Counter Anti-democracy!

Inscription to The First Amendment of The U.S. Constitution, in Front of Independence Hall, Philadelphia 

by Robin Klein is licensed under Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 Generic {{PD-author}}

"Things would be better if people took an interest in local politics..."[1]

– Bertrand Russell, 1952

Democratic societies have a spotty record of containing or sufficiently dealing with the propaganda that autocrats and aspiring autocrats use, especially domestically. Yet, as noted previously on this blog, united worldwide through invisible links stronger than titanium are people who want to live in a genuine democracy. Regardless of local or national differences, we agree on the value of freedom.

Fully effective propaganda degrades and then destroys the freedoms needed for the participation and cooperation that are foundations of democratic societies. Propaganda perverts the public agenda–especially since it "has always been understood to involve bribes and threats of physical coercion as well as linguistic-based deceptions."[2] But the aberrant outrage or deeds that local dupes parrot from their autocratic, foreign collaborators appear oddly in the "silly seasons" of continuous electioneering–and are readily deflected through prebunking. 

Some government responses, especially to foreign propaganda, can be very effective. For example, prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the early and repeated release of declassified military intelligence by the United States had real value[3] to blunt the propaganda that came soon after from the invader. The declassified intelligence set a context for people globally to understand the invasion, the war itself, and the propaganda of the invader. And this provided context on a well-documented, so-called "strongman"[4] who obtained and sustains power through pre-emptive bluff, persuasion, and intimidation.

Speaking Out 

Our speaking up freely and well offers the simple dialogue required to advance the common good. Anything less is just lip-service to democracy. Jacques Ellul foreshadows that propaganda in a society paying lip-service to a democratic creed creates a people who are suited to a totalitarian society, because they cling to clear certainties.[5] Yet the respect for freedoms of thought, speech, and association in liberal democracies opens many pathways for those seeking to deny freedoms–enabling grifters, charlatans, pretenders, and others to compete alongside the genuine to increasingly undermine the values, laws, practices, norms, or other guardrails of democracy.

For example, so-called populism in the United States inclines "towards anti-democratic ends."[6] For now, the blueprint for destroying checks and balances on power and abusing political power is to deploy formally legal procedures to pervert the Constitution and other laws, undermine elections, and delay accountability–while trying to give an impression that "nothing illegal is going on...[maintaining]...a veneer of democracy and legality."[7]

Norms of politeness, civility, or other values present in a democracy too often inhibit the media, elected representatives, and many citizens from even calling a lie what it is. Ellul observes that propaganda suppresses "...liberal democracy, after which we are no longer dealing with votes or the people's sovereignty."[8] Consequently, liberal governments are confronted with the dilemma that using propaganda to deal with propaganda can erode the basis of democratic government. As Randal Marlin notes, Ellul pointed out the need for:

...liberal government to offset seditious ideas from within the state or... [use] ...propaganda to offset other states seeking conquest over one's own state. But he recognizes that once a state begins to engage seriously in propaganda, it erodes its own claim to being liberal.[9]

Reputable outlines of propaganda warn of this inherent danger, regardless of whether the propagandist's purpose is to "injure" or to "further" a cause, and regardless of whether the cause is for a common good. At times though, democratic leaders appear frozen and overly concerned about potential for backlash to take needed action.

Legacies of Control

The challenge to sustain independent thought and actions against a propagandist is not new. Propaganda is "present in human history as early as the formation of the first states."[10] From the earliest recorded uses, propaganda has helped autocrats to "convince subordinates of their connection to gods and local mythologies."[11] Through ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Mayan civilizations, visual propaganda is recorded. Alexander the Great (356 BC - 323 BC) "is considered...an ancient master of propaganda."[12] He was long thought to be the first to see propaganda as a powerful way to reinforce "cohesion and control" over people and to continuously reinforce "just where the center of power resided."[13]

Likewise in ancient Rome, for more than a decade Augustus (63 BC - AD 14) consolidated his rule largely free from conflict as first emperor, in part by self-promoting and boosting his following via a wide range of propaganda, including literature, statues, monuments, and coins. Until the close of the eighteenth century, autocrats sustained a long period of anti-democratic rule globally through coercion and propaganda.

To Sustain Democracy

In the twentieth century, an explosion in mass media amplified the effectiveness of the propaganda of dictators, who engineered the fall of modern democracies through two world wars and continuous conflicts since. These events stimulated efforts to understand and deal with propaganda. In the 1930s in the United States, with:

...the global rise of fascist regimes who were beaming propaganda across the world...scholars and journalists were struggling to understand how people could fall for lies and overblown rhetoric.[14]

With the founding of the United States at the close of the eighteenth century, its Constitution established a Republic governed by freely elected representatives of the people. Its people are committed through The First Amendment to protect freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition to the Government for redress of grievances. Americans construe "the term democracy as a shorthand for liberal democracy," apparently finding consistency in definition at least.[15] 

Yet democracy itself will always remain a contested concept.[16] The scale of modern government, the roles of party whips or lobbyists, the growth of bureaucracy, and continuous media amplification of propaganda all challenge how "individual citizens can make their voices heard"[17] Noam Chomsky is hardly alone in believing that a:

truly democratic community is one in which the general public has the opportunity for meaningful and constructive participation in the formation of social policy: in their own immediate community, in the workplace, and in the society at large.[18]

Independent people will push back against false promises or any threats to freedoms.

Being First

Propaganda efforts commence long before most people realize. Drawing on people's cultural values and social assumptions, the propagandist first conditions us with a long period of pre-propaganda.[19] This involves months or more of patient activity. In this phase, the propagandist might be barely noticed at first, stepping into occasional news of daily events–building a presence and increasing a following. 

During this time, the propagandist's commentary will ordinarily be contrarian in praise or correction of selected people, events, or initiatives. Sometimes, early signs of being under the sway of a foreign "strongman" will occur, such as by making an odd response publicly to a softball question from a foreign adversary's representative. But the more bizarre the commentary, the more it is amplified in the media. Unchallenged, these efforts gradually establish so-called new thinking. The effect is to stimulate reappraisal of individual or social values and norms.[20] A stream of contrarian commentary increases perception of a propagandist as an "influencer" whom followers look to.

This long pre-propaganda phase enhances name-recognition, gathers followers, and starts to frame the public agenda, while establishing habits in the media to falsely amplify the significance of the propagandist. Failure to push back in this phase makes resistance ever more problematic. Prejudices strengthened in people in the absence of prebunking or debunking[21] are very resistant to change. Regrettably, by the time any effective response is made, if at all, much damage is done. Whether during initial efforts or later, pre-emptive detection and dismantling of what's going on is vital.

