It's long past time to shake free from propaganda and disinformation. This requires large-scale, sustained, cooperative efforts.
Some Western democracies are massively expanding education in media literacy, critical analysis, rhetoric, and civics. This is occurring most where people feel the looming threat of invasion, such as among nations in Europe. These civic leaders are seriously boosting education to enhance the ability of adults, youth, and children to discern and assess reality.
Ever-increasing is the need to identify and counter dishonest politicians. Autocrat-propagandists routinely berate us with a fearfully absurd mixture of lies and partial truth. Their systematic, persistent distortions become exhausting and impact both our thinking and priorities–to change personal belief systems and actions.
With voters heading to the polls in the United States, for what's likely the nation's most consequential election, many of us continue to wish for more effective countering of those unprincipled politicians, who continuously exploit the freedoms of democracy.
We surely need more than warnings or naive repetition of the "flood of falsehoods," as one media outlet chose yesterday to headline its own lame critique–which largely amplified a politician's lies and dangerous nonsense.[1]
Many workable methods for countering propaganda were available much more than a decade ago[2]–when prebunking or other timely actions may have worked. What's realistic now to hope for enough civic leaders, jurists, journalists, editors, educators, or others to advance enough actions for the common good?
What more can we do to –
* Counter the propaganda processes that spontaneously embed in our daily thinking, actions, and language, to intimately drive our actions?[3]
* Help to develop people's "cognitive skills, technical know-how, emotional self-awareness, and an ability to navigate massive flows of true, false, and irrelevant information via images, texts, videos, and audio clips"?[4]
* Incentivize news, information, other corporate, government, and nonprofit organizations to become better equipped to take a pivotal role in combating propaganda and disinformation?
* "Regulate the social media recommendation algorithms"?[5]
* Criminalize lies "intended to cause serious harm if said harm results"?[6]
It's time to put aside unfounded assumptions that rational explanation will counter the emotions that propagandists exploit in listeners or readers. It's time to more substantially spotlight and more effectively remedy the direct harms that propagandists do to individuals and society.
References
1. CNN (2024), October 4
2. Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf, especially pp. 294-296; J. Michael Sproule (1994),Channels of Propaganda, Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press and ERIC Clearinghouse; J. Michael Sproule (2001), “Authorship and Origins of the Seven Propaganda Devices: A Research Note,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 4(1), Spring, pp. 135-143; Marlin, Randal (2013), Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion, Peterborough, ON: Broadview; Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell (2019), 7th edn,Propaganda and Persuasion,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [with Nancy Snow as lead author for the recently updated 8th edition]
4. Jannie Lilja, Niklas Eklund, and Ester Tottie (2024), "Civic Literacy and Disinformation in Democracies," Social Sciences, 13, 405, pp. 12-13, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080405
5. John Grönvall (2023), "Fact-checkers and the News Media: A Nordic Perspective on Propaganda," Nordic Journal of Media Studies, 5(1), pp. 134-153, at p.151, https://doi.org/10.2478/njms-2023-0008
6. Druzin, Bryan H. and Jessica Li (2010), “The Criminalization of Lying: Under What Circumstances, If Any, Should Lies Be Made Criminal?” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 101(2), pp. 571-572,
by Director/Producer Ivan Reitman and Writers Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis
Video is copyright. All rights reserved. Used under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 Fair Usage for non profit, non competing, educational, political commentary and criticism.
"Ghostbusters was released at the right time...at the height of the sci-fi blockbuster during the '80s."[2] Chock-full of ironic dialogue, with some now dated comedy and special effects, the movie refreshed tongue-in-cheek the age-old story of warrior saviors.
Updated (to four decades ago) this "group of miscast nerds, geeks, scientists and paranormal enthusiasts start their own business studying, hunting and 'busting' ghosts, goblins and ghouls."[3] The setting was New York City at a time when, along with many other cities, residents were beleaguered by crime, grime, and poverty–with subway cars, so covered by graffiti on the outside and inside, that these became go-to, must-sees for tourists. With a comedic twinkle, the movie has some hints useful for fighting the slime, grime, crime, and harm generated by autocrat-propagandists.
Defeating the lies, part-truths, rumors, faulty reasoning, abuse, and worse that self-proclaimed autocrats amplify is best done by each of us taking both individual and cooperative actions.
