman political board debating about the candidates. First let me point out that more than 80% of those in the media say they are liberal or ultra liberal and “always” vote democrat. On this panel, one woman was a longhaired, young blonde. She was the only conservative. We have been trained to think of longhaired blondes as bimbos, so unconsciously, we think of her as less than intelligent. The fact that it was three to one made it appear that most people disagree with her positions (which isn’t true. The American public is split about 50/50 liberal/conservative.) Because she was younger, it appeared she was less experienced and because she was a bit less aggressive she appeared to not be as convinced of her position. The sum total was that the liberal position appeared far more intelligent and reasonable –before anyone even opened their mouths! Do you really think the (liberal) producers of this show only had one applicant for this position? More likely, they went through dozens of possible, conservative, female commentators before they found one that would present the image they were looking for.

Another example; A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to read three different articles from three different newspapers about the same incidence involving a homeschooler in Montana. Read separately, each article appeared to be neutral. Read together it was obvious that the first whole-heartedly supported homeschooling, the second hated it, and the third had never really considered the idea before but was leaning in favor of it. Here is how they portrayed their ideas: most people won’t read (or listen to in audio/visual media) more than the first paragraph of an article, so they put the position they agree with first. Then they leave out certain information. For example; the second article (anti-homeschooling) first explained that Montana has almost no laws governing homeschooling, then told us how a young lady who had been homeschooled since second grade took the test to become a nurse and failed. He then quoted “education experts” (school teachers and administrators, people who stand to lose money and power the more people homeschool) who called for way tighter standards and testing for homeschoolers (Montana is one of the least restricted states in the union). The article would have been VERY convincing if I had not just read the story from a pro-homeschooling author. It seems the second author “forgot” to tell us that the young lady has Cerebral palsy. Left in a traditional school she would have not been taught to read much less given the chance to aim for being a nurse! The next year she retook the test and passed! It also failed to mention that the test scores among homeschoolers in states with lots of controls are the same as those from states with no controls. Yet if all you read, all you knew about homeschooling, was the second article, you would be very much against parents taking responsibility for their own children without a great deal of government oversight.

A third example: a TV station wanted to do a report on the abortion issue during the “Right to Life” protests a few years ago. They first showed a thirty second clip from a pro-choice advocate in his air-conditioned office, in a three-piece suit, in front of his expensive looking book shelves. He was saying how we must prevent women from having to seek out unsafe, back-alley abortions like they did before Roe v Wade. Then they showed a thirty-second clip from the president of the Right To Life organization at a protest (he wanted to be filmed in his office but the TV station refused) in August, in Arizona! His sleeves were rolled up with sweat stains on them. He had to yell to be heard and the clip was edited to only contain phrases like, “We must end abortion.” No logic. No mention of the suffering the baby goes through. No mention of the many negative side affects women suffer from supposedly “safe” abortions. All things I am sure he mentioned. He ended up looking like a fanatical idiot while the opposite side looked intelligent and concerned. Yet, unless you were just paying attention to these details, it looked like the TV station had presented a fair, balanced report. Both sides got the same amount of time to state their arguments, right?

Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out.

Example:
The commercials showing large numbers of people owning cellphones.

The constant telling us Obama is ahead (when he really isn’t if you ask only those who are likely to vote. It is really very close with McCain ahead by a small margin).

Either/or fallacy: This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues.

Example:
In the vice presidential debates Biden stated that McCain had not done anything for education. He had not voted once for increased funding of daycare or schools. This leaves out the position that what education needs is NOT more money thrown at it, but new ideas such as vouchers and accountability (which have both proven to be highly effective.) He made the same kind of statement on several issues, implying that the only options were those Obama supports (more government).

The schools do this often also. You either vote to increase spending or you are against education. Hello. Some of us think there are other options, such as redirecting spending to vouchers so competition can make all schools better.

Doctors talking about homebirth do this too. Either go to the hospital to have your baby or you birth in a dark dirty, cellar with a neandrathal (midwives carry pitocin, methorgin, oxygen, do stitches, and use many modern techniques, plus most of us live less than ten minutes from a hospital and most complications that actually need more than a midwife carries give you a couple of hours to get the help you need.)