Typical "Tells"

A propagandist attacking democracy is easily detected when you know what to look for. Some personal features, not often noted, are the valuable "tells" described by Philip Collins.[22] He observes in Adolf Hitler's speaking and propaganda some features that are eerily present in the manner and language of today's demagogues. The "signature emotion of a Hitler speech is anger," with "tells" that he was, in his own words, "accustomed to strike back at any attacker" and firmly believed "that leniency will not succeed in appeasing."[23] At a closer language level, Hitler often claimed that no one compared to himself had "done as much... in the service of..."[24] some cause.

Another common "tell" of autocrats is self-indulging how poorly-done-by they and their followers are, especially by the media not loving them–with autocrats seeming to be forever angry.[25] And their utopia ordinarily requires returning to a mythically better past; apparently unable to show us a better future, much less to do so with humor. When such "tells" occur repeatedly, these can serve as red flags to signal both the presence and the obsessions of an autocrat. Apparently, this is all in every day's "work" for this self-dealing person.

Agitation and Integration

The transition from the pre-propaganda phase mobilizes propaganda of agitation and integration[26] to carry efforts forward. To disrupt and destabilize our comfort with norms that we value, a propagandist might bleat claims about supposed social ills causing "carnage" or foretell an apparently endless variety of apocalyptic futures. 

Within these agitation efforts, or soon afterwards, it's inferred or asserted that the imagined ills can only be remedied by the propagandist–if only those listening will align with the propagandist! Increasingly, threats of violence amplify illusions of power. And the ordinarily unchallenged presumption of power delays accountability, denying the effectiveness of the legal procedures required to sustain democratic government. This also enables public displays of supposed victimhood, with which a base of supporters readily identifies–touching off their further "intoxication" through echoes of earlier propaganda claims.

Memes, aphorisms, platitudes, or catch cries are intensified to megaphone the supposed "values" of the propagandist, or seek unity against a presumed enemy, or promote the idyllic value of a some never delivered utopia. Over time, countless combinations of tough and sweet talk[27] will cajole or comfort, tapping basic desires or wants in people. Ellul also describes both vertical, top-down propaganda of a leader, as well as horizontal propaganda which is used inside a large group or organization of people.[28] He details how different types of propaganda function, including rational and irrational propaganda.[29] In Ellul's time at least, propaganda that is disconnected from facts or is "violent, excessive, shock-provoking" was ultimately less convincing to stimulate participation.[30]

It's often best just to assume such a propagandist is a weird person, driven by self-interest to develop skills in self-preservation from probably a very early age via a distorted commitment to being right and trying to win at everything–by whatever means–including into adult life through threats, bluff, and remarkably protracted gaming of the legal system. The continuous propaganda is largely targeted to reinforce the beliefs of supporters, appeal to potential swing voters, and bait opponents. These are three priorities to counter vigorously.

Dismantle Anti-democracy

It is important to counter anti-democratic discourse that erodes key truths of democratic society, or blocks free thought, speech, and association, or that people find threatening. Domestic and foreign bad actors routinely advance mutually reinforcing disinformation that contaminates public debates to promote "hateful narratives...Existing conflicts in society may be artificially increased in order to destabilise the society"[31] to a level that constitutes a security threat.

Direct action individually and collectively must tackle the anti-democratic playbook of commentary and actions. Well understood among proponents of anti-democracy are ways to:

• Erode key truths of democratic society.
• Block free thought, speech, and association.
• Threaten coercion against advocates of democracy.

Individually or in small groups face-to-face or online, it is vital to scrutinize a propagandist's actions or claims. Detecting and dismantling this propaganda demands tough-mindedness, together with keeping touch with what's real. We must assess what impact the propaganda will make on freedoms of thought, speech, and association, or the common good–to illustrate the harmful consequences and effects of the anti-democratic propaganda commonly used to:

1. Destroy individual security and liberty through the intimidation of individuals and groups. 

2. Spread threats beyond any immediate victim of the propaganda. 

3. Disparage and disrupt core institutions of government, neutering effective democratic governance. 

4. Deny, delay, or distort policies, actions, and the rule of law, weakening truth, law, and justice. 

5. Undermine a nation's military through delay or denial of funding, promotions, or other essentials for the effective operation of the military–to diminish national security. 

6. Advance restrictive legislation and legal actions–to limit or remove voting rights and free association. 

7. Facilitate the appointment and co-opting of autocratic persons to positions of oversight or influence for such key areas as voting, the courts, the military, education, the postal service, communication/media organizations, and decision-making institutions–to undermine the fairness, civility, and civic cohesion characteristic of democracy. 

8. Enlarge controls on educational curricula and libraries–to limit free thought and inquiry. 

9. Manipulate the Internet, social media platforms, and information networks through threats, hacks, hoaxes, fraud, or other harms–including "seeding" Google and other search engines with keywords and phrases to show up in "research," distorting "information discernment."[32] 

10. Reshape everyday perceptions of us all, through "Big Lies," distorted facts, and memes that: 

- Promise a mythical utopia, often fabricated from mythical past "glories." 

- Accentuate the fears and desires of an autocrat's followers. 

- Portray "others" as a shared enemy. 

- Claim popular support through assertions like "a lot of people are saying." 

- Bemoan "poor me and you" with followers, to galvanize unity.

Such "tells" reveal propaganda as more than chaotic word-salad. The apparently disjointed or sporadic outbursts and reactions of propagandists are designed to:

• Distract us from initiatives to strengthen democracy.
• Promote a self-image of the propagandist as a “strongman,” thug, or mob-boss.
• Project the return to some mythical ideal past, which never arrives.

An alert population will identify these clues to how the propagandist shapes our attention, thought, and action. Any of us who values freedoms of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition against grievance caused by government, or the free choice of health services, job, travel, place of living, education, communication, or a host of freedoms frequently taken for granted should find ways to push back on the tough/sweet talk of propagandists who would deny our freedom.

Unfortunately, anti-democratic urgings appear in a variety of communications multiple times every day. Mostly, breaking news for example just seems to echo the propaganda of social media or media releases that promote a propagandist's interests and supposed significance. Showing the consequences and effects of the propagandist's claims and urgings on us as citizens is what matters.

