20 ms·

Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

256 points by jhabdas 5y ago

akomtu 5y ago
It's a 1 hour read. I'd recommend to start a brief intro into Herman-Chomsky propaganda model: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  Nothing Chomsky comes up with is accurate or ever stays accurate. The propaganda model is pro-communism. The corporations benefit from China. The media and hollywood protect China. Russia is still the scape goat though. On topic: this article itself has plenty of propaganda in it. I'd say ironically, but I know it's on purpose.
  - cdstyh 5y ago
    I recommend the preface and first chapter of "Killing hope" for a look into communism and anti-communism.
  - lupire 5y ago
    The article says: "In versions published after the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Chomsky and Herman updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the "War on Terror" and "counter-terrorism", which they state operates in much the same manner."
  - dang 5y ago
    You've been repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines by posting ideological battle comments, taking threads further into flamewar, and attacking other users. If you keep doing these things, we're going to have to ban you. Please read the rules and stick to them from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Since someone is going to bring this up otherwise: We ban accounts that do this regardless of which ideology they're flaming for or against. What color the flames are doesn't change the destructive effect they have on the intended use of this site. Edit: actually, on a closer look, you've been breaking the site guidelines so often and so badly that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
- jhabdas 5y ago
  Five filters. One big media theory. Consent is being manufactured around you all the time. Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
lupire 5y ago
The best comprehensive list of propaganda techniques I've ever seen was in the "Academic Games" game of Propaganda: https://www.agloa.org/prop-docs/ https://www.agloa.org/prop-docs/ See linked PDFs. More info: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5647/propaganda-game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5647/propaganda-game
mylons 5y ago
there are so many ads on this blog it is hilarious and counter-messaging to the post?
runbathtime 5y ago
> Propaganda isn’t bad by its nature (after-all, almost any content that relays information can be considered a form of propaganda). I have to disagree, propaganda is bad, as its aim isn't to inform, but to manipulate through dishonesty.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  One can’t simply relay absolutely all of the information. By choosing which information to relay, you could say one already engages in propaganda, selective spread of information[0]. The choice reflects one’s opinion on what you should pay attention to, which is conceptually not that different from propaganda. [0] Quoting the article, “The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear.”
  - runbathtime 5y ago
    There is a difference between not relaying all information and selecting info or misrepresenting info used for an agenda.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      How is not relaying all information different from selecting information to relat? As to misrepresenting information, the same subset of information could be seen as fair by one group and misrepresentation by another group. What matters is the purpose of the activity. If one consistently spreads selective information from which one stands to gain in terms of money or power, I’d say that’s a problem, whether you call it propaganda or not. On the other hand, other types of selective information we could call “propaganda” (e.g., anti-drug or pro-savings commercials) might actually be beneficial to the society.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Propaganda has bad reputation partially because it is associated with world war 2. Prior to that, it was freely used without negative connotations. Think about it like this. Parents manipulate their children all the time to make them do things they don't want to do. They do not do it honestly, but it certainly it not perceived a societal harm despite inherent dishonesty.
grumblenum 5y ago
* zero-cost abstractions * move semantics * guaranteed memory safety * threads without data races * trait-based generics * pattern matching * type inference * minimal runtime * efficient C bindings
WalterBright 5y ago
Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it everywhere in the mainstream media. I used to think about 10% of the mainstream media was propaganda, now it seems like about 90%.
- cdstyh 5y ago
  I do the same. I look at advertising and marketing completely different now. The enemy of propaganda is an educated public that is capable of critical thinking. This is one of my favorite YouTube videos. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KewaCcYF9nY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KewaCcYF9nY
- slg 5y ago
  Doesn't propaganda require intent? You may be seeing bias but that isn't the same as propaganda.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    The intent is pretty clear. You can distinguish it from sloppy journalism fairly easily. Especially when the stories from one particular outfit all slant the same way.
    - slg 5y ago
      I am sorry but I have no idea how one would come to the conclusion that 90% of journalists are engaging in intentional propaganda. I can understand if you think they have unconscious biases that influence their work, but believing 90% of the profession ix trying to actively manipulate you is just disconnected from reality.
      - ttt0 5y ago
        I don't want to necessarily pick on the left here, but the most in-your-face example is all the so-called 'wokeness' in the media. This is a conscious effort to promote the 'inclusiveness' or however you want to phrase it. It's discussed openly how do you want people to react to what you publish. Have you ever considered that it might be your own personal biases that you don't see it?
cdstyh 5y ago
The War on Sensemaking is a great series of videos on propaganda and the information ecology in the modern social media driven world. I highly recommend it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ
nostromo 5y ago
There's a lot of good content in this article focused on the media. The media is highly visible and well-documented, so it makes sense. I'd like to see more content about indoctrination and propaganda happening in US education. This to me is much more insidious as it takes an impressionable populace (kids and young adults) and provides an authority figure (teachers and professors) that are largely hidden from public view and gives them a lot of room to provide whatever narrative they like about politics, history, or just about any subject. The impact of shouting matches happening on cable news and Twitter seem like a rounding error compared to the decades-long indoctrination that happens during one's education.
- lupire 5y ago
  Do private schools not have propaganda? Student have over a dozen teachers over the course of education. If they "provide whatever narrative they like " it seems students would get a diverse range of perspectives. Not to mention all the perspectives they get from other authorities like their churches, clubs, family members, and... every adult they encounter, and every book too.
  - benjohnson 5y ago
    Yes. Private school do have 'propaganda' - but that's perfectly ok if it aligns with the parent's wishes. As the parents, we have the right to chose how our children are raised.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      > As the parents, we have the right to chose how our children are raised. Downvoted for raising your children as you'd like. Lol, that's HN for ya.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        Children aren't property. It's perfectly reasonable for society to take children away from parents. We do it for various forms of abuse. We obviously want to be careful, but I see no reason to allow 14-year-olds to get married off by their parents to adult men in their cult. Nor do I think it's okay to change that to the parents let their 14-year-olds get groomed for 4 years either.
cwojno 5y ago
This is fantastic, well done. (emotional appeal)
milkytron 5y ago
