Propaganda Techniques- Read and ask yourself are you really free within your opinions

OK, I start straight away with saying this isn't written by me and nor can link to the source dues to ATS T&C's. IT came from a pro-drug forum which might raise some concerns for some members.

What stands out to me is there are quite a few different techniques, some of these I witness happening everywhere in all facets of our lives often in combination with other techniques mentioned.

If its a repost then please accept my apologies and delete mods.

I hope that some of more learned members might contribute and perhaps if anyone else is aware of techniques I have not mentioned then please chime in.

The Most Successful Propaganda Techniques

A list of the most common, and successful, propaganda techniques currently in use. If you spend any time at all consuming mass media, you will find these techniques familiar.

# 1. Guilt By Association: This is used to damage someone's reputation by associating them with an unattractive person or organization. It doesn't matter if there is an actual association or not.

# 2. Backstroke: Systematically belittling the goals of the subject of the article as the goals are being listed. For every step forward for the subject, the propagandist pulls the reader back.
Example: This year the political party's stated goal is to give the rally a warm atmosphere. We walked into the cave-like coliseum as the preparations for the rally were taking place. "We're trying to create a family atmosphere" said one representative of the party as he squinted into the harsh lights. "There are the children's rides" he said happily pointing to where union workmen smashed open wooden crates with iron crowbars.

# 3. Misinformation: This is a subtle technique, it involves reporting information in such a way that the final message of the story is not true, it's what the propagandist wants you to believe.

# 4. Over Humanization: It is a perfectly valid technique to tell a story by focusing on the real people who the story impacts. However, this is also an easy technique for manipulation when a propagandist tries to mask an issue by making anyone who has a valid disagreement look evil due to all the human suffering talked about in the story.

# 5. Name Calling: This is officially the oldest trick in the book. It is cheap and easy.

# 6. He Said, She Said: This is a technique whereby the author can say something they know isn't true, or isn't fair, but they want to say it anyway. Example: Project USA is a group which claims to support reasonable levels of immigration. They've put up billboards with Department of Statistics information which states that the US population will double within 50 years. The billboards have pictures of children of different races with the words "The population of the US will double within this child's lifetime. Stop it congress". Some people say this is hate speech. Note: a statistic (the fact that the US population will double at current levels of immigration) cannot be hateful. This is just a numerical fact, like saying water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The author knows this is an unfair statement, but wants to say it anyway. That's why she says "some people say", rather than "I say".

# 7. Unproven "Facts" This is when a (usually immature) "writer" is frantically trying to "prove" a position and they begin to quote "studies", "reports", and "experts" as "proving" this or that, but they never mention the study's name, location, where copies can be found, or the conditions specific to the experiments. Example: Recent studies show that the media is right 99% of the time. Also, an expert from the University of Happiness was quoted as saying "People in the media work harder than anyone who thinks they have a real job".

# 8. Lying Sometimes complete lies are told. Example: An author in Arizona writes a report which states that the reason that a local mayor decided not to use the police to enforce immigration law was because protests by a certain ethnic group scared him away from it. In actual fact, as stated by the mayor himself, the reason the police weren't used was because no training program had been set up between the police and the INS. Any person who was a member of said ethnic group would gain from a report like this because, if people begin to hear that "that group is really aggressive and authorities do what they say" then the power of that group is enhanced, and everyone reading the "news" will begin thinking they should always let that group have what it wants. The fact that our police need special permission to enforce some laws and not others is a topic for another discussion.


# 9. Telling the Truth, For a While To throw people off the track, biased news services will give good accurate reporting for a while, usually when it no longer matters, then they will stick it to you the next time your guard is down. The best way to recognize this technique is to simply remember who the biggest transgressors are. You must understand that if someone lies or tries to manipulate a story once, they will do so again. They will never be non-biased. They will, however, say something fair from time to time. This is due to the fact that if they were biased every time they spoke, they would soon run out of credibility. Do not trust them twice. Would you buy a car from someone who cheated you on a previous purchase just because they say something you want to hear later?


# 10. Not Talking at all about Something Of course the biggest recent example of this are the Moslem riots in France. The fact that the rioters were still burning more than one hundred cars EACH NIGHT was suppressed and avoided, rather we were fed the line that the riots were over. The media went days and days not reporting on the riots which were revealing the complete failure of French social, economic, and immigration policy. However, France, being a socialist country, is favored by the socialist media, so the country's failings were not reported. When you're aware of a major issue underway, but see no coverage on it, then you can be sure the media is against the ideas which discussing that topic would raise.