A public who listens and speaks out is the root of democracy.[33] 

References: 

1. Russell, Bertrand (1976), The Impact of Science on Society, London: Unwin, p. 72 [1st edition, 1952]

2. Bakir, Vian, Eric Herring, David Miller, and Piers Robinson (2019), "Lying and Deception in Politics," in Meibauer, Jörg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lying, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 540

3. van der Linden, Sander (2023), Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity, New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 275-276

4. Ben-Ghiat, Ruth (2021), Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, New York: W.W. Norton

5. Ellul, Jacques (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, New York: Vintage, p. 256

6. Malkopoulou, Anthoula, Benjamin Moffitt (2023), "How Not to Respond to Populism," Comparative European Politics, March 10, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00341-9

7. Malkopoulou and Moffitt

8. Ellul (1965), p. 26

9. Marlin, Randal (2021), “Dynamic Tension for Pandemic Times,” Current Drift, 10 May, IJES Elul Society, ellul.org/current-drift/dynamic-tension-for-pandemic-times/

10. Kovač, Milan (2022), “Visual Propaganda in the Maya Proto-Writing Period: The Example of Stucco Frieze from Palace H-Sub 2, Uaxactun, Guatemala,” pp. 211-32, in Hubina, Miloš and Francis S. M. Chan (Eds.) (2022), Communicating the Sacred: Varieties of Religious Marketing, New York: Peter Lang, p. 211

11. Kovač, p. 211

12. Kovač, p. 211

13. Jowett, Garth S. and Victoria O’Donnell (2019), Propaganda and Persuasion, 7 edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 51

14. Schiffrin, Anya (2018), "Fighting Disinformation with Media Literacy–in 1939," Columbia Journalism Review, October 10; Schiffrin, Anya (2022), "Fighting Disinformation in the 1930s: Clyde Miller and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis," International Journal of Communication, 16, pp. 3715-3741

15. Ridge, Hannah M. (2023), "The d-word: Surveying Democracy in America," Democratization, https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2284279

16. Hanson, Russel (1985), The Democratic Imagination in America: Conversations with Our Past, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 23-24

17. Teubert, Wolfgang (2019), "The Citizen Caught Between Dialogue, Bureaucracy," in Paige, Ruth, Beatrix Busse and Nina Nørgaard (Eds.), Rethinking Language, Text and Context: Interdisciplinary Research in Stylistics in Honour of Michael Toolan, Abingdon: Routledge, p. 312

18. Chomsky, Noam (1988), Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, p. 135

19.Kellen, in Ellul (1965), p. vi-vii; Ellul (1965), p. 15

20. Ellul (1965), p. 94-95

21. Neylan, Julian, Mikey Biddlestone, Jon Roozenbeek, and Sander van der Linden (2023), "How to 'Innoculate' against Multimodal Misinformation: A Conceptual Replication of Roozenbeek and van der Linden (2020) Scientific Reports, 13, 18273, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43885-2 ; van der Linden (2023)

22. Collins, Philip (2017), When They Go Low, We Go High: Speeches that Shape the World and Why We Need Them, London: 4th Estate, p. 338

23. Collins, p. 341

24. Collins, p. 337

25. Collins, p. 338

26. Kellen, in Ellul (1965), p. vi; Ellul (1965), pp. 70-79

27. Gibson, Walker T. (1966), Tough, Sweet and Stuffy, Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, pp. 115-134 [Note: Gibson developed this "instrument" largely to illustrate what language features might suggest colloquial conversation. He acknowledges some of its limited development with the tongue-in-cheek name as a "Model-T style machine."] 

28. Ellul (1965), pp. 79-84

29. Ellul (1965), pp. 84-87

30. Ellul (1965), p. 85

31. Mareš, Miroslav and Petra Mlejnková (2021), "Propaganda and Disinformation as a Security Threat," in  Gregor, Miloš and Petra Mlejnková (Eds.), Challenging Online Propaganda and Disinformation in the 21st Century,  Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature/Palgrave Macmillan, p. 89

32. Fister, Barbara (2023), "Standing Up for the Truth: The Place of Libraries in the Public Sphere," Blog, June 14, https://barbarafister.net/ ; Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts (2018), Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, New York: Oxford University Press; Tripodi, Francesca Bolla (2022), The Propagandist's Playbook: How Conservative Elites Manipulate Search and Threaten Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press

33. After an aphorism from a United States postage stamp. The original: "A Public that Reads: A Root of Democracy" indicates the continued concern for literacy as an integral part of the democratic process.

Neutralizing Propaganda

Edward R. Murrow at Work with CBS, 1957

Source: Wikipedia. Image is in Public Domain {{PD-US-no notice}}

"Propaganda ceases where simple dialogue begins."[1]

– Jacques Ellul, 1962

In 2022 in the United States, during a break in the televised Congressional Hearings to probe the attempted overthrow of democratic government, a thoughtful media commentator asked why we hadn't seen "all this" as it took shape. Despite the substantial disinformation and other propaganda distractions leading up to and after the attack on the Capitol, tens of millions of Americans might answer that thanks largely to media coverage, they long sensed the illicit behaviors. And turned out in very large numbers to vote in 2020, and subsequently, to reassert democracy.

Anyone listening during the previous half decade or more had already detected the clear and imminent danger of overt public attacks on democracy. Early red flags were public polemic to discredit the FBI and the media, along with assaults on democratic norms, the rule of law, and the institutions of democracy. Many voters recognized these were neither subtle nor random attacks. For many, the Congressional Hearings just added some detail on how a coup was hatched.

Election workers, whistleblowers, local officials, judges, attorneys, journalists, and many more showed resilience against threats, violence, and character assassination, enabling voters to speak out. Enough voters who identify as Independent or Republican joined with Democrats to bolster democracy–offering hope for some reprieve from a dark alternative. Less clear is how long this coalition of voters will withstand the ongoing menace of mutating propaganda.

Where We Are Now

This is a time to be clear-eyed about the mirages that propaganda creates. Repelling all the propaganda washing over us may not be possible. With thoughtful action though, we can detect and deflect much of its impact. Suggested below and following in subsequent blog posts are some ways to block, blunt, or counter fake news, disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy conjectures, pseudo-populism, and propaganda more broadly.

The most thoughtful media commentators ignore or paraphrase a propagandist's catchy words, slogans, and other noise. Some substitute "criminal defendant" or another factual descriptor, instead of using a propagandist's name for a second or further times. These commentators spotlight the actions rather than the words of a propagandist, or illustrate the likely harmful effect from doing what the propagandist urges. 

Inferring the realities of the harm inherent in what a propagandist advocates is ordinarily straightforward. Likewise, to point out the propagandist's failure to offer any real solutions to benefit us. It's best to address how the claims in propaganda or the actions of propagandists would impact us. Other helpfully neutralizing narratives are to use the power of analogy, especially to illustrate the resilience and creative resourcefulness of people standing up to tyranny. These can include stories locally, from elsewhere, or from earlier times. Shared successes dealing with anti-democratic propaganda[2] both build resilience and stimulate additional individual or collaborative push back.

It's essential NOT to amplify the name, claims, and antics of a propagandist. The power of personality politics makes it even more important to minimize promotion of a propagandist's name or words, even when these are widely known and promoted by others. 