> Thus, understanding propaganda to guard yourself against it requires not only the use of sound and cogent logic and a set of facts, it requires being on guard against emotional responses. This, I believe, is so important to living in the modern era of constant information and media consumption at our fingertips. Reading (or even participating in) arguments online is one thing I see a lot of. Tons of emotional responses with plenty of bias and assumptions being made. But those are pretty easy to avoid if you just don't get yourself involved and watch from the sidelines. Good arguments where both sides are participating in open discussion with facts, logic, and open minds are a pleasure. It's what drew me to HN years ago. What isn't easy to avoid (at least for me), is the propaganda being regurgitated by those around me. One side of my family is very deep into conspiracy thinking. They have zero trust for the media, other than a single outlet which they listen and watch every day. When I see this side of the family, I listen to what they have to say, but they don't seem to have any taste for logic, facts, or reasoning. Open discussion is off the table unless it caters to what they want to hear or already believe. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed and not believed. It seems to me like there is no way to get through to them, no way to open their minds, no way to propose viable alternatives to their thinking. How does one go about opening the minds of those already deeply influenced by propaganda? I have their trust, they still come to me and voice their ideas, however farfetched they may seem. Even if they know I don't believe them, they still open discussion with me. But I cannot seem to find a way to engage in their arguments while involving reasoning. p.s. This became a rant, but I do want to improve the communication between myself and this side of the family. I don't want to (and can't really) just cut them off, they are nice people that just happen to have some wild beliefs.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  > How does one go about opening the minds of those already deeply influenced by propaganda? I have their trust, they still come to me and voice their ideas, however farfetched they may seem. Even if they know I don't believe them, they still open discussion with me. But I cannot seem to find a way to engage in their arguments while involving reasoning. Maybe you can checkout their single source of information, and make them promise to checkout the other side too... Both will benefit from checking out alternate sources that opine opposite to our current biases. We will disagree with most of them, but then, one can basically find out what is factually true or not from a simple comparison, see which facts have been omitted in the reporting, and then make up their minds.
jb775 5y ago
Just need to turn on CNN or MSNBC right now for modern examples of propaganda. Don't think they really care about left or right, they use politics as a vehicle to keep the masses divided and therefore under control. It also shifts focus away from the growing class gap and how the upper classes are hoarding wealth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- clairity 5y ago
  or npr and nytimes, two outlets that especially harp on their "fact-based", "independent" reporting, but is as message-controlled as every other (e.g., covid fearmongering is still being peddled as hard as ever).
nimbius 5y ago
>All states essentially sell their Civil Religion (ours being one of liberty, equality, and capitalism in a two party system). This is normal. pretty painful trying to read the rest of the article after this as the author clearly sees certain kinds of propaganda as objective good.
bena 5y ago
I like how their description of "Refuting the central point" is "refuting the central point" without explicitly telling us how that is different from "Refutation". Also "Name Calling" is a form of "Ad Hominem". And why is "using quotes" higher up than "reasoning and supporting evidence"? Also, isn't the entire pyramid about the level of counter argument? So, contradiction is inherent in the process. It really seems like "Counteragrument", "Refutation", and "Refuting the central point" are all about the same thing. And if they are different then "Refutation" and "Counterargument" are ordered wrong. Because I think using reasoning and supporting evidence would be stronger than quotes. So, really, this pyramid could be like 4 layers. Ad-hominem, Tone Policing, Simple Contradiction, Counter Argument
- dragontamer 5y ago
  And yet, Ad Hominem is useful, especially since certain channels are clearly propaganda. Is it a shortcut? Yes. But as the blogpost points out, misinformation spreads far more quickly than truth. Its easier to shortcut and label certain outlets as propaganda channels, to help focus the discussion on the few channels which are reliable (Associated Press is good and neutral, and mainly factual)
  - bena 5y ago
    Ad hominem is never useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the other side and tells me more about you. You don't like the other side. That's what I now know. And misinformation usually has one of the problems that would put it further down the pyramid than actual arguments. It's usually ad hominem or tone policing itself. Or sometimes just a straight up lie. And pointing out those elements would fall under Counter Argument. Not everything negative is ad hominem.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > You don't like the other side. That's what I now know. And that's very useful for establishing which sources we should rely upon in a shared discussion. My sister's husband was quoting Breitbart news to me. I let him know that I believed that was a propaganda channel. In many discussions, its very important to establish who is, or isn't, a trusted source of information. ------------- There are others who quote Elon Musk's tweets to me. Many of those tweets have no basis in reality IMO, so I let them know that I don't trust them, and I ask them for another source of information.
MikeUt 5y ago
> Selective truth: restrictive use of data or facts to sway opinion that might not be swayed if all the data or facts were given. This is usually interpreted as presenting only half of a story, but the more common and powerful use is in presenting the whole story, while simply ignoring unfavorable stories, and promoting favorable ones. Is a murder front-page news, or a footnote? Depends on the murder.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Selective Truth is the primary form of misinformation today. Respectable outlets have to generally tell the 'truth'. But - they can chose the stories they want to highlight, and leave out facts entirely. A neat example I like to use is the CBC's coverage of the 'trail of tears' story - which is the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous women from the 1960's to 2000, about 3000 went missing, somewhat higher than the norm. for Canada. What they never highlight in coverage, is that 1) about 8500 Aboriginal Men went missing during the same time and 2) that almost universally, the assailants in attacks against against Aboriginal Women are in fact, Aboriginal Men. When I bring up the facts, which I had to research myself - people seemed to be shocked and dismayed as though 'Men's deaths don't matter' - just because they happen to be a part of a group where others are committing violence, and, that somehow the fact that the violence seems to be entirely focused within the community is 'of no concern'. In reality, most CBC watchers (Canadians) would be enlightened by the fact 'even more' Aboriginal men are dying that they deserve our sympathy in that regard, and especially that the troubles are focused within the community which is incredibly relevant because it helps inform solutions. Imagine growing up and spending 25 years being exposed to '1/2 truths' like this? It's surprisingly more common than not in many media outlets covering anything remotely sensitive to the point where I've developed a 'Spidey Sense' and frankly spend only 1 minute on Google to uncover highly relevant facts that should have likely been included. I feel that this kind of thing is more important than the nature of propaganda highlighted in the article, because for the most part, classical propaganda is not nearly as common as those presenting a form of 'leaning bias' on sensitive issues. The Government isn't very good at most propaganda these days, and I think we all know that Corporate advertising is 'propaganda' at least by this definition. We are mostly not aware of how consistent the bias is in the press, and how narratives are created there, which is why maybe it deserves more scrutiny.
torpid 5y ago
