Tactics for a divisive America

[shelby]

www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678

OK take fox out of it and this applies across the board to a degree, I do see this more on the right even here on this board. So anyone want to admit to succumbing to these tactics?

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...fwiw, I don't see it as happening more or less on any given side, imo... but how would we go about determining who is more singular or successful with their tactics, to be able to come up with a head count?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> 10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults. <<<

...and just curious, is #10 a problem when you're simply identifying yourself as a Christian? ...for example, if someone feels challenged by the fact that I may follow a particular faith, how is that my fault?

...so many of these are basic debate/discussion tactics, that it's kinda hard to categorize them as a partisan's ploy, you know?

[shelby]

I am not asking for a head count just awareness of such tactics that derail discussions from reality and critical thought. I am sure I am guilty as well.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...well, I guess the phrase "head count" counts insofar as we are determining if one political persuasion is more prolific in their use of debate tactics such as these...

...but again, I'm wondering that since they're so basic, that it would be difficult to attribute the greater use of any of these to one 'side'?

...and, imo, if you're "guilty" of using any of these, doesn't that just mean you're talented in debate tactics? ;D

[shelby]

#10 is very interesting indeed again it does nothing but diminish and marginalize those who do not follow the christian faith as having no voice or credibilty in a discussion or policy decision. Nobody is saying you are not american because you believe in god/jesus what ever but if you don't then you are not american or worthy or whatever...seems envoking god to be on your side only is a fear of being challenged.

"God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral"

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 13:00:56 GMT -5 shelby said:

#10 is very interesting indeed again it does nothing but diminish and marginalize those who do not follow the christian faith as having no voice or credibilty in a discussion or policy decision. Nobody is saying you are not american because you believe in god/jesus what ever but if you don't then you are not american or worthy or whatever...seems envoking god to be on your side only is a fear of being challenged.

"God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral"

...I agree that #10 is interesting, but I'd disagree with you in that some faith systems would exclude "Americanism" by their own teachings... so while we (via the US constitution) provide for freedom of religion, we should not tolerate encroachment by a religion, correct?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I thought diversion was when Bill Clinton denied everything he was accused of and then proclaimed he had to go back to work for the American people, or when Anthony Weiner said his misdeeds were the result of a hacker, and said he had to get back to the work of the people? I dunno. It could just be me, but my ears perk up whenever I hear something is a "distraction" and "we" need to "move foward" or "I need to get back to work..." and it's almost always a Democrat trying desperately to say, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The great and powerful Oz has spoken."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "the earth is warming", "the polar ice caps are melting", "baby polar bears are dying", "greenhouse gas emissions are causing global temperatures to rise"...

[privateinvestor]

So anyone want to admit to succumbing to these tactics?

Yes I plead guilty and used each one of them repeatedly when I was an MSN Moderator a few years ago...and members back then will testify that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God...in case you are interested..??

My favorite was #7 "Bullying" or "my way or the highway"..and very good at #14 diversion or divide and conquer

P.I. (MSN Moderator ret*)





* = retired and NOT retarded as some have implied..

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 13:35:44 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

So anyone want to admit to succumbing to these tactics?

...good use of being repetitve...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...and, fwiw, I think I'd like to be more guilty of these tactics, since it means I'd be a more talented debater... ;D

[Deleted]

Fox is COMPLETELY FAIR. Oh sure they only show conservative views but then they balance out (somewhat) the liberal views of all the other news services. I find it interesting that liberals are so bugged by the one news service that doesn't share their views. I guess that liberals have studied history & know that to control a society you really need to control propaganda 100%. Don't let it worry you though. When you guys totally take over you can ship off all the people that work for Fox to upper Alaska. It worked for the Russians.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

4. Rewriting History. "The Great Depression was caused by Hoover's "Laizee Faire" economic policies" (It was caused largely by Hoover's big government meddling, especially the global trade war sparked by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tarriff); "Roosevelt's 'New Deal' got us out of the Great Depression" (FDR doubled down on Hoover's disasterous policies and uncertainty due to the massive expansion of government and introduction of massive new taxes and regulatory regimes delayed the recovery for a decade); or "The budget deficit ballooned under Ronald Reagan" (Other than Ronald Reagan, only Bill Clinton (with the aid of a conservative Republican Congress, the first Republican Congress in over 40 years, led by Newt Gingrich) spent less. (Barrack Obama, with the aide of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate have been the most prodigious spenders in American history-- spending more than all of their predecessors COMBINED). The collapse of the housing market, and the financial crisis of 2008 was the result of Republican 'de-regulation' of the financial markets (In reality, the housing market collapse and the financial market meltdown of 2008 was the result of big government from start to finish, beginning to end, top to bottom, and inside out. It was the result of social engineering through the CRA which forced lenders to make loans to people that could not afford to pay them back, it was the reslut of crony capitalism at Fannie and Freddie and the disasterous decision by those institutions to start backing "sub-prime" mortgages using taxpayer money).