Yet this basic electioneering wisdom is too little observed. Obsessions with micro-analyzing a propagandist's supposed intentions, or excessive mockery, or focusing only on so-called secrets,[3] lies, or ideology in propaganda tend not to wash with audiences beyond the "party faithful." The most effective propaganda uses truth and focuses on "mundane issues, not ideological appeals."[4] 

Likewise, it's best not to place too much faith in recurring verbal attacks on a propagandist, given the mixed results from the intense attacks of this type in election campaigns. As will be noted in a later blog post, although judicious and penetrating illustration of how the graft harms voters may prove helpful to deflect propaganda, the United States, as well as some other nations, too often elect accused criminals to public office–despite vigorous commentary on the candidate's alleged criminality. 

Most importantly, all of us need to reclaim the public agenda, so that we oblige action on matters important to everyday living. We can all call out and push back on nonsense talk with well-targeted rhetorical or direct questions that require attention to what matters to voters–such as common concerns about healthcare, jobs, shelter, food, safety, freedom, and holding bad actors to account. 

Fortunately, the continuous immersion in sensation-seeking echoes from empty vessels does have some limits. In someone substantially reshaped by propaganda, a small boost of propaganda will readily excite or "re-intoxicate" a person.[5] But mostly, for people not mingling in the propagandist's world and worldview, propaganda is not very durable.[6] A wonderful quality of propaganda is how quickly it decays when crowded out of public discourse, without opportunity for a "refresh." As mentioned previously, there's not much that a propagandist fears more than being ignored.[7]

Engaging Conversations 

Three principles offer hope for neutralizing propaganda: (1) conversation one-on-one or in very small groups can evolve coalitions among even the most polarized individuals;[8] (2) likewise effective is to keep focus on addressing the consequences and effects of a propagandist's claims or actions, with little or no direct reference to the propagandist's name; and (3) propaganda decays when denied opportunity for a "refresh."

Very effective talk-show hosts, pundits, and journalists exemplify the first principle, with a talent for sustaining a conversational tone to "interact" with the theoretical average of two-and-a-half people listening in any living room, workplace, vehicle, or elsewhere. These professionals help many keep perspective, sometimes by offering creative insights for dealing with propaganda designed to polarize and undermine democracy. 

One television anchor recently described how a town's civic leaders in Colorado systematically engaged the polarized residents through one-on-one or one-on-two discussions. These folks then built cooperative efforts to benefit the community–after "town halls" and even small group meetings were found not to work. Unsurprisingly, one of the more effective civic leaders in this effort was the town's fire chief.[9] Especially in an election year, strategically extending such initiatives for community action are crucial. This approach builds on the remarkable commitment to volunteerism in the United States.[10] 

Simple dialogue will engage individuals within a community to stand together to meet day-to-day or emergency needs–delivering real solutions, in contrast to a propagandist's puffery. Autocrat-propagandists primarily use polemic of dispute, which is concerned with winning. This polemic allows for no mutually accepted procedure to find solutions. While the processes of two other types of polemic, namely discussion and controversy, enable resolution of differences, the only remedies for handling dispute polemic are punishment, therapy, or disregard.[11] 

Autocrat-propagandists erode the consultative decision-making that makes democracy work. To counter polarization, what is more important than engaging a propagandist's "targets" productively in community decision-making?

Probing the effects or consequences of propagandists' disinformation, rather than repeating it, can also be fruitful for investigative journalists, or anyone with interest in follow-through. For example, one potential news item concerns a study that estimated the effect of propagandists who advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) during the first wave of COVID-19. 

A meta-analysis of randomized trials shows that HCQ use was associated with an 11% increase in mortality rate among some patient groups, with the number of hydroxychloroquine related deaths in hospitalized patients estimated at 16,990 in six countries during just a two-year period.[12] Continuously revealing the likely or actual effects or consequences of a propagandist's claims can help illustrate the dangerous or vacuous character of propaganda.

Whistleblowing

It will often be an investigative journalist who blows the whistle on the bad actions of a propagandist. But, for any real impact, these efforts require dogged follow-up questions and critiques. Frankly, some of us at least expect the media to uncover and track initiatives and proposals from politicians that would improve everyday living. Or, when no proposals are offered, to give repeated access to credible voices urging initiatives that could work. Or, to require politicians to make more than mealy-mouthed promises, as well as to require accountability, repeatedly as needed, for delivery on promised initiatives. 

Media probes that advocate more timely and effective use of the legal system against the harmful actions of propagandists may also help strengthen democracy. Largely through persistently professional media investigations is much malfeasance of elected or aspiring officials ever known. And journalists deploy information gathering and writing abilities within standards of the profession, media management, perceived audience interests, and other constraints that would paralyze many people. 

The regularity of discovering and getting to us what might be truly "fit to print" or broadcast is an ever-changing landscape, ever demanding on talent, patience, persistence, politeness, and a host of other positive human qualities. On the flip side, too many in the mass media industry fail to dial back naive or worse amplifications of manufactured outrage–and dialing back coverage of the propagandist's harmful nonsense is essential to reassert civility! 

Among continuing attempts to encourage the news media toward practices better than reactionary sensation-seeking are initiatives commenced around 2015 to disseminate the practices of constructive journalism.[13]  The approach of constructive news is "to find practical solutions to the challenges which face its audience, forcing politicians to make evidence-based proposals, which one could then evaluate over time, pegging their words back to reality..."[14] Let's wish for journalism schools and, increasingly, practicing journalists to devote considerable effort to constructive news practices or similar.

Early detection and pre-emptive actions are especially critical to neutralizing propaganda. Democracies generally move too slowly to require accountability of propagandists–even with demonstrably bad actors, who aggregate personal power by gaming the laws and procedures designed to sustain democracy. The sad lesson of history is that wannabe autocrats move with relative speed to exploit democratic freedoms. 

These characters steal the march on us with screeches for the camera and relentless fundraising. They use large-scale systematic psychographic profiling to target very large numbers of people. Unimpeded, fundraising emails, social media, advertising spots on the Internet, and other outputs rally supporters and bait opponents into wasteful, reactionary responses. Character assassination of a political opponent and other outlandish claims are commonplace. 

The failure to push back effectively on propagandists for many months or years continuously empowers the most accomplished. Prompt accountability for illegal behavior is required to reassert truth, law, and justice. 

Limits of Propaganda

Specific clues for what propaganda to tackle most vigorously, as well as how to do so, are found in what Jacques Ellul concludes as some limits of propaganda in his time. He suggests that propaganda: (1) can only very slowly modify pre-existing attitudes; (2) cannot successfully deny general social trends or the strong sociological factors on which society acts; (3) must be consonant with some basic fact; (4) must be lasting and continuous to sustain psychological impact; and (5) when delivered by a foreign nation may be limited by the propagandist's limited awareness of the target nation's attitudes, centers of interest, and presuppositions.[15]

Actions anyone can take against a continuous propaganda onslaught are to:

1. Challenge any propaganda that targets our pre-existing attitudes on which democracy is based. We can do this as basically as through reassertion of core values, like honesty, justice, prudence, courage, and wisdom.