Organizations, nations, or individuals fighting disinformation and propaganda require competence and cooperative commitment to make strategic impact in everyday conversations, as well as through all information platforms and communication channels. Akin to the targeted reach of the Disinformation Summit planned at University of Cambridge in 2025, cooperative initiatives are needed that address strategically "social media, news media, financial and non-financial reporting, and other broadcast vehicles."[4]
Unsurprisingly, defeating a swill of disinformation requires ongoing actions that deploy better developed understandings and resources than paranormal science provided to the comedic ghostbusters.
Urgently needed for a serious task are more civic leaders, judges, lawyers, media anchors, pundits, journalists, media managers, teachers, researchers, librarians, students, parents, family, friends, neighbors, and any of us to get up to speed with how to pre-empt wannabe autocrats. Autocrat-propagandists aim to secure acquiescence, not belief,to create "conformists."[5]Dialogue that encourages a variety of viewpoints sharpens doubt about the formulaic comments of propagandists.[6]
But dispersed warnings and discussions about propaganda mechanisms, the supposed intent of the propagandist, or many fact-checking approaches–via however intelligent and penetrating commentary, or blistering advertisements, or hype, or endless micro-analyses of legal probes in the media–are no match for an ongoing onslaught of unfettered propaganda.[7]
Such dispersed discussions can be especially damaging in the form of media microanalyses that include repeatedly replaying audio or video of a propagandist. As highlighted in a recent blog post, this approach neglects the "truth effect" of repeating lies.[8] Perhaps the urge to microanalyze a propagandist is fueled by some naive belief that this will spark some magical ah-hah self-awareness in the uncommitted, or that it energizes rather than eventually draining or depressing anyone who already feels negatively toward some propagandist.
Others may offer that it shows the laziness of too many in the media who latch onto readily available photos, or video, or catchy quotes, in a vain effort to attract attention. As long ago as 2018 in the United States at least, the failure of the approach was publicly acknowledged.[9]
For Now
Certainly, unchecked propagandists work people overcontinuously to attack free thought and, by extension, freedoms of speech and association.[10] But it is early detection and pre-emptive actions that are critical to neutralize propaganda. Engaging many authoritative voices to debunk nonsense may sometimes be useful. But pre-bunking seems most potent to counter mis/disinformation.[11]Are we prepared to anticipate and head-off what grifter-autocrats will say or do?
Surely, any of us can help counter false information by joining active efforts or setting up our own initiatives to push ahead of nonsense talk–replacing the swill by redirecting the focus of public and private conversations to address everyday concerns–like personally meaningful specifics of healthcare, jobs, shelter, food, safety, freedom, and making bad actors accountable.
Can each of us find ways to
Join or start an action group addressing matters you care about–by putting pressure and expecting results from civic officials, elected representatives or candidates for election, and the media?
Grow networks of person-to-person communication–especially using emails and personalized social media?
Ignore verbal refuse designed to distract, deny, or delay?
Stop using or repeating a bad actor's name–will enough friends in the media ever stop repeating direct quotes in the lower thirds of the television screen, stop showing video clips repeating a bad actor's words or actions, and stop using photos that PR folks believe will make a bad actor look strong?
Reverse any serious lie right back onto the liar–using words much like a graffiti artist sprays a mustache on a propaganda poster? Mastering rhetorical questions is one approach [video here][12] and polemic has a long and honorable record in public communication, especially through artful parody and satire!
More Broadly
An equal priority is to massively expand education that enhances the ability of adults, youth, and children to assess public discourse–to discern, analyze, and synthesize reality.[13] Substantial expansions of media literacy, rhetorical, and civics education[14] are required in Western democracies. Even where the will exists, this takes time.
Meanwhile, can organizations and nations also execute well-developed plans to get ahead of and counter the efforts of propagandists, at scale?[15]
Illustrations of success and resources are now available. Some writings crystalize criteria for useful interventions. These are derived mainly from investigations of social media.[16] Some writings deal with the media and propaganda processes more broadly.[17] Further actionable understandings distilled from studies outside the laboratory/"in the wild" are needed,[18] along with cross-disciplinary studies and action research focused on actively building viable futures.[19]
It's up to organizations, nations, and each of us fighting disinformation to call on civic, legal, media, corporate, education, and other leaders to collaborate on strengthening practical initiatives that will address some big challenges, particularly
* Burgeoning computerized propaganda systems.[20]
* Government impotence regulating social media platforms–perhaps we can expect similar failures regulating anticipated hazards of Artificial Intelligence.