# 11. Subtle Inaccuracies/Dismissive Tone Misstating a topic, often a serious one, and pretending any objecting or concerned view is silly, unrealistic, or just not necessary, you should be aware that in all probability the author doesn't fail to understand the seriousness of the issue, rather they may be trying to further an opposing agenda.

# 12. A One One Punch pretending to represent two sides, but one side gets a couple of great lines , the other side gets a lame line.

# 13. Volume This is related to Coordination, it is merely a deluge of the same story line everywhere, until it becomes dominant, and the media's view of it becomes the dominant view, If you pick a topic with a strong liberal attraction, you will often find that all the "news" stories about a given current event seem to draw a similar conclusion about it.

# 14. Coordination This occurs when a number of like minded journalists all report the same angle at about the same time. This really doesn't require a conspiracy, there are so few "journalists", and they can easily see what their buddies' takes are on issues, then parrot the same line.

# 15. Fogging an Issue/Total Nonsense Sometimes certain groups have an interest in making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible. A good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article for the purpose of confusing the majority of readers, who themselves work hard all day. It doesn't take much for them to see a catchy headline, then begin to dig into a long rambling article, then throw their hands up and say "I don't have the extra energy to decipher this!". The reader is correct, the fault is with the propagandist.

# 16. 2,3,4 Technique Mentioning only one side of an issue 2, 3, or 4 times in an article, each time pretending you are about to present the opposing side, but you never do. Then the article suddenly ends and the reader feels bombarded, outnumbered and alone. In reality the opposing view is by definition held by many people, the author merely refused to present the side of the argument he or she disagrees with.

# 17. Preemptive Strike This is when the writer "attacks" the reader viciously at the very outset of the article with the "acceptable" view of the topic. The writer tries to "beat it into" the reader.

# 18. Framing the Debate Setting an argument around two "alternatives" which you would prefer, rather than the true alternatives.

# 19. Token Equal Time Sometimes a weak, tiny understatement is added to a propaganda piece, apparently so the writer can pretend they had been fair. This technique is quite common, it consists of an article written with entirely one point of view, then at the end a meager statement from the opposing view is printed, it is immediately refuted, then the article either ends or continues on with the preferred point of view.

# 20. "Interpreting" A Statement Have you ever seen a writer say that someone said something, then what the person said followed, but it didn't look anything like what the writer claimed was meant? Example: The official said that they didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible for the loss. "I think we should just focus on the future" said the official. (note: he didn't say he didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible, he said we should focus on the future. See the difference?)

# 21. Withholding Information Is it the same as lying? Some in the media might not want to answer that question. Recently a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles was portrayed as a "jubilant son of an immigrant" in an article. What the article didn't mention was that he also once said "Prop 187 is the last gasp of white America in California", he belongs to, or once belonged to, a racist separatist organization which plans to takeover the American south west for Mexico to rule, and at a recent ceremony honoring early black leaders he called one of the early union members a n***** in front of 400 black leaders. 100 people walked out of the meeting room, though it was reported as 25% in order to diminish the effect. None of this was included in the article about the "jubilant son of an immigrant" More recently there is the example of multiple murders on private land in Wisconsin by a Hmong immigrant. In actual fact, of the six people murdered all but one were unarmed, one was a woman, shell casings were found all around the area, meaning the murderer chased his unarmed victims all around to try and kill them. The story as reported called all the victims "hunters" to conjure up the image of tough armed men in a fair fight, even though the victims weren't "hunting" at all but were warning the killer to stay off of their private land, hence he murdered them. The upsetting details only came out long after the story was initially reported. Are the authors of these articles lying to the public by not presenting all of the information about the stories, or are the authors so incompetent and clueless that they aren't even aware of these major points even though they are supposed to be writing about these important stories? The authors are either liars or morons.

# 22. Distracting or Absurd Metrics With this technique, the writer attempts to drag the reader into a debate about what the reader is even seeing. This is usually used when the propagandist is falling behind and must hurry to destroy correct understanding of events. Example: During the French riots many writers began arguing about the number of cars burned and whether the number still "indicated" riot levels. In other words, let's argue about what a riot is, and when you have enough destroyed cars, we'll talk. Meanwhile, you're discussing burnt cars and not the ongoing riots.

I am supplying a link to a chaps work I have been reading concerning this subject. It is well worth some time.

media.leeds.ac.uk...

a reply to: auraofblack

Excellent thread.

Focusing directly on the media, there are some great techniques they have developed over the years which infiltrate our minds and alter our opinions.

1)Repeated use of emotive phrases - "Our Boys", "World's Elite" -
A paper or TV report will use certain phrases over and over in order for something, be it an opinion or product, to stick in the mind.