Imagine thinking this... >"Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium) designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion rather than to inform using logical truths and facts. The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this generally isn’t what we are talking about when we use the term “propaganda” Then saying this... >Propaganda isn’t bad by its nature (after-all, almost any content that relays information can be considered a form of propaganda). What the fuck. No, any content that relays information is NOT a form of propaganda.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  > No, any content that relays information is NOT a form of propaganda. Except... that's the literal meaning of propaganda (it's literally Italian for "propagation"). It's only in the Cold War era (only relatively recently in the time-span of history) that "propaganda" have added that negative connotation.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    Trying to spin a strict definition of propaganda to include all propagation of information is disingenuous, regardless of where the original word came from. And even then you're wrong, you have to go back much earlier to find the shift in definition of the term. The negative connotation that led to our modern definition originated in the French Revolution, not the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#cite_ref-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#cite_ref-13 > Academic Barbara Diggs-Brown conceives that the negative connotations of the term “propaganda” are associated with the earlier social and political transformations that occurred during the French Revolutionary period movement of 1789 to 1799 between the start and the middle portion of the 19th century, in a time where the word started to be used in a nonclerical and political context. Before the French Revolution the term was used by the Catholic church and was considered "an ancient and honorable term". https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-2-what-is-propaganda-(1944)/the-story-of-propaganda https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-hist... WWI & II made the modern definition we know today popular, but both the American and French revolution guided it there.
jhabdas 5y ago
Critical Race Theory is affecting both our children's education as well as the military. And the media is playing games right in front of our faces. Here's just one example: IO 26 - Interview with Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier, USAF on CRT in DoD, His Book Irresistible Revolution https://tv.gab.com/channel/creativedestructionmedia/view/io-26-interview-with-lt-6097245404a691ffb2188c26 https://tv.gab.com/channel/creativedestructionmedia/view/io-... Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier called out the social justice scam and paid for it with his job https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/matthew-lohmeier-called-out-the-social-justice-scam-and-paid-for-it-with-his-job https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/matthew-lohmeier-...
- whydoibother 5y ago
  CRT is the new 'cultural marxism' of the right. It is completely bogus scaremongering and propaganda.
  - Fellshard 5y ago
    This claim you're repeating is pure gaslighting. There are /some/ who will just yell CRT regarding anything, yes, but there are more who actually read and see what the formal academic theory is, and reject it on that basis. To claim it does not exist is an abject lie.
    - whydoibother 5y ago
      Define what CRT is please.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Progressive propaganda is insidious not just in schools, but big tech, social media, at NASA and the military, virtue signaling at every opportunity. Completely unchecked and uncontested. I’m fine with the motifs, but what’s not acceptable is inability to criticize aspects of it without people calling you names and gaining moral superiority over you. It alienates people and is dangerous for the society. I have a deep philosophical opposition to progressive causes and it’s not stemming from the issues themselves, but the simple fact of mob mentality and unable to listen to all sides. No, all sides doesn’t mean listening to bigoted and unsubstantiated nonsense, but ones who have good points to make and we silence them. Fuck everything about this. I have voted for liberal causes my whole life (a couple of local exceptions), but it’s getting harder to get behind liberal party for me. It’s a bunch of propaganda in my eyes. Convince me otherwise.
kaycebasques 5y ago
(Tangential) I'm in Brazil [1] for the first time and was intrigued to learn that the word for "advertising" is "propaganda". Of course anyone who has read Edward Bernays or seen Century of the Self will know the connection, but interesting nonetheless! [1] I also learned that they spell it "Brasil" here.
narrator 5y ago
The most annoying common form of propaganda is the association fallacy, which is a more subtle form of the ad hominem fallacy [1]. It works like this: A. You believe X. B. A crazy person also believes/believed X. C. You are a crazy person. D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me why being a crazy person is ok. Why do you support doing crazy people things like being a serial killer? Example: A. You are against cigarette smoking. B. The Nazis were also against cigarette smoking[2]. C. Therefore you are a Nazi. D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me why being a Nazi is ok. Why do you support anti-semitism? This is by far the most common bullshit argument I get when talking with people about controversial topics. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... [2]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_Cancer https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_C...
- narrator 5y ago
  Just a little side note to this. You can tell a big propaganda push is coming when the news reports. Police are saying that person who is obviously crazy and did <bad thing> also happened to believe in X. Coming up. A special report where we look at all the crazy people who believe X. Did <historical bad guy> believe in X? Find out next as we explore history. Should the statue of historical person be removed because he believed X? And so on and so forth.
- jollybean 5y ago
  That's extremely common, and used viciously in pop culture typically to demonize someone not sufficiently radical enough on an issue. But it's not really propaganda.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
motohagiography 5y ago
Have read some of the source materials on the propaganda they talk about, and what I've found it comes down to is criticism of the nonsense is basically a tarpit. The bit about Putin's propaganda guy is super interesting, as what he's doing makes complete sense within other frameworks. The advantage these propagandists have is they believe one simple thing and it's very easy to signal, operationalize, and organize around. It's basically nihilism. The article does get a couple things wrong e.g.: > Big Lie: Using a complex array of events to justify an action or narrative. What you do is take a carefully selected collection of truths, lies, and half-truths that all seem to tell a story (which is actually revised history) and use them to construct a story that eventually supplants the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events. The Big Lie tactic is (as I remember reading in Cialdini, maybe?) something necessarily absurd like Kim Jong Il hitting 11 consecutive hole-in-one shots on a golf course, where if you can't contain your disgust at how absurd that sounds, and you have some sense of self where it is offensive for you to believe it, you mark yourself out for isolation and attack. The Big Lie is primarily a tactic to get people to react, and the people whose identities are still anchored to truth are potential resistance leaders, so this lets them paint themselves as targets. It's also called a "wedge issue," and is the complementary tactic to dogwhistles and watchwords. It is also close to a "scissor statement," which is a statement that only has polarized and opposing interpretations. (HN thread on scissor statements: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190508) There are also some standard sales and negotiation tactics thrown in there, and oddly, some of their own tactics to create a slant are written into it. However, the goal of a propagandist is to hold your attention and it doesn't matter what you actually think, because as long as the propagandist has your attention, you are passified by their noise and not acting against them or in your own interest. Arguing the logic or principles? Engaged. Outraged? Engaged. Have a side? Engaged. Ditched family and friends over politics? Engaged. The job of a propagandist is to manage your attention and make the stories you tell yourself the ones they taught you, they don't actually care what you think, only that above all you do nothing, and so small squads of less than 10 people at a time can seem to control entire cities. The best filter against propaganda is attitude. The question, "how do I benefit if they are wrong?" goes a long way to establishing the necessary personal boundaries that keep you from spending too much time mesmerized. Having an axiomatic truth as a co-ordinate or waypoint for who you are prevents you from being completely submerged by narrative. Deflecting arguments helps as well because they are mainly bait for a tarpit, and as Dale Carnigie said, "nobody wins an argument." If your reaction to something is angry or excitable, you are downstream of someone trying to get inside your head. Anyway, it's a good and important article on a pet topic, so my advice for dealing with propaganda is: it's your attention they want, only ever give it on your own terms.