2. Highlight the harm to people that would result from the claims of any bad actor–saying exactly what should happen instead. And push civic leaders to promptly hold bad actors accountable.

3. Reassert the rightness of facts, positively, briefly, and specifically, without naming the lie or the liar–to avoid becoming a megaphone for the corrupt.

4. Keep advocating and repeating, with many variations, our desire to live in a society that enables the provision of basic human needs, such as health, job, shelter, food, safety, and freedom. This directly counters the vacuous claims of propaganda, which decay over time–especially when crowded out of public communications.

5. Push for legal and financial sanctions to hold accountable both foreign propagandists and their collaborating domestic dupes, who undermine our way of life with threats, hacks, hoaxes, fraud, or other harms.

Propagandists will only side-step the limits of propaganda when we let them, including by allowing our energy to be diverted, such as by over-reacting to their drivel. Most vital to neutralizing propagandists is for each of us to keep perspective and build ways to tackle propaganda wherever it is useful to do so–with speed, frequency, pertinence, and reach.

It is practical expressions of truth, law, and justice that ensure democracy thrives, by fending off the incursions of bad actors, both domestic and foreign. Speaking up and speaking out to elected and aspiring officials, the judiciary, the media, and anyone who will listen is needed to strengthen democracy. Democracy greatly depends on our continuous attention, thought, and action to continue and thrive.

References:

1. Ellul, Jacques (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, New York: Knopf, p. 6 [1st French edition, 1962]

2. Snow, Nancy (2013), Truth Is the Best Propaganda: Edward R. Murrow's Speeches in the Kennedy Years, Minerva, NY: Minerva Press; Silina, Maria (2022), "Russia's Feminists Are Protesting the War and Its Propaganda with Stickers, Posters, Performance and Graffiti," The Conversation, April 7, https://theconversation.com/russias-feminists-are-protesting-the-war-and-its-propaganda-with-stickers-posters-performance-and-graffiti-179989; 

      Maddow, Rachel (2023), Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism, Crown: New York

3. Wood, Tim (2021), "Propaganda, Obviously: How Propaganda Analysis Fixates on the Hidden and Misses the Conspicuous," Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2(1), April 8, https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/propaganda-obviously-how-propaganda-analysis-fixates-on-the-hidden-and-misses-the-conspicuous/

4. Abrams, M. (1964), "Opinion Polls and Party Propaganda," Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, Spring, pp. 13-19

5. Ellul (1965), p. 184

6. Ellul (1965), p. 186

7. Miller, Rodney G. (2020), "It's Time for Plain Talk," Word to the wise blog post, June 25, https://communicator.rodney-miller.com/2020/06/its-time-for-plain-talk.html

8. Ellul (1965), p. 6

9. _______ (2023), Morning Joe, MSNBC broadcast, December

10. United States Census Bureau (2023), At Height of Pandemic, More Than 51% of People Age 16 and Over Helped Neighbors, More Than 23% Formally Volunteered, January 25,

     https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/01/volunteering-and-civic-life-in-america.html

11. Dascal Marcelo (2017), "Types of Polemics and Types of Polemical Moves," in Cmerjrkova, Svetla, Jana Hoffmanova, Olga Mullerova, Olga M. Lleroy (Eds.), Dialoganalyse VI/1: Referate de 6. Argbeitstagung, Prag 1996, Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, pp. 21-22

12. Pradelle, Alexaine, Sabine Mainbourg, Steeve Provencher, Emmanuel Massy, Guillaume Grenet, Jean-Christophe Lega (2024), "Deaths Induced by Compassionate Use of Hydroxychloroquine during the First COVID-19 Wave: An Estimate," Biomedicine & Pharamacotherapy, 171, Online January 2, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

13. Constructive Institute (2024), Why Constructive Journalism? Website, https://constructiveinstitute.org/why/

14. Pomerantsev, Peter (2019), This is NOT Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality, London: Faber and Faber, p. 239

15. Ellul (1965), pp. 294-296

Understanding Propaganda

Brainwashing-A Propagandist's Dream

Danger-Brainwashing by Juhele. Image is in the Public Domain, Openclipart {{PD-author}}

"...the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be safe... [people] ...at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."[1]

– Alexander Hamilton, 1787

What Alexander Hamilton observes about the debilitating effect of continuous chaos in war also applies to how we are targeted in the propaganda war. Manufactured outrage is a weapon in the war on democracy. Aspiring autocrats worldwide copy-cat mirages of chaos, calamity, or carnage. Their fake news, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy conjectures use pseudo-populist appeals to construct a disturbing kaleidoscope.

The frequently discordant or contradictory claims acquire consistency by resonating with what we value in the presuppositions of society.[2] Jacques Ellul names the persistence of some myths, such as nation, youth, hero, work, and the belief in progress. These myths "evoke the future."[3] He suggests propagandists tap into such myths to help drive automatic behavior by a social force that deprives us of our core being.[4]

How We "Hear" Propaganda

Even though presuppositions of a society may be expressed in myths, metaphors, or national narratives, these are not necessarily uniformly understood by people. Different people perceive different connotations in words and phrases–and may differently assign denotation in what we "hear."

Our point of view is central to how we understand propaganda. It's no more than a convenient illusion to think and act as if meaning is fixed in a word, phrase, image, or action and that everyone uniformly "gets it," much less that they should, or that it is the same it. Exposing what any propaganda means requires more than restating some meme or slogan, as if there is a single discoverable meaning that we all uniformly get.

As the linguist Noam Chomsky remarks "communication is a more-or-less matter, seeking a fair estimate of what the other person said and has in mind."[5] David Sless and Ruth Shrensky point out that we each perceive words, images, music, actions, or events etc. differently–with each of us playing "...an active part in the making of the meaning."[6] They offer that signs have meaning that we project onto them, suggesting we make meaning by projecting our "prior knowledge...seamlessly."[7] 

While Sless and Shrensky do recognize public language or common meaning, they observe that generally "it's hard to decide what may be shared."[8] Authentic analysis of propaganda will appreciate there are a wide variety of points of view in audiences, with many contexts in play to influence understanding or action. 

Aligning Meanings

Acknowledging that each of us brings different projections and accommodations to what we perceive requires that we change how to think about communication and therefore how to interpret propaganda. Additionally, a specialty of propagandists is to assert certainties while stimulating ambiguity. Savvy propagandists are especially adept at infecting their public discourse with words of certainty and ambiguity that resonate with myths or presuppositions. 