2)Repeated use of pictures (known as logos or motiffs) - such as generic muslims on the front pages-
Again, this embeds the image in our mind, visually. It effects how we view others and alters our perceptions.

3)Use of alliteration -
Sounds simple but a catchy phrase sticks with the reader/watcher and allows a schema to be developed, a whole concept can be developed and discussed using only one catchy phrase. EG - Panama Papers.

4)Low level science to let the public buy into a story -
Remember when everyone knew what H1N1 was?

You are free within your opinion so long as you actually think about what you are seeing/reading.

a reply to: auraofblack

Couple your list with this thread and you should be able to spot BS a mile away....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ketsuko
You are free within your opinion so long as you actually think about what you are seeing/reading.

See, I'm unsure if I agree with you. I think its fair to say that these techniques are so widely used and to such a saturation that it influences all aspects of our opinions..... The indoctrination begins young. Even down to how our parents perception being influenced in the way that we are bought up.

The indoctrination is something I feel primes us for propaganda.

a reply to: auraofblack

Fantastic OP! Thanks! It makes me realize that there's really no reason to turn on the TV News anymore.

Other techniques I've noted:

"Hammering"........the repetitive "over coverage" of a story or theme. I see that on CNN where the ONLY news story they cover is Politics/Primaries/Donald Trump 24/7 for months now. The message is that the Political Race is by far and away the most important story of all time forever and NOW!

"Trending".....I caught on to this on a business channel. (You may have covered this but I didn't exactly see it). Its sort of like rewarding the viewer by playing into perceived bias. So, for example, for a couple of weeks, Apple Stock was declining in value and bottomed out at something like $96.00 a share. During the time the Network ONLY seemed to present commentators who were talking the stock down, putting the companies prospects for the future down, etc. There was very little of any real factual information presented, it was just all speculative opinion.

Finally, "Opinion as Fact", again this may overlap with what you've presented but what I've caught on to is that the network commentators/presenters will set up an opinion and then factualize it, i.e., refer to it repeatedly as an "is" when in reality it "isn't"; it isn't factual at all!

I suspect as well there's something going on with the way the pictures are presented with news stories but I haven't been able to figure out what they are doing.

a reply to: TonyS

In response to trending. I often think this a very sinister practice, where do I begin? Often the media sources have affiliation with large financial institutions. I have read with great interest about subjects where the big money movers use a code to send signals encoded within media to the ones who are watching for them. If any of these theories are true then even our calenders have been corrupted. I suppose this is a good way to disorientate some one or even a large amount of us.

It also reeks of trying to get idiot low discipline traders to dump or take up stock. Pump and Dump, although I may be incorrect with the exact mechanism. Some people do trade on the news, so I imagine they are the perfect target for this. Devaluing someone's company that people have had to sacrifice to make is so wrong on so many levels just to manipulate trading markets.

I think pictures play into our archetypes and these seem to be getting changed too. Could this be the reason for even more higher definition media interfaces? Throwing it out there, would there be a possibility of manipulating people through the use of parts of the colour spectrum that aren't visble to us?

Could this somehow be used to replace current archetypes by playing encoded messages to us , along with the content we are watching? Subliminal Hypnosis.

This is a really good video about how protests are covered on the news.

Generally ignoring the reasons for the protest and concentrating on anything that shows the protesters in a bad light. Concentrating on any violence and mocking the protester.

a reply to: auraofblack

Yea, the trending thing really disturbs me; and honestly I only caught on to it just last week. If you look today, Apple Stock closed at something like $116.00 a share yesterday. So what they did was scare the little guy into selling and frankly, not being aware of what they were doing, I should have bought some of that stock, if I'd had the money to do so. I'm now thinking to myself.......there's probably a way to make money when I see them doing this technique on a quality company, i.e., when they're talking it down.

The pictures thing is also quite annoying and it really makes me wonder. I think the government outlawed the subliminal messaging thing years ago, but my guess is that there are other psychological tricks they can play with thru the use of repetitive playing of select images. I've caught CNN at this numerous times and on some stories, the same images are so quickly and repetitively "hammered" a the viewer I have to change the channel. One thing I've noted as well is that they'll vary the speed of the images as though to drive home a point. Usually its just stock footage but on a number of occasions, I've caught them flashing images that aren't actually of the right location. So for example, they'll have a reporter standing in front of the Trevi Fountain in Rome and she'll say, "Right behind me in the Vatican they're casting ballots for the next Pope". That's the wrong side of the river for crying out loud!

