I made an article on another forum about this once.. Thought you might appreciate me copying and pasting it
I've been seeing a lot of posts, not only on this website, but others also. They all reference mainstream media based articles, in favour of their
opinion to support what they are saying. What a lot of people don't seem to recognise, is that the media do sometimes get things wrong. It's not
always their fault. And in fact, it's the fault of the source.
A very good majority of what you hear on the news regarding wars and military actions comes from.. the military and the goverment! This is dangerous,
as it gives them the opportunity to shove propaganda down the publics throats, and they know no better. But, it's not all that bad..
If you are aware of it, such propaganda becomes easy to spot..
The idea of this post is to inform some of the things people do to sway the public on their side.
The way in which a sentance is used can portray both negative and positive feelings. A good example as ever is what is going on in russia and georgia
at the moment.
As anyone who has been following the story closely will know, they will know that georgia themselves were more at the root of the conflict than the
russians. In other words, the georgians made the first move with their military. The russians, in turn, reacted and fought back.
However, by choosing words carefully, I can easily make any of those countries seem like the bad guys, while still reporting the truth. For
Due to a disagreement between russia and georgia, russia attacked georgia in an attempt to neutralise the military actions.
As you can see, while I reported than there was a military conflict between georgia and russia, and that this was because of a georgia doing something
sinister, by structuring the sentance and choosing words carefully, I made russia out to be a bad guy.
Keep an eye out on how the news structure what they say, and the words they choose. Read the articles, and read them again, as you may be being swayed
by only one or two words.
Making things seem out of pro-portion
A common ploy with propaganda is obviously to report the truth, while swaying it in their favour. A good example of this, is the figures being
reported in the battlefield.
Using hypothetical figures.. Lets say 'Country A' has retaliated to an attack from 'Country B' on their southern side. Country A has 1000 tanks,
but only 100 in the south, the other 900 are to far away to actually be used. 'Country B' has only 80 tanks in total. However, by using a
combination of words and pro-portion I can make 'Country A' the bad guys.
Today, Country A attacked Country B due to a dispute over country borders. There are concerns over Country Bs well being as Country A has 1000 tanks
and Country B has 80'.
As you can see, I didn't lie. Country A does have 1000 tanks.. I just chose not to mention it could only use 100 of them. So now, Country A look like
big bad guys taking it to far on the Country B.
Keep an eye out on the figures you see in the battlefield. Are they reporting on the figures of the battle itself, or the figures of the grand scheme