nrjames 5y ago
On a similar note, the FBI's Elicitation brochure is a good overview of how people may attempt to convince you to reveal confidential information: https://ucr.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/elicitation-brochure https://ucr.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/elicitat...
andyxor 5y ago
Outdated, the US Democrats raised the bar with their spectacular propaganda campaign leading to the 2020 elections.
- pacerwpg 5y ago
  I would say the alternate reality that the Republican Party is living in is the gold standard for propaganda. That's not to say that Democrats don't use propaganda, but Democratic Party propaganda at least shares a reality with the rest of the country and world and isn't in the process of manufacturing an entirely different reality.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I think this perception of alternate realities is something the Democrats are actually encouraging. It makes perfect political sense to cast the opposition party as completely out of touch with reality. It also perfectly complements the existing sentiment of "reality has a well known liberal bias".
    - pacerwpg 5y ago
      Ask Republicans who won the election, and tell me it's something Democrats are doing.
      - bsagdiyev 5y ago
        That’s a stereotype. I tend red sometimes, but have no question who won the election. Maybe the issue is you see things that way due to what you see in the media and are told instead of from actual interactions with people from opposing viewpoints?
        pacerwpg 5y ago
        I would say I get that impression from the continued strong support for the former president, who is arguably still the leader of the party, and his insistence that the election was stolen. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news_and_polls/over-half-republicans-believe-donald-trump-actual-president-united-states https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news_and_polls/over-half-republi...
wolverine876 5y ago
> The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this generally isn’t what we are talking about when we use the term “propaganda”). My understanding is that experts consider the aim of propaganda to be confusing and paralyzing the enemy, preventing effective communication, debate and decision-making. For example, after 2016, the widespread, hyper-inflammatory trolling and attacks prevented the discussion of politics. Many forums I know, including HN to an extent, simply banned it. To this day, many issues are very difficult to discuss (e.g., Trump, racism, etc.); you can't share information, discuss things, because the discussions seem to blow up (and even mentioning that those issues exist might provoke something here - please don't). That's effective propaganda. It's not clear to me that the author has real knowledge of propaganda beyond their own observations and theories. There is a lot of better research and knowledge out there.
- froh 5y ago
  interesting! do you have a good entry point into said better research and knowledge?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Ah, I dreaded this question. Not at my fingertips. I would look up a university curriculum. Here is something I do have at my fingertips: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ijoc-political-communication-computational-propaganda-and-autonomous-agents-introduction-2/ https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ijoc-political-communication-comput...
    - froh 5y ago
      "this page has gone awol" aka 404 :-/ bummer.
ttctciyf 5y ago
It's a topic that's never been so relevant, IMO, because of the unprecedented scale at which the propaganda industries (AKA PR/"Think Tanks"/"Dark Money"/Outreach programs/"Strategic Communications", etc.) now operate. For insight into how it works, I prefer the more systematic approach of "Propaganda Principles"[1] to the linked site, however. https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/propaganda-techniques/ https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/propaganda-techni...
ergot_vacation 5y ago
This article misses the two most important bits of info in understanding propaganda, and how people work. 1. Most effective communication is "propaganda" As outlined in "Thinking Fast and Slow" (and in numerous other places), there are two ways of thinking: the quick instinctive "gut," and the slow, considered, logical mind. People, especially the kind of people that read HN, tend to deify the latter and villainize the former, but the truth is both have value. Furthermore, the "gut" actually has MORE value overall, since being able to sit down and carefully consider every aspect of a situation or concept is a luxury that is often impractical. "Propaganda" is simply anything that speaks to this instinctive mind. Sales is propaganda. Dating/pursuing someone is propaganda. Trying to get a child to calm down when they're afraid or angry is propaganda. People sneer at making "emotional appeals" and appealing to "base instincts," but the reality is that humans spend most of their time living in world of emotion and instinct, not fact. Speaking to the instinctive mind is a more effective way to persuade someone, because the instinctive mind has more power in most people. That doesn't make it inherently bad. Talking directly to a person's "gut" is simple effective communication, which can be used for good or bad end. 2. Logic is a luxury, not a silver bullet Almost every discussion of this topic inevitably frames it the same way: there are dark, sinister forces using "propaganda" to manipulate the vulnerable, and we must fight back by teaching people to think logically! Elevate yourself above base instinct, see everything with the cool remove of a Vulcan, and you will triumph, in yourself, and in winning arguments with others. The reality is that the world, and people, don't work like this. Logic, reason and facts are not trump cards. Quite the opposite: they require a cool, friendly and reserved setting to work, and are thus mostly useless in any situation other than one between friends that mutually respect and understand each other. The language of most of humanity, most of the time, is "propaganda," ie an appeal to instinct. Victory doesn't lie in trying to stomp this out like a Victorian trying to purge their sex drive, but rather in accepting it, understanding it, in yourself and others, and learning to speak in its language. Careful rational thinking is great, we wouldn't have all the advancements we do without it. But most people don't spend their free time reading research papers. They watch movies or TV, or play video games. Some even still read books. Stop treating "propaganda" as a dark tool of the evil one. Bad guys use what works, and speaking to instinct works. If you want to fight them (and more importantly, to just lead a richer life) learn to do the same.
proverbialbunny 5y ago
After WW2 propaganda got a bit of a bad name for itself so it renamed itself public relations. Anything that talks about propaganda and not PR is out of date, but still valid.
fartcannon 5y ago
Propaganda is defeated by shedding light on it. It requires constant vigilance. One of the problems with HN (don't hate me Dang) is that we aren't permitted to call out propaganda as this article suggests we do. It all happens behind the scenes and as a result, its inherently unseen. It needs to be seen. We almost needs a wall of shame for groups/orgs caught engaging in PR.
jl2718 5y ago
I found this to be quite useless for understanding modern propaganda efforts. Mostly this is just telling subjects of propaganda that they are dumb, and they should be less dumb. As usual, this view on other people is incorrect. A proper treatment of actual propaganda efforts, as it is widely practiced, would not be allowed on this site. Many books have been written about ‘influence’ and other soft power methods. They are a waste of time. In the real world, consent is manufactured by prescribing rewards and punishments. It’s entirely behavioral. Examples abound. Think of everything you ‘know’, which you have examined zero primary source evidence of, but would have failed a primary school class if you didn’t ‘know’ it. This continues well into adult life and work. The actual truth, or even the actual attitudes and beliefs, are irrelevant. Behavioral consent methods work flawlessly without any requirement to convince the subject. This is the real secret of propaganda. It’s all you need to know. It works because you don’t have a choice.