* Ever-increasing pressure in social media and mass media to help grow audiences by amplifying what is outrageous.
Propagandists continuously use the capabilities of computer networks, social media, and mass media powerfully against us.[21]
Into the Future
Some gargantuan goals for each of us, for organizations, and for nations are to evolve systematic, ongoing efforts that:
1. Engage autocrat-propagandists' "targets" and followers in productive decision-making to advance community initiatives.[22]
2. Educate everyone about detecting and calling out propaganda.
3. Codify remedies to the multiple deficiencies of norms and regulations–to protect the rule of law.
4. Educate everyone on ways to put civics to use.
As detailed throughout earlier blog posts, our better future requires us continuously to
* Challenge any propaganda targeting our pre-existing attitudes AND reassert our beliefs inhonesty, justice, temperance, courage,and wisdom–and our desire to live in a society that seeks respect and wellbeing for all citizens.
* Highlight the harm to people by those using anti-democratic actions to deny health care, jobs, safety, community services,etc. AND, most importantly, say exactly what should happen instead.
* Reassert the rightness offacts, positively and specifically (without naming the lie or the liar, to avoid being a megaphone for the corrupt).
* Keep repeating what isright(propaganda decays over time, especially when crowded out of the public communication channels).
Yes, our future depends on us.
References
1. Ivan Reitman (Director/Producer) and Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis (Writers) (1984), "Ghostbusters: Crossing the Streams," from Ghostbusters [Movie], Columbia Pictures, https://youtu.be/9wrEEd1ajz4
4. Cambridge Disinformation Summit (2025), University of Cambridge, Judge Business School, "First-order objectives and deliverables: Identify and convene researchers, from across disciplines (e.g., journalism, social-psychology, sociology, anthropology, business, computer science, law, communications, theology, philosophy, political science, criminology, and authoritarian studies) who are engaged in this body of work; Develop shared networks for collaboration; Develop infrastructure to share research and research feedback across disciplines; Develop trust and share learning with policymakers, practice professionals, and data providers; Develop curriculum to enhance societal awareness of, and resilience to, disinformation campaigns; Develop infrastructure to protect research community members from threats, harassment, frivolous legal or freedom of information, or other attacks on academic freedom by those who exploit disinformation." Background at: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/fighting-disinformation-needs-interdisciplinary-approach/; see also:https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/events/cambridge-disinformation-summit-2025/
5. Nicholas O'Shaugnessy (2017), "Putin, Xi, and Hitler - Propaganda and the Paternity of Pseudo Democracy," Defence Strategic Communication: The Official Journal of the NATO Strategic Communication Center of Excellence, 2, Spring, p. 115-130, https://issuu.com/natostratcomcoe/docs/full_academic_journal_vol2_issuu_07
6. Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf, p. 300
7. Rodney G. Miller (2024), Get Ahead of Propagandists: Countering Disinformation, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 55
9. David Brooks (2018), "Opinion: The Failures of Anti-Trumpism," The New York Times, April 10, p. 27
10. Miller, p. 13
11. Jon Roozenbeek, Eileen Culloty, and Jane Suiter(2022), “Countering Misinformation: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications of Current Interventions,”European Psychologist,28(3), pp.189-205, published online July 14, 2023, https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1016-9040/a000492
12. Luís Azevedo (Director) and Mark Forsyth (Writer) (2021), What Makes a Movie Line Memorable? Rhetorical Questions, Little White Lies - https://lwlies.com/video at: https://youtu.be/UD3TaR5iPAo
17. Paul Baines, Nicholas O’Shaughnessy, and Nancy Snow (Eds.) (2020), The Sage Handbook of Propaganda, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Nancy Snow, Garth S. Jowett, and Victoria O’Donnell (2024), 8th edn,Propaganda and Persuasion,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf
20.Woolley, Samuel C. and Howard, Philip N. (2019),Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians and Political Manipulation on Social Media, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 243; Shaffer, Kris (2019),Data Versus Democracy: How Big Data Algorithms Shape Opinions and Alter the Course of History, New York:Apress/Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 114-115
Consciously or intuitively, we frequently use repetition to emphasize, connect, contrast, and compare–or for humor and other rhetorical or literary effects.[1] While too much repetition may become boring, or suggest careless editing, the occasional repetition of a word or a few words in a passage of speech or writing can also help simulate the informality of conversation–probably because we often repeat words in everyday talk.
