PREFACE The following piece on propaganda analysis was written Chip Berlet. It was published in a 1997 book on the campus Right that I co-edited at the Center for Campus Organizing (see www.cco.org/right). Chip was also the editor of an excellent 1995 book, "Eyes Right: Challenging the Right Wing Backlash" (South End Press, 1995). The propaganda piece originally appeared in a working paper published by Political Research Associates (see http://www.publiceye.org/), where Chip works. The article is based on research conducted in the late 1930s by an institute that was set up to counter right-wing propaganda in the US. This was a priority, of course, because of the rampant anti-Semitic propaganda associated with the rise of Nazi Germany. It is a fair statement, I think, to say that many of the tactics used by the most aggressive partisans in debates over the internet employ many of the propaganda techniques identified in Berlet's piece. This piece offers some ways of identifying this manipulation, so you can call people on their insistence to spout unsubstantiated assertions as fact. I have tried this on several Internet discussions where aggressive partisans were pushing their points of view and it seemed to work (for lists that had even a minimal level of moderator control) by putting the propaganda pushers on the defensive rather quickly. It also works if you stay on the discussion for a few days to feed additional facts when your point is challenged. If you find the techniques in this article helpful, please don't just tell us; please send it to friends and other email lists where it might be useful. -rich cowan rich@organizenow.net -------------------------------------------------- An Introduction to Propaganda Analysis [Based on the 1997 publication of this article in a publication that made refereence to campus publications. The article is more general than that, so that lead was removed for this repost. -rc] by Chip Berlet [Right-wing publications] have the potential to create a great deal of political and journalistic confusion. In analyzing and in responding to the Right, it is useful to remember that academia has produced a long list of useful tools and techniques to evaluate the logical and conceptual validity of any argument regardless of political content or viewpoint. Useful standards by which to judge the merits of any statement or theory abound in textbooks on debate, rhetoric, argument, and logic. These books discuss which techniques of argumentation are not valid because they fail to follow rules of logic. Among the more common fallacious techniques or inadequate proofs: o Raising the volume, increasing the stridency, or stressing the emotionalism of an argument does not improve its validity. This is called argument by exhortation. o Sequence does not imply causation. If Joan is elected to the board of directors of a bank on May 1, and Raul gets a loan on July 26, further evidence is needed to prove a causal connection. o Association does not imply agreement, hence the term "guilt by association" has a pejorative meaning. Association proves association: it suggests further questions are appropriate, and demonstrates the parameters of networks, coalitions, and personal moral distinctions - nothing more. o Participation in an activity, or presence at an event, does not imply control. o Congruence in one or more elements does not establish congruence in all elements. Gloria Steinem and Jeane Kirkpatrick are both intelligent, assertive women accomplished in political rhetoric. To assume they therefore also agree politically would be ludicrous. If milk is white and powdered chalk is white, would you drink a glass of powdered chalk? o Similarity in activity does not imply joint activity and joint activity does not imply congruent motivation. When a person serves in an official advisory role or acts in a position of responsibility within a group, however, the burden of proof shifts to favor a presumption that such a person is not a mere member or associate, but probably embraces a considerable portion of the sentiments expressed by the group. Still, even members of boards of directors will distance themselves from a particular stance adopted by groups they oversee, and therefore it is not legitimate to assume automatically that they personally hold a view expressed by the group or other board members. It is legitimate, however, to assert that they need to distance themselves publicly from a particular organizational position if they wish to dissociate themselves from it. o Anecdotes alone are not conclusive evidence. Anecdotes are used to illustrate a thesis, not to prove it. In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Alfred McClung Lee, Institute director from 1940-2, and his wife Elizabeth Briant Lee, co-authors of The Fine Art of Propaganda, Social Problems in America, recently wrote an article in the periodical Propaganda Review which they suggested that educating the public about propaganda techniques was an urgent priority. The Lees named seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist: Name Calling: hanging a bad label on an idea Card Stacking: selective use of facts or outright falsehoods Band Wagon: a claim that everyone like us thinks this way Testimonial: the association of a respected or hated person with an idea Plain Folks: a technique whereby the idea and its proponents are linked to "people like you and me" Transfer: an assertion of a connection between something valued or hated and the idea or commodity discussed Glittering Generality: an association of something with a "virtue word" to gain approval without examining the evidence [Chip Berlet is a researcher at Political Research Associates (PRA) in Somerville, MA. This article is was originally published in 1991 and is excerpted from "Uncovering the Right on Campus" (Center for Campus Organizing (CCO), 1997; excerpts at www.cco.org/right) copyright Political Research Associates 1991] p.p.s. people can email rich@organizenow.net if they are interested in getting their hands on the CCO book.