News reports were not so long ago infiltrated with words like celebrity president, fake news, deep state, tremendous success, or many others. Such verbal combinations claim attention and touch off presuppositions. Each spotlights the propagandist's own perspective and is designed to elicit desired responses in us. The term semantic infiltration was coined by Fred Iklé to describe the use for which these words are designed:

Simply put, semantic infiltration is the process whereby we come to adopt the language of our adversaries in describing political reality.[9]

When we repeat such words, we assist the propagandist's efforts. And we encourage others to do the same. The mass media assist the propagandist's efforts by headlining much of this word-salad in reports of current events. This is complicated further by propagandists infiltrating false dichotomies, narrow-casting, or otherwise reframing words we commonly use, most notably freedom and democracy. At worst, we can become megaphones for the propagandist's worldview, to reach audiences well beyond what the propagandist might accomplish unassisted.[10]

Claims and Ambiguities

It is many repetitions, especially with variation, that powerfully reinforce. For example, in the United States all the way to January 6 of 2021 and beyond, all media persistently regurgitated verbatim propagandist slogans like "Stop the Steal"–which disseminated insurrectionist claims widely. Whether or not media reports are perceived as neutral or slanted positively or negatively, the continuous repetition of this verbiage reinforces the propagandist's "certainties." So much repetition of rants and ramblings inevitably increases their significance. 

The repeated parroting of a big lie, even though we might oppose the claims of a propagandist, should be viewed as one form of advancing permission to control the public agenda, as well as our lives.[11] And such claims land resoundingly in the disinformation land of the suburbs, where feelings of safety and security may be easily disturbed. In many countries, it's here that elections are often decided. 

Journalists, pundits, and social media users continuously take the bait of propagandists' outlandish claims and name-calling. They even respond in kind, with characterizations of a propagandist as "bully," "infantile," "racist," or "unhinged." Persistent repetition of even what's grossly negative about a propagandist will nonetheless help advance the propagandist's name, identity, and style. 

On the flipside, a propagandist can benefit when words are so over-used that they no longer register with us. For example, it's likely that after a time the frequent repetition of a propagandist's threats to destroy democracy may become meaningless to listeners–like a weird version of Aesop's tale about the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Meanwhile, these repetitions serve a dual role of providing the media hungry propagandist with additional coverage through the propagandist's own follow-up denial of the media's parroting.

We see decay already in the meaning of words for which the use-by dates are well passed, thanks largely to their frequent occurrence in the mass media–like "existential," "untruth," and "unprecedented." This process is analogous to what's known as semantic satiation. Although psychology researchers still debate how the process occurs, high repetition appears to cause a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for a listener.[12] 

And a savvy propagandist will also powerfully exploit varieties of ambiguity among the certainties. Randal Marlin describes how the ambiguity of some verbs or nouns can promote intention. For example, the ordinarily positive verb help accentuates a negative intention in the sentence "James helped John lose." Marlin illustrates how the use of such verbs as "brought about" or "ensured" or "engineered" may impute an intention that the "doer" did not have. He elaborates how "a skillful propagandist can exploit this kind of ambiguity," by implying an intention to bring about a consequence.[13]

Within the continuous drumbeat of invented conspiracies, ambiguity is common too. Philip Collins notes this in the frequently propagated supposed conspiracy of some unnamed elite against people, which claims "utopia [is] just around the corner, if only the corrupt elite had cared to venture there." He points out the propagandist's self-portrayal as leading efforts to "rise above the smears, and ludicrous slanders from ludicrous reporters."[14] Yet another example is the classic bandwagon device "a lot of people are saying," used as authority for some preposterous drivel. With a zealot's energy, such a propagandist will launch attacks on "enemies" and other "vermin." 

Preoccupied with self-advancement, by any means, at the expense of anyone else, propagandists routinely talk in authoritative-sounding imperatives to assert their often outrageous claims. They distract from reality, denying, destabilizing, and destroying our established norms, values, and even the operation of valued institutions.

How Propaganda Works

But it can be difficult at times to challenge what propagandists say, since they so often deal in ill-defined extremes. They stimulate uncertainty about core values, leaving confusion–even encouraging a belief that it is others who are propagandized. 

Linguists will tell us propagandists use imperatives heavily and a high proportion of vacuous content words with unclear referents. They use lots of function words to add ambiguity or emphasize extremes–like factive verbs and non-referential adverbs.[15] A propagandist's exaggerations include of course playing on the fear of "other" groups in society, or pandering to deep-seated desires... for recognition, for virility, for accomplishment, or for belonging, for example.

Because audience members perceive certainties and ambiguities differently, the propagandist is able to tap into a range of perceptions. Perhaps this helps with negotiating feelings of proximity[16] with a wide array of "propagandees," including among people with widely varying beliefs. It seems there are as many different propaganda as members of a large audience. Now there's a challenge for quantitative research!

The dynamic processes of propaganda are akin to how rumor works. As people project personal concerns into a rumor, this modifies and spreads it widely. Propagandists likewise fuel their reach through novelty, contrariness, exaggeration, and ambiguity resonant with our presuppositions. As Ellul noted about the empowering effect in rumor:

...the farther away the source and the greater the number of individuals who have passed it on, ...the more the objective fact loses importance and the more the rumor is believed by the multitudes who adhere to it.[17]

And propaganda distributed digitally, or even through mass media, will morph at least as readily and widely as village gossip. In addition to ease of dissemination, these media deliver on the prime purpose of propaganda to cause audience action.[18] Digital communications offer many options to engage audiences in using these media to further the propagandist's interests and chain these "doers" to the propagandist.

While propaganda is sometimes described as a top-down approach seeking exclusive control of all communication channels, a wide range of accessible media available today negates the need for control of all communication channels for propaganda to succeed. Grassroots or multi-headed campaigns in sympathy with each other need not align exactly for a propagandist to dominate the thought of others sufficiently to incite action–which makes especially urgent the need to neutralize this propaganda.