I could go on, but I believe the point has been made.

[privateinvestor]

Being repetitive is sometimes necessary to hammer home your point of view

[privateinvestor]

Rewriting History

That is a piece of cake all you have to do is repost old history and change the wording to support your argument..and if caught then deny, deny, deny, and then deny some more..or as a last resort delete everything and move on..


Hope I am not setting a bad example for all the new Mods here..

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 3, 2011 13:43:57 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Being repetitive is sometimes necessary to hammer home your point of view

Or when your opponent is especially slow, hard headed, stubborn, prideful, or in the case of liberals-- all those things...

[privateinvestor]

Jul 3, 2011 13:49:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 3, 2011 13:43:57 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Being repetitive is sometimes necessary to hammer home your point of view

Or when your opponent is especially slow, hard headed, stubborn, prideful, or in the case of liberals-- all those things...

In that case I would just give him or her a few days of unpaid vacation and tell them to come back when they were ready to agree with everything that I said..

Or you can just ignore the slow , hard headed, stubborn, prideful or in the case of liberals ..all those things..that still works OK for me now..in case you haven't noticed..

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.
*************************************************************

Or, you attended a church led by a hate-filled, America-hating, racist, anti-semetic nutbag, who is the man you claim led you to Christ and became your "spiritual father", mentor, and guide and you remained in that church for 22 years, named your book, "The Audacity of Hope" after the title of one of his sermons-- a sermon you'll deny ever hearing later on, and only saw fit to distance yourself from that man when it became obvious he was a political liability when you started campaigning for the presidency- a campaign started in the Hyde Park living room of an unrepentant terrorist who is fond of proclaiming, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is great!".

The connections aren't distant. And they're not by "association". Obama is one of them- a kindred spirit with George Soros, William Ayers, Reverend Wright, and the whole band of far left radicals and lunatics.

[shelby]

Jul 3, 2011 13:42:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

4. Rewriting History. "The Great Depression was caused by Hoover's "Laizee Faire" economic policies" (It was caused largely by Hoover's big government meddling, especially the global trade war sparked by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tarriff); "Roosevelt's 'New Deal' got us out of the Great Depression" (FDR doubled down on Hoover's disasterous policies and uncertainty due to the massive expansion of government and introduction of massive new taxes and regulatory regimes delayed the recovery for a decade); or "The budget deficit ballooned under Ronald Reagan" (Other than Ronald Reagan, only Bill Clinton (with the aid of a conservative Republican Congress, the first Republican Congress in over 40 years, led by Newt Gingrich) spent less. (Barrack Obama, with the aide of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate have been the most prodigious spenders in American history-- spending more than all of their predecessors COMBINED). The collapse of the housing market, and the financial crisis of 2008 was the result of Republican 'de-regulation' of the financial markets (In reality, the housing market collapse and the financial market meltdown of 2008 was the result of big government from start to finish, beginning to end, top to bottom, and inside out. It was the result of social engineering through the CRA which forced lenders to make loans to people that could not afford to pay them back, it was the reslut of crony capitalism at Fannie and Freddie and the disasterous decision by those institutions to start backing "sub-prime" mortgages using taxpayer money).

I could go on, but I believe the point has been made.

None of those things are revisions to history and could easily be debated as to their accuracy or inaccuracy.... Especially the housing market how you could deny de-regulation as not one of the biggest contributors is not very honest. Really ALL big government after which you admitted to deregulation prior to these events. CRA could not force lenders to make these types of loans they were engineered on wall street for insane profits by wall street. They had no friggin idea what they were doing but only knew big profits and a disasterous ending as a result of lack of oversight, none of which would be considered big government.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

You see it more on the right huh? My guess is that you aren't looking very closely on the left then.

[shelby]

Jul 4, 2011 6:51:06 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Especially the housing market how you could deny de-regulation as not one of the biggest contributors is not very honest.

One can also not deny that buying more house than you can afford, and having it repossessed isn't exactly a good example of "personal responsibility" either.

Yes because I ever said that or even thought that right? Or are you trying to get a firm grip on the obvious...I'm gonna put this post as #2 and #14 from the list.