256 points by jhabdas 5y ago

It's a 1 hour read. I'd recommend to start a brief intro into Herman-Chomsky propaganda model: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

throwaway292893 5y ago
Nothing Chomsky comes up with is accurate or ever stays accurate. The propaganda model is pro-communism. The corporations benefit from China. The media and hollywood protect China. Russia is still the scape goat though. On topic: this article itself has plenty of propaganda in it. I'd say ironically, but I know it's on purpose.
- cdstyh 5y ago
  I recommend the preface and first chapter of "Killing hope" for a look into communism and anti-communism.
- lupire 5y ago
  The article says: "In versions published after the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Chomsky and Herman updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the "War on Terror" and "counter-terrorism", which they state operates in much the same manner."
- dang 5y ago
  You've been repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines by posting ideological battle comments, taking threads further into flamewar, and attacking other users. If you keep doing these things, we're going to have to ban you. Please read the rules and stick to them from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Since someone is going to bring this up otherwise: We ban accounts that do this regardless of which ideology they're flaming for or against. What color the flames are doesn't change the destructive effect they have on the intended use of this site. Edit: actually, on a closer look, you've been breaking the site guidelines so often and so badly that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
jhabdas 5y ago
Five filters. One big media theory. Consent is being manufactured around you all the time. Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M

lupire 5y ago

The best comprehensive list of propaganda techniques I've ever seen was in the "Academic Games" game of Propaganda: https://www.agloa.org/prop-docs/ https://www.agloa.org/prop-docs/ See linked PDFs. More info: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5647/propaganda-game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5647/propaganda-game

mylons 5y ago

there are so many ads on this blog it is hilarious and counter-messaging to the post?

runbathtime 5y ago

> Propaganda isn’t bad by its nature (after-all, almost any content that relays information can be considered a form of propaganda). I have to disagree, propaganda is bad, as its aim isn't to inform, but to manipulate through dishonesty.

strogonoff 5y ago
One can’t simply relay absolutely all of the information. By choosing which information to relay, you could say one already engages in propaganda, selective spread of information[0]. The choice reflects one’s opinion on what you should pay attention to, which is conceptually not that different from propaganda. [0] Quoting the article, “The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear.”
- runbathtime 5y ago
  There is a difference between not relaying all information and selecting info or misrepresenting info used for an agenda.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    How is not relaying all information different from selecting information to relat? As to misrepresenting information, the same subset of information could be seen as fair by one group and misrepresentation by another group. What matters is the purpose of the activity. If one consistently spreads selective information from which one stands to gain in terms of money or power, I’d say that’s a problem, whether you call it propaganda or not. On the other hand, other types of selective information we could call “propaganda” (e.g., anti-drug or pro-savings commercials) might actually be beneficial to the society.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Propaganda has bad reputation partially because it is associated with world war 2. Prior to that, it was freely used without negative connotations. Think about it like this. Parents manipulate their children all the time to make them do things they don't want to do. They do not do it honestly, but it certainly it not perceived a societal harm despite inherent dishonesty.

grumblenum 5y ago

* zero-cost abstractions * move semantics * guaranteed memory safety * threads without data races * trait-based generics * pattern matching * type inference * minimal runtime * efficient C bindings

WalterBright 5y ago

Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it everywhere in the mainstream media. I used to think about 10% of the mainstream media was propaganda, now it seems like about 90%.

cdstyh 5y ago
I do the same. I look at advertising and marketing completely different now. The enemy of propaganda is an educated public that is capable of critical thinking. This is one of my favorite YouTube videos. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KewaCcYF9nY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KewaCcYF9nY
slg 5y ago
Doesn't propaganda require intent? You may be seeing bias but that isn't the same as propaganda.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  The intent is pretty clear. You can distinguish it from sloppy journalism fairly easily. Especially when the stories from one particular outfit all slant the same way.
  - slg 5y ago
    I am sorry but I have no idea how one would come to the conclusion that 90% of journalists are engaging in intentional propaganda. I can understand if you think they have unconscious biases that influence their work, but believing 90% of the profession ix trying to actively manipulate you is just disconnected from reality.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      I don't want to necessarily pick on the left here, but the most in-your-face example is all the so-called 'wokeness' in the media. This is a conscious effort to promote the 'inclusiveness' or however you want to phrase it. It's discussed openly how do you want people to react to what you publish. Have you ever considered that it might be your own personal biases that you don't see it?

cdstyh 5y ago

The War on Sensemaking is a great series of videos on propaganda and the information ecology in the modern social media driven world. I highly recommend it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ

nostromo 5y ago

There's a lot of good content in this article focused on the media. The media is highly visible and well-documented, so it makes sense. I'd like to see more content about indoctrination and propaganda happening in US education. This to me is much more insidious as it takes an impressionable populace (kids and young adults) and provides an authority figure (teachers and professors) that are largely hidden from public view and gives them a lot of room to provide whatever narrative they like about politics, history, or just about any subject. The impact of shouting matches happening on cable news and Twitter seem like a rounding error compared to the decades-long indoctrination that happens during one's education.

lupire 5y ago
Do private schools not have propaganda? Student have over a dozen teachers over the course of education. If they "provide whatever narrative they like " it seems students would get a diverse range of perspectives. Not to mention all the perspectives they get from other authorities like their churches, clubs, family members, and... every adult they encounter, and every book too.
- benjohnson 5y ago
  Yes. Private school do have 'propaganda' - but that's perfectly ok if it aligns with the parent's wishes. As the parents, we have the right to chose how our children are raised.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > As the parents, we have the right to chose how our children are raised. Downvoted for raising your children as you'd like. Lol, that's HN for ya.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Children aren't property. It's perfectly reasonable for society to take children away from parents. We do it for various forms of abuse. We obviously want to be careful, but I see no reason to allow 14-year-olds to get married off by their parents to adult men in their cult. Nor do I think it's okay to change that to the parents let their 14-year-olds get groomed for 4 years either.