References:

1. Hamilton, Alexander (1787), The Federalist, Number 8, November 20, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-01600

2. Ellul, Jacques (2016), "The Characteristics of Propaganda," in Jowett, Garth S. and Victoria O'Donnell (Eds.), Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classic Essays, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 22

3. Ellul (2006), p. 23

4. Ellul, Jacques (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, New York: Knopf, p. 87

5. Chomsky, Noam (1993), Language and Thought, Kingston, RI: Moyer Bell, p. 21

6. Sless, David and Ruth Shrensky (2023), A New Semiotics: An Introductory Guide for Students, London and New York: Routledge, p. 46

7. Sless and Shrensky, p. 48

8. Sless and Shrensky, p. 144

9. _______ (1978), "Distortions of Political Language," Washington Post, November 21

10. Toler, Aric (2017), "Most Common Way that Fake News Spreads Is from Laziness," STOPFAKE.ORG, https://www.stopfake.org/en/most-common-way-that-fake-news-spreads-is-from-laziness-aric-toler-bellingcat/

11.  Ellul (1965), p. xvii; Snyder, Timothy (2017), On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, New York: Tim Duggan, p. 17

12. Esposito, Nicholas J. and Leroy H. Pelton (1971), "Review of the Measurement of Semantic Satiation," Psychological Bulletin, 75, pp. 330-346; Black, S.R. (2003), "Review of Semantic Satiation," in Shohov, S.P. (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, 26, Nova Science Publishers, pp. 63-74

13.  Marlin, Randal (1984), "The Rhetoric of Action Description: Ambiguity in Intentional Reference," Informal Logic, 6, 3, pp. 26-28, https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v6i3.2737

14. Collins, Philip (2017), When They Go Low, We Go High: Speeches that Shape the World and Why We Need Them, London: 4th Estate, p. 78

15. Miller, Rodney G. (2022), Australians Speak Out: Persuasive Language Styles, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 92

16. Turnbull, Nick (2017), "Political Rhetoric and Its Relationship to Context: A New Theory of the Rhetorical Situations, the Rhetorical and the Political," Critical Discourse Studies, XXX, p. 14

17. Ellul (1965), pp. 293-294

18. Wanless, Alicia and Michael Berk (2022), "Participatory Propaganda: The Engagement of Audiences in the Spread of Persuasive Communications," in Herbert, David and Stefan Fisher (Eds.), Social Media and Social Order, De Gruyter Open Poland, doi.org/10.2478/9788366675612-009

Can We Stop Whistling in the Wind?

Le Coup de vent [The Gust of Wind] 

Artist: Jean-Jules-Antoine Lecomte du Nouÿ (1842-1923)

Photo by Sotheby's. This work is in the Public Domain {{PD-USGov}}

"...propaganda only seems to succeed when it coincides with what people are inclined to do in any case."[1]

– George Orwell, 1944

Propagandists are largely parasitic. A parasite lives and feeds on or in another organism of another species, causing harm to its host. As if we are another species,[2] propagandists exploit us as they obsess with self-advancement. More than offensive or demeaning, continuous streams of manufactured, outrageous talk cause serious harm. We delude ourselves by paying too little attention to the extent of the harm done to us.

Great Harm

Most obviously, much political propaganda now incites hate, violence, or government overthrow. Propagandists routinely use fear, vanity, greed, or other basic emotions to cause social divisions and chaos, or damage to reputation, along with individual and larger scale fraud in financial, health, or electoral decision-making. Propaganda is a much used cover-up of corrupt practices or behavior in institutions, harming individuals  within or outside an institution.

Viewed through the lens of the parasite analogy, the propagandist draws on our culture, beliefs, and emotions to weaken the quality of life that we value. These agents of Newspeak[3] are so present that friends, family, and neighbors tire of hearing about them in the media or just about anywhere else.

In the United States, mass media have frequently broadcast entire political rallies of a candidate, again and again and again, for months on end. This was acknowledged at the time by the occasional broadcast media executive as not good for America, but "damn good" for the broadcaster.[4]

Entranced with fourth-rate celebrity, if that's all that's available, many in the mass media still regurgitate trite outrage or worn-out quotable quotes as breaking news. Perhaps it's a pious wish that broadcasters will ever recognize that many of us have had enough rehashes of the latest doings of a propagandist being paraded before us. We are continuing our shift to streaming platforms.

Is There Good Propaganda?

Propaganda is not new. But it is not well understood. Some folks sincerely suggest there is good propaganda. One widely available definition of propaganda considers it as "helping or injuring ...deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause."[5] According to this view, propaganda might advance whatever is either negative or positive.

Propaganda principles, processes, and techniques certainly seem agnostic to political or moral positions or "-isms." But the reality is that any propaganda is fully effective when the independent will and the capacity for choice by "targeted" individuals are denied. Can a propagandist with good intent somehow purify propaganda when pursuing a common good?[6] Both good and bad actors use propaganda processes to secure their results by creating "pseudo-needs."[7]

Commonly these days, political propagandists sow chaos, confusion, and false crises to exploit our limited attention to the consequences of what they say and do. The French philosopher Jacques Ellul explains in his landmark study that propaganda is an ongoing process constantly shaping expectations through:

...continuous agitation... [creating] ...a climate first, and then prevent[ing] the individual from noticing a particular propaganda operation in contrast to daily events.[8]

Ironically and sadly, our own preoccupation with what we call propaganda helps ensure that public policies or action to address the real needs and wants of people take a back seat to the endless microanalyses of the propagandist, or are simply ignored. Propagandists confidently rely on daily regurgitation of their public talk in news reports, social media, and elsewhere. This control of the public agenda significantly reframes our thinking.

Even as we disdain spin merchants, they tell us what we want to hear, wrapped in cultural myths that pander to our deepest feelings. Savvy propagandists are adept at incorporating myths in this way, frequently promising a better future. And what people believe about the future is what shapes response to present events.[9] 

Images of a lifestyle or a national identity might be valuable for an individual or for social cohesion, but propagandists value such beliefs in us as tools of control.

What Is Propaganda?

Understandings of the word propaganda range widely, including from what someone disagrees with[10] through to puffery or hyperbole for promotion. Whether or not we like a cause, product, or person promoted can affect what we call propaganda, or what we feel about a propagandist's claim.[11]

Even reaching agreement among scholars on a useful definition of the word[12] remains difficult. Some efforts seek to distinguish rhetoric, persuasion, and propaganda based on whether intentions are revealed or hidden, how much interaction or participation seems possible, whether discourse is truthful,[13] or whether rational decision-making is respected. A definition that Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell offer focuses on the purpose of propaganda:

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.[14]

Control of Thought

Alone or in collusion with collaborators, propagandists continuously attack both free thought and, by extension, freedoms of speech and association. Ellul observes "to be effective, propaganda must constantly short-circuit all thought and decision."[15] He alerts to propaganda being "a menace that threatens the total personality,"[16] warning that any fully effective propaganda provokes "action without prior thought."[17] And this "action makes propaganda's effect irreversible."[18]

Once we are sufficiently prepared to make automatic response, we the propagandized increasingly give ourselves over to what the propagandist says about everyday events. Commercial, political, and cult-promoting propagandists all seek automatic response[19] to further their interests. Seriously examining propaganda requires a definition that embraces this driving effect.