One of the weirdest treatments of a story I've EVER seen was the San Bernadino shootings by the Saudi couple. Typically CNN would have hung on to that story for two or three weeks, interviewing relatives of the victims, describing the lives of each and every victim in detail, speculating about the cops next steps, camping out in front of the shooters home for a week or two, the whole deal. Not that one! They glossed over that tragedy and for the few days they did cover it, they almost always interrupted the coverage with some Breaking News about some other event. Compare that coverage to how they covered the Paris bombings........it was interminable, went on forever and the repetitive images was awful. Quite obvious that CNN editors were told......."don't dig into San Bernadino"!

a reply to: woodwardjnr

I remember this as it happened. I am an avid Sky news watcher, its one of the best sources of these techniques in action. It was interesting to see how the American news reported it. That last line was very demeaning of the subject to call the last group the "anti war folks" who want to give peace a chance whilst terrorists cut peoples heads off.

Has anyone noticed how every single group affiliation they may have, be it political leaning the news anchor tags a negative image to all three groups....... That was disinfo right there as there plenty of different groups there, not just three. 3 is an interesting number to the human psyche.

We can apply the BS label to almost anything we see and read on the internet. After all its the internet, a bunch of here-say anecdotal and increasingly, manipulated CGI. People are learning to cheat our minds with software, tactics of manipulation and social engineering. Each of these mind meld points can be used both ways, to try and expose the truth and cover it up. Each side can say, look this is manipulation because (list item number 26).

Initially, I resisted coming to the internet for many years, even though my background of computers and my own personal experiences with UFOs and the paranormal kept itching the back of my neck to do so.

it was only Fukushima that brought me out of my shell finally because I knew the main stream news was covering certain aspects of that disaster up.

As an aside, I also delved (deeply) into the UFO and paranormal genre, convinced that by this time all the evidence was out there free for everyone to review and see the truth of it all… in plain sight.

boy was I mistaken.

There is so much data on subjects, so much varied interpretation of historical events, so many millions of 'hits' on any query, I'm growing tired of it all. I might as well go to the grocery checkout and buy the tabloids… lol, they haven't changed munch.

Good luck finding the smoking guns, the buried factoids, the forensics, undoctored, unmanipuated, unburied like a needle under an infinite stack of needles.


Is this because there are as many opinions as people, or is it because 'they' have by now, successfully generated the mountain of needles need to dilute the information and fuzzy our minds.

I heard this, I read that, heres new information…

meh. The thing about gold panning for nuggets is there needs to be some in the stream to justify my time spent to find them.

Becoming frustrated.

a reply to: auraofblack

I can see I use some of these and I also am the victim of many of these. Sometimes I knew something was indigenous about the attack, but couldn't define what it was that was bothering me.

I have learned something today!

a reply to: auraofblack

Maybe it's just that I've been a student of the language for a long time. It's my career and I know how newsrooms operate, how you are supposed to write about a topic as a journalist among other things, the various shades you meaning you can inject without even really being aware of it through simple word choice.

a reply to: intrptr

Do you think it may be working? Isn't one of the techniques to overload people with so much info they become lost within the choice? Maybe there isn't some silver bullet.

a reply to: auraofblack

Just out of curiosity, what's your source for these posts?

Any evidence? Or do you just want us to take you at your word?

(Note: this is slightly tongue-in-cheek to make a point ...)

a reply to: ketsuko

I understand. I have always been fascinated by how we can manipulate words, do journalists write with this in mind, or is purely accidental? I sometimes get the feeling that we get lots of poorly written stories for 90 % of the time but when they are beaming propaganda its more structured. As mentioned above, you see more ramming. The above video shows some really good examples of this with the London G20 riots.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Haha, I could tell you but.... I'd have to ki...

It comes from a pro-canna website I have been a member of several years. You make a good point though, I could be paid by the TPTB and it could all be a ruse to get you bogged down in thinking about these details so that you become unable to trust truth, even if it punched you in the face.

originally posted by: auraofblack
a reply to: intrptr

Do you think it may be working? Isn't one of the techniques to overload people with so much info they become lost within the choice? Maybe there isn't some silver bullet.

Yes its working. They realized early on that their top down, one way dissemination of information control was going to be be obsolete with the advent of two way, instant searching and discourse on the Internet.

The sole hegemony of TV newspaper, radio and magazine paradigm is lost, now that we talk to each other world wide. Their response is to clog the 'airwaves' with useless infotainment and here-say, false leads, made up junk, to once again bury the truth under an avalanche of information.

You just try to get at the truth of something like 911, JFK, WMD, whatever… good luck.