You must use birth control or you will have 25 children! Never mind the average before birth control, when people married ten years younger than they do now, was only 7. God put natural stoppers in there. We really can trust Him to not overburden us (an option besides pills and surgeries).

My favorite; if you don’t cut your hair sometimes it will grow until you are dragging twenty feet of hair behind you everywhere! Puhhh-leeese. Few people could grow hair that long if they wanted to! We all have a natural length it will stop at (an option besides regular hair cuts).

Faulty Cause and Effect- thinking that because B follows A, A must cause B.

Example:
Did you know that EVERYONE who ate carrots in the 1850 has DIED! Bet you didn’t know carrots were so dangerous, did you?

80% of those in care accidents have eaten green beans in the last week. Maybe we need government controls on these dangerous vegetables!

The number of children diagnosed with learning disabilities in Texas went up after the Cowboys won the Super Bowl. Isn’t it sad that they would put winning a game over children’s education and continue to try to win?

“The Internet came into existence during the Clinton administration, thus, Clinton caused the Internet.” No. He happened to be president at the time technology came together to cause it. It had nothing to do with him.

“Bush was in office when the housing market crashed so the crash is his fault.” Now, he may be partly at fault, but the crash of programs created in the thirties and seventies, that were told by congress during the 90’s, to give mortgages to people that could not make the payments is not very much his fault. It was inevitable that mass numbers of people would default. Like Clinton and the Internet, he just happened to be president when it happened.

“Clinton was president when the economy boomed thus his policies must have caused it.” The groundwork laid in the previous administrations had nothing to do with it? Neither did the republican congress that ignored Clinton’s budgets and made their own? How would we know Clinton caused the boom?

“Public schools are in universal use. Most people can read. Thus schools caused literacy.” Goes against the evidence to the contrary.

“Babies began to be born at hospitals in the early 1900’s. Newborn and mother fatality fell drastically at this time. Thus hospitals caused the drop in birth related deaths.” Does not take into account that homebirths had an even greater drop in deaths at the same time due to better over all nutrition and the discovery of germs and the institution of hand washing!

Errors of Faulty Logic (also way too common in politics)

Contradiction: Information is presented that is in direct opposition to other information within the same argument.

Example: If someone stated that schools were overstaffed, then later argued for the necessity of more counselors, that person would be guilty of contradiction.

Or if they argued that government is too big or taxes too high and then promised “goodies” if they are elected.

Accident: Someone fails to recognize (or conceals the fact) that an argument is based on an exception to the rule.

Example: By using selected scholar-athletes as the norm, one could argue that larger sports programs in schools were vital to improving academic performance of all students.

Begging the Question: A person makes a claim then argues for it by advancing grounds whose meaning is simply equivalent to that of the original claim. This is also called "circular reasoning."

Example:
Someone argues that schools should continue to have textbooks read from cover to cover because, otherwise, students would not be well-educated. When asked to define what "well-educated" means, the person says, "knowing what is in the textbooks."

Or the evolutionists dating the fossil by the rocks it is found in and then dating the rocks by what fossils they find in them (I am serious. This is how they “know” how old fossils AND rocks are!)

Evading the Issue: Someone sidesteps and issue by changing the topic.

Example: When asked to say whether or not the presence of homosexuals in the army could be a disruptive force, a speaker presents examples of homosexuals winning combat medals for bravery.

Or just watch any presidential debate. They seldom actually answer any questions.

Arguing from Ignorance: Someone argues that a claim is justified simply because its opposite cannot be proven.

Example:
Ministers arguing that the historical view of prophecy can’t possibly be right because Paul said the son of perdition has to come (those who believe the historical view believe he came during the dark ages.)

School principals saying parents can’t give a good academic education when all correctly done scientific studies show they do a better job than either public or private schools.

Doctors saying babies don’t get enough oxygen during birth when born out of the hospital when the ONLY study to say such a thing mixed “Honey we ain’t gonna make it” births and teens popping the kid out in a mall bathroom and dumping it in the trashcan with PLANNED home births. Other studies that did make a difference in the type of out of hospital birth have shown homebirths to have LESS oxygen deprivation.