After reviewing a wide variety of definitions, Randal Marlin offers a workably clear description, which is the framework stipulated here:

PROPAGANDA = The organized attempt through communication to affect belief or action or inculcate attitudes in a large audience in ways that circumvent or suppress an individual's adequately informed, rational, reflective judgment.[20]

This aptly infers that a propagandist's effectiveness depends on the extent to which audiences surrender free choice. This most substantial harm to individuals and society is not easily addressed. Such commandeering of people's thinking and actions continuously corrupts the freedoms on which democracy is based. As will be explored in a later blog post, the processes of propaganda and democracy are at odds,[21] through the impact on each of us and on democratic processes.

Although propaganda has an inevitable presence in society and can serve to unify the beliefs of a community, talking about "harmful propaganda,"[22] as if there is any that is not, should not sit well with anyone committed to freedom.

Not to Be Fooled

Continuous immersion in nonsense wrapped in deeply felt myths really messes with otherwise sensible pundits, politicians, academics, and each of us. In daily life, we all accept bursts of verbiage, image, or deeds designed to grab our attention washing over us from an early age. 

Even before we reach teen years, the electronic babysitter of television delivers countless, unfiltered stimulations of dopamine in the brain. Its effects are much like a narcotic causing addiction. This engagement helps tech platforms soon afterwards to fulfill their goal for more of us to spend more time on social media.

Are we whistling in the wind to expect civic leaders, neighbors, friends, family, or any of us to outwit propagandists? Productively unmasking propagandists or redirecting their efforts requires some agreement about what's going on.

Ellul suggests that the "endless repetition of formulas, explanations, and simple stimuli" erodes "scorn and disbelief."[23] However foolish we might initially believe some nonsense to be, its repetitive use focuses both conversation and actions. Accordingly, the most educated, intelligent people in the community remain the most propagandized because each–

* Absorbs the largest amount of second-hand information.

* Feels compelled to have an opinion

* Takes pride in thinking clearly and "judging."[24]

Thanks to George Orwell's short essay "Politics and the English Language," we can be more alert to public figures who use words to obscure or deliberately hide realities. Orwell tried to help with simple advice to catch and push back on language that is "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable."[25] Together with his description of Newspeak in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four,[26] we have an early warning and basic ways to deal with this verbal abuse.

Orwell also presented us with a further warning about the consequence and effect of a propagandist's language distortions. His fairy story Animal Farm[27] darkly illustrates how autocratic pigs take over the farm. They use the other animals' fuzziness of memory and limited reasoning ability to confuse collective memories about previous practices and norms. 

The pigs secure obedience to their new regime largely because their fellow animals continuously ponder ambiguities, without taking any action. By giving permission in advance,[28] the animals cede control of the farm to the pigs, increasing the speed with which all are controlled.[29]

The most effective antidotes to propaganda remain truth and the ability to distinguish "fact from opinion and the proven from the plausible"[30]–to differentiate the light from the dark and the many shades between.

References:

1. Orwell, George (2009), “Propaganda and Demotic Speech,” in Packer, George (Ed.), All Art is Propaganda, New York: Mariner, p. 231 [1^st published in Persuasion, Summer Quarter, 1944, 2, No.2]

2. Alekseev, Andrey, Oleg Gurov, Alexander Segal, and Andrey Sheludyakov (2023), "Ideas as Infections: Introduction to the Problematics of Cognitive Metaparasitism," Epistema, 1, [explores the dynamics of metaparasites, defined as information designed to manipulate or deceive],  https://epistema.jes.su/s0028991-0-1/3

3. Orwell, George (1972), “The Principles of Newspeak,” Nineteen Eighty-Four, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 241-251 [1^st published 1949]

4. Fallon, Peter K. (2022), Propaganda 2.1: Understanding Propaganda in the Digital Age, Eugene, OR: Cascade, p. 95

5. _________ (2020), “Propaganda,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

6. Ellul, Jacques (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf, p. 256

7. Kellen, Konrad, “Introduction,” in Ellul (1965), p. vii

8. Ellul (1965), p. 20

9. Lerner, D. (1972), “Effective Propaganda,” in Lerner, D. (Ed.), Propaganda in War and Crisis, New York: Arno, p. 346

10. Baines, Paul, Nicholas O'Shaughnessy, and Nancy Snow (Eds.) (2020), The Sage Handbook of Propaganda, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. xxv

11. Taylor, P. M. (2002), “Strategic Communications or Democratic Propaganda?” Journalism Studies, 3, 3, pp. 437-441, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700220145641, in Kiss, Peter A. Kiss (2023), “Russian Strategic Communication Operations in Support of Strategic Objectives in the Russo-Ukrainian War,” November 23, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375795717_Peter_A_Kiss_Russian_Strategic_Communication_Operations_in_Su pport_of_Strategic_Objectives_in_the; Murphy, Dennis M. and James F. White (2007), “Propaganda: Can a Word Decide a War?,” The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 37, 3, pp. 15-27,

     https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=parameters

    [briefly reviews some limitations on countering propaganda in the United States.]

12. Jowett, Garth S. and Victoria O’Donnell (2019), 7th edn, Propaganda and Persuasion, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 2-7; Marlin, Randal (2013), Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion, Peterborough, ON: Broadview, pp. 4-13; Steinfatt, Thomas M. (1979), “Evaluating Approaches to Propaganda Analysis,” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 36(2), Summer, pp.159-162

13. Bennett, Beth S. and Sean Patrick O’Rourke (2006), “A Prolegomenon to the Future Study of Rhetoric and Propaganda: Critical Foundations," in Jowett, Garth S. and Victoria O'Donnell (Eds.), Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classic Essays, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 67; see also - Chomsky, Noam (1989) Necessary Illusions in Democratic Societies, Boston, MA: South End Press

14. Jowett and O’Donnell (2017), p. 6

15. Ellul (1965), p. 27

16. Ellul (1965), p. xvii

17. Ellul (1965), p. 240

18. Ellul (1965), p. 29

19. Ellul (1965), p. 208

20. Marlin (2013), p. 12

21. Ellul (1965), p. 26

22. Stanley, Jason (2015), How Propaganda Works, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 5 

23. Ellul (1965), p. 312

24. Kellen, in Ellul (1965), pp. v-vi

25. Orwell, George (1981), “Politics and the English Language,” A Collection of Essays, Orlando, FL: Harcourt, p. 156-171 [1^stpublished 1946]

26. Orwell (1972), “The Principles of Newspeak,” pp. 241-251

27. Orwell, George (1977), Animal Farm, New York: Signet [1^st published 1945]

28. Snyder, Timothy (2017), On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, New York: Tim Duggan, p. 17

29. Snyder, p. 18

30. Sayers, Dorothy L. (1948), The Lost Tools of Learning: Paper Read at a Vacation Course in Education, Oxford, 1947, London: Methuen, p. 4