FACEBOOK
TWITTER
VT STAFF: THE MICRO-GUIDE TO SPOTTING PROPAGANDA
Listening to the frenzied accusations of “disinformation”, “shill”, “stooge”, “cointelpro”, “propagandist” that activists and journalists are wont to hurl at each other, I decided to jot down some of the markers that set off my BS detector.
Obviously, these are only very rough indicators and due diligence is also needed. But off the top of my head here are some things that will help you figure out whether a writer is reliable or not.
1. Look at the writer’s track-record. With so much writing now on the web, it’s easy to research a writer and find out where they were standing on issues years ago. How does their performance stack up? You don’t need Nostradamus, but the conclusions of a good writer/researcher will tend to be borne out most of the time. If someone had told you in 2003 that the Iraq war was going to be a cake-walk, had told you in 2006 to buy a bigger house for less money down, and encouraged you to sell gold short in 2009, you might be forgiven if, in 2010, you’d come to suspect his intelligence or motives…or both.
2. Look for details that you know about and see if the writer is accurate. If she isn’t and there is no good reason, then be wary. What’s a good reason? Well, if a Scottish writer isn’t a Sinologist and doesn’t pretend to be one, a mistake about Chinese history can be put down to error. If he is a Sinologist, then he should know better. If it is a one time mistake or a very minor one, put it down to sloppiness or human error. If it’s big and repeated, it’s not an error. It’s a sign of incompetence or disinformation.
3. Suspect cuing and stage- whispers. When everyone in the blogosphere points you to certain sources over and over, be cautious. Sometimes, it’s only a well-meaning attempt to help the public. Mostly, however, it’s a way to control the debate. New and interesting research/analysis pops up all the time, from all sorts of people. Even alternative voices shouldn’t be set up as final authorities. I am especially suspicious when mainstream sources like the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post point to certain bloggers as more reliable. These are efforts to co-opt or channel genuinely free, popular debates.
4. Follow writers for a while, before you make up your mind. Making up your mind about the reliability of a source from one article is not only silly, it’s impossible. You need to read writers consistently for a long time on many different issues before you can assess their reliability. You should read as much as you can by a writer before coming to a judgment. Even then, it’s always wise to hold off dismissing someone entirely or buying into them completely.
5. Realize that there are constraints on everyone who writes publicly. There is no such thing as perfectly open or transparent writing. Sometimes writers don’t touch on certain topics because they might distract, not because they are “covering up.” Or they might fear libel suits. Or they might feel they don’t know enough to comment. Or they might think they aren’t the right people to comment. An immigrant might feel diffident about discussing questions about national security. A heterosexual male might not want to corner a debate on female experiences of rape. Some writers won’t touch material that is controversial not because they are careerists, but because they have family members who might be vulnerable to harassment. Give people a break. Put yourself in their shoes – how much would you write if someone was threatening you or blackmailing you or warning you you’d lose your job?
6. Pay attention to style and tone. Credible sources rely on logic, reason, facts and evidence. They are likely to be cautious in interpreting events until they have researched them personally. If they are passionate, it is genuine emotion, not cheap rhetoric, personal attacks and vulgarities. When confronted with a mistake, they are reasonable enough to acknowledge it and make corrections or retractions. They compare and evaluate their sources and admit when they don’t know something. They apologize, if necessary. They tend to be personally polite, even if they are critical or sharp in their general tone. Denunciation of monetary policy is not the same thing as calling someone a buffoon and a liar because he disagrees with your way of thinking.
7. Study the main logical fallacies (red herrings, straw men, hasty generalizations – you know, all the stuff in English 101) and check whether a writer is prone to making them or not. Repeated use of ad hominem is one of the surest signs of a propagandist. However, make sure you know the difference between ad hominem and criticism that is warranted and related to the target’s professional conduct. If you don’t know the difference, study and find out.
You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned anything about credentials, prizes, fame, peer recognition, or publishing record. This isn’t because I think those things are irrelevant. But I don’t any more think they are good guides to a source’s reliability. There are well-credentialed people who are reliable and there are people who have no recognizable credentials who are. There are prize-winning highly-paid journalists who are great. And there are unpaid bloggers who are too.
As for peer review. Some of the best information comes to writers in the form of anonymous links and tips. Or on forums that the mainstream won’t touch with a barge-pole. Or from insiders who don’t want their names in the press. Even scholars work in herds.