cwojno 5y ago

This is fantastic, well done. (emotional appeal)

milkytron 5y ago

> Thus, understanding propaganda to guard yourself against it requires not only the use of sound and cogent logic and a set of facts, it requires being on guard against emotional responses. This, I believe, is so important to living in the modern era of constant information and media consumption at our fingertips. Reading (or even participating in) arguments online is one thing I see a lot of. Tons of emotional responses with plenty of bias and assumptions being made. But those are pretty easy to avoid if you just don't get yourself involved and watch from the sidelines. Good arguments where both sides are participating in open discussion with facts, logic, and open minds are a pleasure. It's what drew me to HN years ago. What isn't easy to avoid (at least for me), is the propaganda being regurgitated by those around me. One side of my family is very deep into conspiracy thinking. They have zero trust for the media, other than a single outlet which they listen and watch every day. When I see this side of the family, I listen to what they have to say, but they don't seem to have any taste for logic, facts, or reasoning. Open discussion is off the table unless it caters to what they want to hear or already believe. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed and not believed. It seems to me like there is no way to get through to them, no way to open their minds, no way to propose viable alternatives to their thinking. How does one go about opening the minds of those already deeply influenced by propaganda? I have their trust, they still come to me and voice their ideas, however farfetched they may seem. Even if they know I don't believe them, they still open discussion with me. But I cannot seem to find a way to engage in their arguments while involving reasoning. p.s. This became a rant, but I do want to improve the communication between myself and this side of the family. I don't want to (and can't really) just cut them off, they are nice people that just happen to have some wild beliefs.

foolinaround 5y ago
> How does one go about opening the minds of those already deeply influenced by propaganda? I have their trust, they still come to me and voice their ideas, however farfetched they may seem. Even if they know I don't believe them, they still open discussion with me. But I cannot seem to find a way to engage in their arguments while involving reasoning. Maybe you can checkout their single source of information, and make them promise to checkout the other side too... Both will benefit from checking out alternate sources that opine opposite to our current biases. We will disagree with most of them, but then, one can basically find out what is factually true or not from a simple comparison, see which facts have been omitted in the reporting, and then make up their minds.

jb775 5y ago

Just need to turn on CNN or MSNBC right now for modern examples of propaganda. Don't think they really care about left or right, they use politics as a vehicle to keep the masses divided and therefore under control. It also shifts focus away from the growing class gap and how the upper classes are hoarding wealth.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
clairity 5y ago
or npr and nytimes, two outlets that especially harp on their "fact-based", "independent" reporting, but is as message-controlled as every other (e.g., covid fearmongering is still being peddled as hard as ever).

nimbius 5y ago

>All states essentially sell their Civil Religion (ours being one of liberty, equality, and capitalism in a two party system). This is normal. pretty painful trying to read the rest of the article after this as the author clearly sees certain kinds of propaganda as objective good.

bena 5y ago

I like how their description of "Refuting the central point" is "refuting the central point" without explicitly telling us how that is different from "Refutation". Also "Name Calling" is a form of "Ad Hominem". And why is "using quotes" higher up than "reasoning and supporting evidence"? Also, isn't the entire pyramid about the level of counter argument? So, contradiction is inherent in the process. It really seems like "Counteragrument", "Refutation", and "Refuting the central point" are all about the same thing. And if they are different then "Refutation" and "Counterargument" are ordered wrong. Because I think using reasoning and supporting evidence would be stronger than quotes. So, really, this pyramid could be like 4 layers. Ad-hominem, Tone Policing, Simple Contradiction, Counter Argument

dragontamer 5y ago
And yet, Ad Hominem is useful, especially since certain channels are clearly propaganda. Is it a shortcut? Yes. But as the blogpost points out, misinformation spreads far more quickly than truth. Its easier to shortcut and label certain outlets as propaganda channels, to help focus the discussion on the few channels which are reliable (Associated Press is good and neutral, and mainly factual)
- bena 5y ago
  Ad hominem is never useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the other side and tells me more about you. You don't like the other side. That's what I now know. And misinformation usually has one of the problems that would put it further down the pyramid than actual arguments. It's usually ad hominem or tone policing itself. Or sometimes just a straight up lie. And pointing out those elements would fall under Counter Argument. Not everything negative is ad hominem.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > You don't like the other side. That's what I now know. And that's very useful for establishing which sources we should rely upon in a shared discussion. My sister's husband was quoting Breitbart news to me. I let him know that I believed that was a propaganda channel. In many discussions, its very important to establish who is, or isn't, a trusted source of information. ------------- There are others who quote Elon Musk's tweets to me. Many of those tweets have no basis in reality IMO, so I let them know that I don't trust them, and I ask them for another source of information.

MikeUt 5y ago

> Selective truth: restrictive use of data or facts to sway opinion that might not be swayed if all the data or facts were given. This is usually interpreted as presenting only half of a story, but the more common and powerful use is in presenting the whole story, while simply ignoring unfavorable stories, and promoting favorable ones. Is a murder front-page news, or a footnote? Depends on the murder.

jollybean 5y ago
Selective Truth is the primary form of misinformation today. Respectable outlets have to generally tell the 'truth'. But - they can chose the stories they want to highlight, and leave out facts entirely. A neat example I like to use is the CBC's coverage of the 'trail of tears' story - which is the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous women from the 1960's to 2000, about 3000 went missing, somewhat higher than the norm. for Canada. What they never highlight in coverage, is that 1) about 8500 Aboriginal Men went missing during the same time and 2) that almost universally, the assailants in attacks against against Aboriginal Women are in fact, Aboriginal Men. When I bring up the facts, which I had to research myself - people seemed to be shocked and dismayed as though 'Men's deaths don't matter' - just because they happen to be a part of a group where others are committing violence, and, that somehow the fact that the violence seems to be entirely focused within the community is 'of no concern'. In reality, most CBC watchers (Canadians) would be enlightened by the fact 'even more' Aboriginal men are dying that they deserve our sympathy in that regard, and especially that the troubles are focused within the community which is incredibly relevant because it helps inform solutions. Imagine growing up and spending 25 years being exposed to '1/2 truths' like this? It's surprisingly more common than not in many media outlets covering anything remotely sensitive to the point where I've developed a 'Spidey Sense' and frankly spend only 1 minute on Google to uncover highly relevant facts that should have likely been included. I feel that this kind of thing is more important than the nature of propaganda highlighted in the article, because for the most part, classical propaganda is not nearly as common as those presenting a form of 'leaning bias' on sensitive issues. The Government isn't very good at most propaganda these days, and I think we all know that Corporate advertising is 'propaganda' at least by this definition. We are mostly not aware of how consistent the bias is in the press, and how narratives are created there, which is why maybe it deserves more scrutiny.

torpid 5y ago

Imagine thinking this... >"Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium) designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion rather than to inform using logical truths and facts. The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this generally isn’t what we are talking about when we use the term “propaganda” Then saying this... >Propaganda isn’t bad by its nature (after-all, almost any content that relays information can be considered a form of propaganda). What the fuck. No, any content that relays information is NOT a form of propaganda.

