Talk:Propaganda techniques

While it's possible that "Logical Fallacies" might merit a topic of its own, for now, in the context of SourceWatch, I don't see that it requires separation from "Propaganda techniques"; though ... a cause ... of course ... may arise ;-} -- Maynard 23:04 30 Mar 2003 (EST)

---

I removed reference to 'spambot' as a propaganda technique, based upon this common definition of spambot: A spambot is a robot that specializes in gathering email addresses for a spammer to use. It basically follows links and saves any email addresses it finds as it goes along. A spambot usually gathers emails from the web or from usenet, but may also gather it from other sources.[1]
--Maynard 16:13 12 Jun 2003 (EDT)

---

Planting press article" was duplicated, so I removed one of the duplicates.

"Disinformation" had numerous grammar errors that I corrected, but the second paragraph is a jumble that mystified me. It makes no sense as is. Anyone have a clue?

I don't understand the "push poll" entry at all. Should it be revised?

Debbie 01 Feb 2004

---

What about 'astroturfing' as a propganda technique? I see you have an article about it on the site but it's not in the list on this page.

Anonymous

---

Don't know where to put this:

A search on "smear" brings up both "attack ad" and "attack ads" - any reason for the duplication? The text is not the same. One is in Propaganda Techniques -don't know how to tell where the other is. Should they be combined?

Also, the search does not turn up "Bush administration smear campaigns"

Debbie 12 Feb 2004

---

Hi, would it be okay if I tried to organize the list more hierarchically or kind of give them attributes? A lot of the listings are similar. I'm not sure exactly where everything would go, but I have some of my own ideas and they're sort of variations on certain propaganda themes, and I don't really want to add them by themselves. Dividing it up is also difficult because you start to run into philosophical problems and questions, and I'd rather avoid making it that complex, and just let people add things wherever they see fit. Maybe it would be better to just connect the techniques by similarity? Plus, the page is getting rather long. The other thing is I don't want to screw it up, since I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing.

Ben (newbie) 20 Apr 2004

Sure, edit away! If we disagree with your edits, we can always change back the parts we disagree with. I agree with you that a lot of the listings are similar. It would be good to try to consolidate and organize them better. --Sheldon Rampton 00:02, 21 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Hehe. Ok there ya go. Someone tell me what they think :P

Ben (newbie) 24 Apr 2004

Thanks! --Maynard 07:49, 24 Apr 2004 (EDT)

removed from article since these are not intended to be propaganda techniques, but there might be room for a category:

Tools like SourceWatch, Wikipedia, consumerium, act.Greenpeace.org, crit.org and nooron.org are all attempts to equalize information and technology access.

I'm not sufficiently alert to grasp this issue now, but can a distinction be usefully made for mass persuasion in contrast with something else, say persuasive techniques in single or group discussions? there could also be a difference between written material which seeps to people with time, and TV commercial blasts which penetrate all simultaneously, and then disappear.

...

Suggestions, M ..

• flash media
• focus groups
• mucky media

I like the idea of trying to organize this article better, but I'm not sure I like the current organizational scheme. It might help to use a scheme like the ones used in communications research, where communications is broken down as an act that involves the following elements:

• A message source
• The message
• The medium through which it is transmitted
• A recipient

Types of propaganda can be characterized by talking about which of these elements is being manipulated. For example, the "third party technique" that John and I have written about is an example of a PR tactic that focuses on concealing the true identity of the message source. Rhetorical techniques such as name-calling or glittering generalities focus on manipulating the message. Some propaganda is related to choice of medium. (For example, a political candidate might choose to only give TV interviews and avoid newspaper reporters.) Other propaganda focuses on selectively targeting certain people to receive a message while avoiding others.

I suspect also that some of the propaganda techniques listed here are actually redundant, using different words to describe basically the same technique. If this is the case, some of them could be consolidated into a single article. --Sheldon Rampton 20:24, 24 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Restating Sheldon's 4 elements in words which work for me, ...

• source <intercession for humor [rabble-rousing]>
  • motivation (what brought it here) (past) <posterior [up the...]>
  • intention (what is it intended to do) (future) <anterior [smirk...]>
• content <end intercession; end humor; end rabbling>
  • in-your-face, then gone (?soundbite?)
  • pass-it-on (?op-ed?)
  • for the reference library (?monograph?)
• medium/delivery (print|cable/ad|VNR|informercial)
  • context
  • duration of exposure
  • subliminal or blatant
• audience
  • size
  • composition
  • attention span
  • context (daily paper|convention|mass transit poster|etc.)

--Maynard 01:18, 25 Apr 2004 (EDT)

My two cents:

Rearranging this page was a nice idea, but I'm finding it doesn't work for me. I can't find topics easily and I'm not really sure where I would add new items from my to do list. The other suggestions don't do it for me, either, and I can't think of anything better. Why make it complicated when it doesn't need to be? I prefer plain alphabetic order.

--Debbie Saye 1 May 2004

I pretty much agree. I found it pretty hard to come up with categories. It doesn't need to be complicated, and I liked the plain alphabetic order, but the problem was (and still is) that there are a lot of duplicates, a lot of stuff that doesn't really qualify as propaganda (depending on what definition of propaganda is being used) some of it is techniques, some of it terms, some are more about effect, some are about about cause, some methods of communication, some mediums, some are just defining "being an idiot", some are duplicates, some are more reasoning based, some more on psychological factors, some on culture, etc. And don't forget that some are combinations of what I just wrote. I really don't know enough about the subject to really do a good job (and also wanted to keep everything, since I wasn't sure what was what), but I really wanted to try because I think it is important, and I found the plain order insufficient to get a good grasp of the subject. Please someone else give it a try!

--Ben (newbie) 11 May 2004

Has the word "tokens" ever been used with respect to propaganda? I think it would be a good word to describe "pieces of propaganda" in a larger scheme. So a testimonial would be a "token", and the technique would be "using a testimonial" under the higher category of "weighting arguments" or something.

--Ben (newbie) 13 May 2004