8. Check your gut reaction. Truth-telling on controversial matters is usually a lonely business or done with only the company of other loners. Once the crowd gets in on the act, even the best popular movements go awry. The reason is most people automatically tailor their thoughts to please others. It’s part of man’s inherently social nature. White lies are natural to even the best of us. And when we’re not lying to others, we’re busy soothing our egos with more lies.
And that’s why the most important tip I can give you is one that doesn’t even have to do with other people. It’s to do with yourself.
It is simple. Look inside and do some truth-telling there as well.
The more honest and truthful you are, the more you will recognize it in others.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=71103
Posted by Veterans Today on Jan 4 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
[...] the original article at Veterans Today [...]
I wonder why public schools do not include as a basic part of their curriculum the logical rules of inference and say: The top 10 logical fallacies.
Critical thinking would seem to be a good thing, but as you suggest those who would spout propaganda seem to believe that propaganda works well.
Do you really wonder why, or are you being rhetorical?
There are no public schools; there are government schools. National Public Radio is National Government Radio. Public Broadcasting System is Government Broadcasting System.
The term “public” has become a misnomer. Streets and sidewalks and parks are not public property; they are government property. It’s not just that one has to apply for a permit for a parade or a demonstration or other gathering; it’s also that the government can deny the application.
Governments demand obedience; critical thinking, an inherently subversive activity, is the last thing that they want young people to learn.
If we had public schools, rather than government indoctrination centers, then there would have been no reason for Lila to have written her article.
Michael,
Adolph Hitler learned early in his career that if one tells the same lie often enough, it becomes a reality for the general audience.
Further, critical thinking is only as good as the premises the critical thinker is using.
Outstanding post Lila, and good comments by both Leon and foo.
T.V.
Mike,
I wonder why public schools do not include as a basic part of their curriculum study of Henry Ford?
The DEFAMATION LEAGUE HAS BEEN “ON HIM” MOST SCHOLARS ARE UNAWARE OF HIS IMPORTANCE.
In the spy biz, they have deep cover. In the Defamation biz they have DEEP DEFAMATION.
Sorry for getting a little off topic!
Mike
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MIP on SIR146/XM167, Veterans Today and Veterans Today, Veterans Today. Veterans Today said: New post: The Micro-Guide To Spotting Propaganda http://bit.ly/e6pTwB [...]
“Idiots guide to 9-11 debunking”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqn2stlnKiY
[...] the original article at Veterans Today [...]
Lila,
Good article and topic,
My experience relates to the development of technical papers, proposals, and manuals, many of which are not public. I understand the challenges in presenting written information and the skills required to influence the reader, to continue reading.
While working around the globe, many younger professionals would request assistance for some ways to express themselves in pursuit of their objectives.
I would suggest they send an introduction letter to this person of interest stating their desires, and using a simple method. Make certain the letter is simple and concise, no more then three paragraphs, where first is to elevate the reader so they feel good about themselves, and second to slowly bring yourself to their level, and thirdly how relationship can be mutually beneficial. Simply elevate the reader, yourself to them, and thereafter the mutual relationship.
Simple but complex, when less must represent more
Anyone, thanks for the information.
@Michael Leon
Even private schools these days don’t use the extended essay much where good argumentation is needed.
@Texas Vet
thanks
@foo
completely true…
@OS I am going to try that…..that’s a great approach
Excellent essay Lila. Thank You! No argument with you, but one comment. It is sad a truth teller has to pull punches because of fear of personal harm to ones self and family.
Even poor Norman Finkelstein has to wonder if THEY put a little cadmium chloride in his matzo balls which THEY also used to “season” Bin Laden’s humus.
Most coroners in America will rule out cadmium chloride because it is an uncommon form of poisoning.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act and the penalty is death for certain offenses against the TRIBE. The penalty for reading the Talmud is death according to several sources. Is that correct?
Are there any similar penalties for reading the New Testament?
Mike
[...] Lila Rajiva / Veterans Today — Listening to the frenzied accusations of “disinformation”, “shill”, “stooge”, [...]
And to spot a paid Israeli blogger, just look for the words “idiot”, “moron” and “anti-semite”.
Don’t forget “Nazi”
and Bigot….
and Islamic Terrorist
[...] January 4, 2011 posted by Lila Rajiva · 16 Comments [...]