zinekeller 5y ago
> No, any content that relays information is NOT a form of propaganda. Except... that's the literal meaning of propaganda (it's literally Italian for "propagation"). It's only in the Cold War era (only relatively recently in the time-span of history) that "propaganda" have added that negative connotation.
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  Trying to spin a strict definition of propaganda to include all propagation of information is disingenuous, regardless of where the original word came from. And even then you're wrong, you have to go back much earlier to find the shift in definition of the term. The negative connotation that led to our modern definition originated in the French Revolution, not the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#cite_ref-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#cite_ref-13 > Academic Barbara Diggs-Brown conceives that the negative connotations of the term “propaganda” are associated with the earlier social and political transformations that occurred during the French Revolutionary period movement of 1789 to 1799 between the start and the middle portion of the 19th century, in a time where the word started to be used in a nonclerical and political context. Before the French Revolution the term was used by the Catholic church and was considered "an ancient and honorable term". https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-2-what-is-propaganda-(1944)/the-story-of-propaganda https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-hist... WWI & II made the modern definition we know today popular, but both the American and French revolution guided it there.

jhabdas 5y ago

Critical Race Theory is affecting both our children's education as well as the military. And the media is playing games right in front of our faces. Here's just one example: IO 26 - Interview with Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier, USAF on CRT in DoD, His Book Irresistible Revolution https://tv.gab.com/channel/creativedestructionmedia/view/io-26-interview-with-lt-6097245404a691ffb2188c26 https://tv.gab.com/channel/creativedestructionmedia/view/io-... Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier called out the social justice scam and paid for it with his job https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/matthew-lohmeier-called-out-the-social-justice-scam-and-paid-for-it-with-his-job https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/matthew-lohmeier-...

whydoibother 5y ago
CRT is the new 'cultural marxism' of the right. It is completely bogus scaremongering and propaganda.
- Fellshard 5y ago
  This claim you're repeating is pure gaslighting. There are /some/ who will just yell CRT regarding anything, yes, but there are more who actually read and see what the formal academic theory is, and reject it on that basis. To claim it does not exist is an abject lie.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    Define what CRT is please.
systemvoltage 5y ago
Progressive propaganda is insidious not just in schools, but big tech, social media, at NASA and the military, virtue signaling at every opportunity. Completely unchecked and uncontested. I’m fine with the motifs, but what’s not acceptable is inability to criticize aspects of it without people calling you names and gaining moral superiority over you. It alienates people and is dangerous for the society. I have a deep philosophical opposition to progressive causes and it’s not stemming from the issues themselves, but the simple fact of mob mentality and unable to listen to all sides. No, all sides doesn’t mean listening to bigoted and unsubstantiated nonsense, but ones who have good points to make and we silence them. Fuck everything about this. I have voted for liberal causes my whole life (a couple of local exceptions), but it’s getting harder to get behind liberal party for me. It’s a bunch of propaganda in my eyes. Convince me otherwise.

kaycebasques 5y ago

(Tangential) I'm in Brazil [1] for the first time and was intrigued to learn that the word for "advertising" is "propaganda". Of course anyone who has read Edward Bernays or seen Century of the Self will know the connection, but interesting nonetheless! [1] I also learned that they spell it "Brasil" here.

narrator 5y ago

The most annoying common form of propaganda is the association fallacy, which is a more subtle form of the ad hominem fallacy [1]. It works like this: A. You believe X. B. A crazy person also believes/believed X. C. You are a crazy person. D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me why being a crazy person is ok. Why do you support doing crazy people things like being a serial killer? Example: A. You are against cigarette smoking. B. The Nazis were also against cigarette smoking[2]. C. Therefore you are a Nazi. D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me why being a Nazi is ok. Why do you support anti-semitism? This is by far the most common bullshit argument I get when talking with people about controversial topics. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... [2]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_Cancer https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_C...

narrator 5y ago
Just a little side note to this. You can tell a big propaganda push is coming when the news reports. Police are saying that person who is obviously crazy and did <bad thing> also happened to believe in X. Coming up. A special report where we look at all the crazy people who believe X. Did <historical bad guy> believe in X? Find out next as we explore history. Should the statue of historical person be removed because he believed X? And so on and so forth.
jollybean 5y ago
That's extremely common, and used viciously in pop culture typically to demonize someone not sufficiently radical enough on an issue. But it's not really propaganda.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

motohagiography 5y ago

Have read some of the source materials on the propaganda they talk about, and what I've found it comes down to is criticism of the nonsense is basically a tarpit. The bit about Putin's propaganda guy is super interesting, as what he's doing makes complete sense within other frameworks. The advantage these propagandists have is they believe one simple thing and it's very easy to signal, operationalize, and organize around. It's basically nihilism. The article does get a couple things wrong e.g.: > Big Lie: Using a complex array of events to justify an action or narrative. What you do is take a carefully selected collection of truths, lies, and half-truths that all seem to tell a story (which is actually revised history) and use them to construct a story that eventually supplants the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events. The Big Lie tactic is (as I remember reading in Cialdini, maybe?) something necessarily absurd like Kim Jong Il hitting 11 consecutive hole-in-one shots on a golf course, where if you can't contain your disgust at how absurd that sounds, and you have some sense of self where it is offensive for you to believe it, you mark yourself out for isolation and attack. The Big Lie is primarily a tactic to get people to react, and the people whose identities are still anchored to truth are potential resistance leaders, so this lets them paint themselves as targets. It's also called a "wedge issue," and is the complementary tactic to dogwhistles and watchwords. It is also close to a "scissor statement," which is a statement that only has polarized and opposing interpretations. (HN thread on scissor statements: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190508) There are also some standard sales and negotiation tactics thrown in there, and oddly, some of their own tactics to create a slant are written into it. However, the goal of a propagandist is to hold your attention and it doesn't matter what you actually think, because as long as the propagandist has your attention, you are passified by their noise and not acting against them or in your own interest. Arguing the logic or principles? Engaged. Outraged? Engaged. Have a side? Engaged. Ditched family and friends over politics? Engaged. The job of a propagandist is to manage your attention and make the stories you tell yourself the ones they taught you, they don't actually care what you think, only that above all you do nothing, and so small squads of less than 10 people at a time can seem to control entire cities. The best filter against propaganda is attitude. The question, "how do I benefit if they are wrong?" goes a long way to establishing the necessary personal boundaries that keep you from spending too much time mesmerized. Having an axiomatic truth as a co-ordinate or waypoint for who you are prevents you from being completely submerged by narrative. Deflecting arguments helps as well because they are mainly bait for a tarpit, and as Dale Carnigie said, "nobody wins an argument." If your reaction to something is angry or excitable, you are downstream of someone trying to get inside your head. Anyway, it's a good and important article on a pet topic, so my advice for dealing with propaganda is: it's your attention they want, only ever give it on your own terms.

