It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATSers, plz help me do some research...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I am currently attempting to evaluate the common propaganda tactics used by major political campaigns in the U.S. General election...

I have posted a few threads here and there discussing how the political machine is in fact manipulating the populace's thoughts on their candidates, or their political platforms.

I was wondering if there are any political junkies such as myself, that could help me compile a list of what tactics/attacks each political party is currently using. Simple phrases is all i need, I can research the rest... I just know if I compile them myself, I will end up missing valuable information.

I am hoping to put together a thread in the future, teaching each of the major propaganda techniques, and how the public has reacted to them. I'm hoping this will assist other ATS members in identifying when they are being manipulated, and will hopefully help our fellow ATSers break free of the undue influence.

As propaganda is only effective if people remember the message, I would like ATS to post on here some of the attacks, political ads, or other major campaign moments on this thread.... Thanks in advance



**Disclaimer-- THIS is not a political thread, instead I intend to use the results of this thread to conduct some research on propaganda techniques. Please, when you post what attacks each campaign uses, could you keep it simple, I will research the attack/tactic that is posted. For example: "Terrorists/ayers connections" is all the information I need to conduct research, I do not need opinion, or speculation. Thank you...**




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
no one will help me do this research?

again, I stress I am not trying to push a political agenda, I am fascinated by how easily the populace is moved by propaganda.

What better way to study propaganda, than analyze it in real time, as the political machines pump it out...

If I can't get my basic information this way, does anyone have a suggestion on how I can get this research and information I need?

I can't do internet searches, like I said, propaganda is only effective if the people it is directed towards remember the message... the internet doesn't forget like people do...



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
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.

Using words
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 example..
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 of things?

cont...



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
cont...

Using history against them
Another common action taken in propaganda is the use of past mistakes.. Or in another sense, past victories.

Every country, at one point or another has surely done something they would later regret. Sometimes only 10 years later. Regardless, such events were often the product of a few simple people, and should not be held against those of today.

To take it to the extreme, if I were to tell you all germans were bad people because of the way they acted in the world war. Some people would scarily, agree with me. Some would however say, "No.. because it was the nazis who were at fault in germany, not the german public". Keep in mind, that was over 60+ years ago now.

If I were to tell you, all muslims were terrible people, because some of those who followed the religion flew planes into the trade towers (9/11) I am willing to believe that a majority of people will agree with me. Even though, in a similar sense to the germans, it was the result of a few terorrists and not the entire islam faith.

In a war sense, if I posted an article in, say 1955, saying..
Quote:
Today germany attacked france, over disputes regarding land. France, still recovering from the aftermath of the german Nazis are suffering as a result.

I didn't lie there. I simply stated the truth, but noted that france were attacked by the german nazis in the world war. By wording it in a clever way, I can make it seem like germany are the bad guys in the situation regardless of the truth.

Be careful. Recongise whether articles are telling you past mistakes/sucesses of countries for a decent and honest reason, or to give un fair favour to one or the other.

Selective reporting

Something simple that a lot of reporters will do, is simply choose what they report on carefully.

A common thing for armies to do, is provide aid to the citizens that are likely to come in between the two armies. A good example are the american soldiers in iraq, who give out food, water and sweets to the kids.

Armies in conflicts will certainly perform heroic deeds through out a battle, often in favour of the inocent citizens in the cross fire.

By using a combination of all of the above, the media can work hard to make any country seem like the bad guys. Lets say hypothetically, that the media in britain have un intentionally made Country A look like the bad guys - even though that is truely not the case. Country B recognise this, and continue to feed the british propaganda to support them.

Country B however, isn't providing aid to citizens in the cross fire, while Country A is evacuating people and providing them with free food, water and shelter. It is unlikely the british media will hear such a favourable and respective action - at the result of propaganda!

Look deep, remember the media doesn't report on everything going on in a war. With the way the internet is to today, it's not uncommon for the public to report on goings on. I know during early US presence in iraq, a lot of iraq citizens began writing about their presence in their blogs. They were reporting on exactly what the war was like.. who was providing aid and who wasn't for example.

There are other sources of news, than professional news reporters (mainstream or not!)

cont..



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
cont..
Relating actual events, that aren't related.

It is also not uncommon for articles to refer two seperate events together, that while un related can have a negative or positive result on the subject.

For example..
Quote:
This is a few days after Country A invaded Country B, shokingly reminiscent of Hitlers occupation of the Sudetenland in Checkoslovokia in 1939.


By using a combination of past reports already negative efforts against a country, a reporter can really hammer the last nail in the coffin with this one. With the reader assuming that country A are already bad, by relating their actions to someone like hitler they can make them seem espiecally bad.

Look at the references, are they there for factual informative reasons.. or there to install an opinion in you.


Taking advantage of people being lazy..

If we again use the above quote as an example, and look at it differently...

Quote:
This is a few days after Country A invaded Country B, shokingly reminiscent of Hitlers occupation of the Sudetenland in Checkoslovokia in 1939.


Another neat trick here, is the reference to an actual event. By refering directly to hitler, as well as a recorded event the report now seems espiecally professional and credible.

Luckily for the writer, a majority of people who watch the news aren't incredibly likely to check the event, and see if it really has a relation to the event currently being reported on. This is similar to the way reports use history against people, as mentioned earlier, and how people just wont look into it to see if it's a fair point.

The lesson isn't to become a history buff.. the lesson is to take account again, as with past propaganda methods, whether or not you are being told something for factual informative reasons, or for propaganda reasons. Google the event, it'll take two minutes to clarify what is being said to you.
--------------------------------


sorry about the format. lots of code didn't transfer over.

hope that helps!

Bigmoose



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Thanks for the forward!

I have been studying propaganda techniques for a few years now, and it always amazes me how easily affected people are. There have even been times the message has gotten to me, and i've had to step back and re-evaluate what was being preached.

Propaganda is a VERY powerful tool... I'm hoping that a deeper understanding of it will reveal how to help the masses fight against the manipulation...

cause I gotta have a goal



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
nj2day,

I like this topic, a good diversion from the partisan stuff that we see so much of here.

I'm a campaign watcher/follower and political junkie and have a few areas I think you might want to concentrate on:

1) Message of the day. Each campaign tries to control the daily/hourly news cycle by either promoting a positive message from their own campaign or launching attacks against the other. Watch the surrogates and what they say, look for key phrases. Do this often enough and you will see evidence of coordinated efforts.

2) Campaign ads. The scary ones usually have unflattering images of the opposing candidate and/or image associations that are loosely linked to whatever the topic message of the particular ad.

3) Dodging the question. Whenever you hear a surrogate/candidate avoid a question on TV immediately research (if you are able) as much as you can about the subject question before an official campaign statement is issued.

These are examples of how the campaigns manipulate the media, I hop this helps and will try to think of some more examples to post later. Good luck with the thread.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Thanks for the input!

I'm slowly starting to realize the magnitude of the project I've decided to tackle...

I'm hoping with a few more trips to the library, and some more surfing on either candidates website... I can get this entire thing rolling and posted before the election next week.

If not, I guess people will just have to reflect back on what they remember to see the propaganda at work.

It really is more effective to try and identify it coming in though... lightbulbs go off and you think to yourself "oooooh I see what you did here"


I'll keep ya posted...

any other ideas, please toss em my way



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join