Recognizing Propaganda
Ask yourself the following questions regarding EACH of these propaganda techniques:
Technique #1: Word Games
Type
Name Calling




Glittering Generalities




Stereotypes/Euphemisms




Technique #2: False Connections
Type
Transfer
•
•
•
Testimonial
•
•
•
•
Card Stacking
•
•
•
Questions
What does the name mean?
Does the idea in question have a connection with the
real meaning of the name?
Is the idea being dismissed by giving it a name I don’t
like?
Ignoring the name, what are the merits of the idea
itself?
What does the value word really mean?
Does the idea presented have a legitimate connection
with the real meaning of the value word?
Is an idea being “sold” to me by connecting it to a word
I like?
What are the merits of the idea without the value
word?
What does the stereotype or euphemism really mean?
What does the stereotype or euphemism attempt to
hide or cover up?
What emotional message does the word create?
Does the idea presented have merit without the
stereotype or euphemism?
Questions
What is the proposal of the speaker?
What is the meaning of the thing the propagandist is
trying to transfer onto the original image?
Is there any legitimate connection between these two
ideas?
What are the merits of the core idea on its own?
Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?
Why should we regard this person (organization or
publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy
information on the subject?
What does the idea amount to on its own merits,
without the benefit of the testimonial?
Are facts being distorted or omitted?
What other arguments exist to support these assertions?
What do you want to know about this issue that isn’t
being said?
Technique #3: Special Appeals
Type
Plain Folks
•
•
Bandwagon
•
•
•
Assertion
Fear
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Questions
What are the propagandist’s ideas worth when
divorced from his/her personality?
What could he/she be trying to cover up with the “plain
folks” approach?
What are the facts?
What are the propagandist’s ideas worth when
divorced from his/her personality?
What could he/she be trying to cover up with the “plain
folks” approach?
What are the facts?
What assertion is being made?
What evidence is provided for this assertion?
Is an explanation given for this assertion?
Is speaker expecting the assertion to be accepted
without evidence?
Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order
to obtain support?
How legitimate is the fear the speaker is provoking?
Will performing the recommended action actually
reduce the supposed threat?
Ignoring the presumed threat, what are the merits of
the speaker’s proposal?
Technique #4: Logical Fallacy
Type
Unwarranted Extrapolation
•
•
•
Bad Logic
•
•
•
Lesser of Two Evils
•
•
•
Questions
Is there enough evidence to support the speaker’s
predictions?
Can I think of other ways that things might turn out?
If there are many ways things might turn out, why is the
speaker painting such an extreme picture?
What is the basic premises of the argument presented?
What connections are being made?
– Are these relationships reasonable?
Are the conclusions of the argument realistic and
reasonable?
What are the two “evils” being proposed?
Are there other options than what is being presented?
What consequences might result from taking the “lesser”
evil?