nrjames 5y ago

On a similar note, the FBI's Elicitation brochure is a good overview of how people may attempt to convince you to reveal confidential information: https://ucr.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/elicitation-brochure https://ucr.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/elicitat...

andyxor 5y ago

Outdated, the US Democrats raised the bar with their spectacular propaganda campaign leading to the 2020 elections.

pacerwpg 5y ago
I would say the alternate reality that the Republican Party is living in is the gold standard for propaganda. That's not to say that Democrats don't use propaganda, but Democratic Party propaganda at least shares a reality with the rest of the country and world and isn't in the process of manufacturing an entirely different reality.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I think this perception of alternate realities is something the Democrats are actually encouraging. It makes perfect political sense to cast the opposition party as completely out of touch with reality. It also perfectly complements the existing sentiment of "reality has a well known liberal bias".
  - pacerwpg 5y ago
    Ask Republicans who won the election, and tell me it's something Democrats are doing.
    - bsagdiyev 5y ago
      That’s a stereotype. I tend red sometimes, but have no question who won the election. Maybe the issue is you see things that way due to what you see in the media and are told instead of from actual interactions with people from opposing viewpoints?
      - pacerwpg 5y ago
        I would say I get that impression from the continued strong support for the former president, who is arguably still the leader of the party, and his insistence that the election was stolen. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news_and_polls/over-half-republicans-believe-donald-trump-actual-president-united-states https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news_and_polls/over-half-republi...

wolverine876 5y ago

> The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this generally isn’t what we are talking about when we use the term “propaganda”). My understanding is that experts consider the aim of propaganda to be confusing and paralyzing the enemy, preventing effective communication, debate and decision-making. For example, after 2016, the widespread, hyper-inflammatory trolling and attacks prevented the discussion of politics. Many forums I know, including HN to an extent, simply banned it. To this day, many issues are very difficult to discuss (e.g., Trump, racism, etc.); you can't share information, discuss things, because the discussions seem to blow up (and even mentioning that those issues exist might provoke something here - please don't). That's effective propaganda. It's not clear to me that the author has real knowledge of propaganda beyond their own observations and theories. There is a lot of better research and knowledge out there.

froh 5y ago
interesting! do you have a good entry point into said better research and knowledge?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Ah, I dreaded this question. Not at my fingertips. I would look up a university curriculum. Here is something I do have at my fingertips: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ijoc-political-communication-computational-propaganda-and-autonomous-agents-introduction-2/ https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ijoc-political-communication-comput...
  - froh 5y ago
    "this page has gone awol" aka 404 :-/ bummer.

ttctciyf 5y ago

It's a topic that's never been so relevant, IMO, because of the unprecedented scale at which the propaganda industries (AKA PR/"Think Tanks"/"Dark Money"/Outreach programs/"Strategic Communications", etc.) now operate. For insight into how it works, I prefer the more systematic approach of "Propaganda Principles"[1] to the linked site, however. https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/propaganda-techniques/ https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/propaganda-techni...

ergot_vacation 5y ago

This article misses the two most important bits of info in understanding propaganda, and how people work. 1. Most effective communication is "propaganda" As outlined in "Thinking Fast and Slow" (and in numerous other places), there are two ways of thinking: the quick instinctive "gut," and the slow, considered, logical mind. People, especially the kind of people that read HN, tend to deify the latter and villainize the former, but the truth is both have value. Furthermore, the "gut" actually has MORE value overall, since being able to sit down and carefully consider every aspect of a situation or concept is a luxury that is often impractical. "Propaganda" is simply anything that speaks to this instinctive mind. Sales is propaganda. Dating/pursuing someone is propaganda. Trying to get a child to calm down when they're afraid or angry is propaganda. People sneer at making "emotional appeals" and appealing to "base instincts," but the reality is that humans spend most of their time living in world of emotion and instinct, not fact. Speaking to the instinctive mind is a more effective way to persuade someone, because the instinctive mind has more power in most people. That doesn't make it inherently bad. Talking directly to a person's "gut" is simple effective communication, which can be used for good or bad end. 2. Logic is a luxury, not a silver bullet Almost every discussion of this topic inevitably frames it the same way: there are dark, sinister forces using "propaganda" to manipulate the vulnerable, and we must fight back by teaching people to think logically! Elevate yourself above base instinct, see everything with the cool remove of a Vulcan, and you will triumph, in yourself, and in winning arguments with others. The reality is that the world, and people, don't work like this. Logic, reason and facts are not trump cards. Quite the opposite: they require a cool, friendly and reserved setting to work, and are thus mostly useless in any situation other than one between friends that mutually respect and understand each other. The language of most of humanity, most of the time, is "propaganda," ie an appeal to instinct. Victory doesn't lie in trying to stomp this out like a Victorian trying to purge their sex drive, but rather in accepting it, understanding it, in yourself and others, and learning to speak in its language. Careful rational thinking is great, we wouldn't have all the advancements we do without it. But most people don't spend their free time reading research papers. They watch movies or TV, or play video games. Some even still read books. Stop treating "propaganda" as a dark tool of the evil one. Bad guys use what works, and speaking to instinct works. If you want to fight them (and more importantly, to just lead a richer life) learn to do the same.

proverbialbunny 5y ago

After WW2 propaganda got a bit of a bad name for itself so it renamed itself public relations. Anything that talks about propaganda and not PR is out of date, but still valid.

fartcannon 5y ago

Propaganda is defeated by shedding light on it. It requires constant vigilance. One of the problems with HN (don't hate me Dang) is that we aren't permitted to call out propaganda as this article suggests we do. It all happens behind the scenes and as a result, its inherently unseen. It needs to be seen. We almost needs a wall of shame for groups/orgs caught engaging in PR.

jl2718 5y ago

I found this to be quite useless for understanding modern propaganda efforts. Mostly this is just telling subjects of propaganda that they are dumb, and they should be less dumb. As usual, this view on other people is incorrect. A proper treatment of actual propaganda efforts, as it is widely practiced, would not be allowed on this site. Many books have been written about ‘influence’ and other soft power methods. They are a waste of time. In the real world, consent is manufactured by prescribing rewards and punishments. It’s entirely behavioral. Examples abound. Think of everything you ‘know’, which you have examined zero primary source evidence of, but would have failed a primary school class if you didn’t ‘know’ it. This continues well into adult life and work. The actual truth, or even the actual attitudes and beliefs, are irrelevant. Behavioral consent methods work flawlessly without any requirement to convince the subject. This is the real secret of propaganda. It’s all you need to know. It works because you don’t have a choice.