Composition and Division: Composition involves an assertion about a whole that is true of its parts. Division is the opposite: an assertion about all of the parts that is true about the whole.

Example:
“My dog has fleas, thus all dogs have fleas”
Some religious people are a little nuts (name me a category that doesn’t have its nuts) so all religious people are nuts.
Some religious leaders are evil so all religious leaders are evil.
Some homeschoolers abuse their children thus all homeschoolers abuse their children. (homeschoolers actually have a lower rate of abuse than traditional schoolers)
Some babies die at homebirth so all babies die at homebirth. (Again, the rate of severe problems at home are actually lower than at hospitals. Due to genetic defects and other unavoidable problems, some babies just don’t make it no matter where they are born).

Errors of Attack

Appealing to Force: Someone uses threats to establish the validity of the claim.

Example:
Opponents of year-round school threaten to keep their children out of school during the summer months.

Supporters of Obama warn of racial riots if he doesn’t win.

Supporters of Palin warn of mass moose rebellions if she looses.

Errors of Weak Reference

Appeal to the People: Someone attempts to justify a claim on the basis of popularity.

Example:
Children love potato chips and ice cream so we must have it at every meal.

Opponents of year-round school claim that students would hate it.
A politician states that “everyone” wants universal government health care so we should create it.

Appeal to Emotion: An emotion-laden "sob" story is used as proof for a claim.

Example:

See the above story about the girl who flunked the nursing test.

Newspapers telling us about a family with big medical bills that is barely too rich to qualify for Medicaid.

A talk show host telling us about a business that closed because of high taxes.

Word approval – The use of words or phrases by the media or celebrities to make them more popular. Soon everyone is using those words. This has caused the increase in the use of cuss words as well as politically correct terminology.

Word disapproval – Same as above only in reverse. Celebrities act upset when certain words are used making us think the use of such words will bring disapproval. Also, laws are passed making the use of certain words or phrases a “hate crime.”

Repetition – Given enough repetition the 'in' word or phrase will soon replace its predecessors, if only because people don't like to sound 'odd' or behind the times.

Euphemism – Disguising whatever is intrinsically ugly, repulsive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable behind more attractive, less offensive, or neutral labels. At the everyday level this is just a matter of simple politeness and civilized conduct; but in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and 'social engineers' the euphemism becomes a sinister device to deceive and indoctrinate the public into accepting things which are intrinsically repugnant or contrary to the national interest.
Typical examples are
'gay' for sex pervert;
'love-making' for casual copulation;
'multi-cultural' for anti-western;
'negotiated settlement' for surrender;
'non-judgmental' for indiscriminate;
'value-free' for unprincipled
Pro- choice for pro- abortion,
Pro- education for anti-homeschooling,
pro-modern medicine for anti-natural healing techniques.

Censorship – On a legal level, confined to the government out-lawing certain words, expressions or ideas. Some forms of censorship are of course good; for example when applied to pornography (which causes violence against women), national security and libelous material. The limits of the Bible and Constitution determine whether or not censorship is good or bad.

There is a move in congress to require talk radio stations to have “equal time” for liberals as for conservatives (talk radio is the only media source that is predominantly conservative). The same people are not calling for “equal time” in newspapers or on TV. Thus the motive for this move is obviously to shut up the conservative talk show hosts.

Popular appeal – Whereby the propagandist's message is 'packaged' or presented in a way likely to disarm criticism.

Example;

Sexually active singles are featured in numerous programs as if they were normal and acceptable. They are often depicted as highly intelligent, responsible, exemplary and 'caring' people, who enriche our society in every way. In popular radio and TV series they are almost invariably cast as model citizens, and heroes by program-makers aptly described as 'inverted missionaries.' And if the plot will not sustain too many obvious sexual references, they are gratuitously inserted into background scenes.

The popular appeal element of such propaganda is therefore an artful compound of bogus philanthropy, cloying sentimentality, euphemism and superficiality; all designed to 'help the medicine go down' all those gullible throats. But, in particular, the “non-traditional sexual relationship” campaign amounts to the same thing as telling us that adding dirty water to vintage wine produces an exciting new cocktail.

‘Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life – no, not even politics – more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.

‘...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?’
Matthew Parris, London Daily Mail, 21 April 1996