How to recognize propaganda techniques?, page 1

10. STALLING or IGNORING THE QUESTION :
This technique is used to play for more time or to avoid answering a pointed question.
Examples: "More research is needed...", "A fact-finding committee is working on this issue..." "I am calling for an investigation on this failure.." When asked about a tax increase possibility a senator replies: "I have always met the obligations I have to those I represent."

11. LEAST-OF-EVILS is used to justify an otherwise unpleasant or unpopular point of view.
Example: '"War is hell but appeasement leads to worse disasters".

12. SCAPEGOAT:
This often use with Guilt-by-association to deflect scrutiny away from the issues. It transfers blame to one person or group of people without investigating the complexities of the issue.
Examples: "George W. Bush got us into Iraq", "President Reagan caused the national debt".

13. CAUSE AND EFFECT MISMATCH:
This technique confuses the audience about what is really cause and effect. In fact the causes of most phenomena are complex, and it is misleading to say just one of the following: "Tuberculosis is caused by bacteria", "Tuberculosis is caused by un-regulated capitalism that creates poor working conditions", "Tuberculosis is caused by a lack of effective antibiotics".

14. DISTORTION OF DATA or OUT OF CONTEXT or CARD STACKING:
This technique is used to convince the audience by using selected information and not presenting the complete story.
Examples: "A study was done that showed eating peanut butter causes liver cancer" (the fact that later the study was later shown to be flawed or funded by the peanut butter haters and therefore suspect, is not revealed). A variation would be "Raising the speed limit to 65 mph resulted in many fewer traffic fatalities". Such statements need to be checked with how many people were driving before and after the change in speed limit. Fewer people may be driving after the speed limit change, even though the fatality rates (deaths per 100,000) may be higher, leading to the overall result of fewer fatalities.

15. WEAK INFERENCE:
Weak inference is when a judgment is made with insufficient evidence, or that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence given.
For example: Ducks and geese migrate south for the winter, therefore all waterfowl migrate south for the winter. Or, most rich folks vote republican, therefore most people who vote republican are rich.

16. FAULTY ANALOGY:
This is when a comparison is carried to far. '
Example: "The economy is following the same path as right before the great depression, therefore we will experience a stock market crash soon!"

17. MISUSE OF STATISTICS:
Some examples: Average results are reported, but not the amount of variation around the averages. A percent or fraction is presented, but not the sample size as in "9 out of 10 dentists recommend...". Absolute and proportional quantities are mixed as in "3,400 more robberies occurred in our town last year, whereas other cities hand an increase of less than one percent". Graphs are used that, by chopping off part of the scale or using unusual units or no scale, distort the appearance of the result. Results are reported with misleading precision. For example, representing 13 out of 19 students as 68.42105 percent.

18. FEAR:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremburg

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Hithe Merinos]