We've long recognized that carefully crafted repetition, especially with variation, powerfully reinforces–for good or ill. Teachers of classical rhetoric in Ancient Greece and Rome from about the fifth century BC–and more widely since–advocate strategic use of repetition, through choice from a battery of rhetorical devices with different effects.[2] These include commonly used anaphora, antistasis, commoratio, or diacope.[3][video here]
A nineteenth century guide to composition recommended that "A frank repetition of a word has even sometimes a kind of charm–as bearing the stamp of truth, the foundation of all excellence of style."[4]
Some nuances of this truth effect are explored in more recent psychology research. Apparently "people judge repeated information as truer than new information." Researchers also find "People consider that others are more susceptible...than themselves, and underestimate the impact of repetition on judgments of truth."[5] This all seems to confirm "Repeating information increases people's belief that the repeated information is true."[6]
Propagandists intuitively understand this power of repetition. As Jacques Ellul points out, the "endless repetition of formulas, explanations, and simple stimuli" erodes "scorn and disbelief."[7] However foolish we might initially believe some nonsense to be, its repetitive use focuses both conversation and actions.[8]
When journalists and others in the media repeatedly quote verbatim the egregious lies or nonsense of propagandists, this just helps to advance a propagandist's name, identity, and style–which inevitably increases the significance of the rants and ramblings.[9]
Former editors or journalists and the large number of readers or viewers cancelling media subscriptions seem more concerned about this than many in the media.[10]
References
1. Jeanne Fahnestock (2011),Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion, New York: Oxford University Press
From early in life, we are encouraged to be clear when speaking or writing. We put a lot of attention on specifying what we mean. We talk about words as delivering a message. Endless energies are expended trying to remove ambiguity, to magically bring everyone into alignment by crafting that perfect message.
This becomes especially noticeable during election campaigns. Politicians, media pundits, journalists, advertisers, and others talk about this or that candidate's message. They also quote catchy words or phrases, or paraphrase comments–with frequent reference to polls that supposedly report opinions of the pollster's invented audience "segments."
Some people even describe themselves selling us a message–apparently blind to the reality that "when we know the goal of communication is just to 'get a message out,' many of us understand intuitively that our views, feelings, or perspectives aren't considered important."[1] So much for that sales pitch.
Do we really believe that others receive just what we mean? It's still to be established that minds ever truly align. Each of us interprets and gives words meaning. It seems true that "Any text is open to countless interpretations and debates, and any word or phrase can connote and give rise to an infinity of other words."[2]
Also apparent in everyday life, and no less during elections, is that everyone interprets messages very differently. It's natural enough to assume meaning is in the words we choose. But even dictionaries only record some common usage of words. As Noam Chomsky indicates "The most elaborate dictionaries provide no more than the bare hints about the meaning of words..."[3]
The continuous boosting of message transmission as a simple, but mistaken view of communication causes serious delusions. And audience analysts convince public figures and many organizations to pay expensively for opinion polls or even creepy "measurement" of physiological reactions to bits of speech among focus group participants.
It was in the nineteenth century that the retailer John Wanamaker claimed "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half." It often remains hard to tell what if any part of an advertising budget may have value. Just as uncertain in a political campaign is predicting the outcome from the huge budgets and effort for mass media and digital advertising or political rallies and other publicity.
Likely, communication occurs when people jointly create new understanding and knowledge.[4] It's the to-and-fro of face-to-face, personal interaction that most aligns people. Likewise, in a political campaign, it's conversation, one-on-one, or with a few people at a time that provides the winning difference.
In the final weeks of an election campaign, what really matters is engaging friends, neighbors, family, workmates, or others to stand together to help elect candidates who are committed to deliver real solutions.
This is a time to ask what each of us can do to help defeat propagandist puffery.
References
1. Rodney G. Miller (2022), "Developing the Culture of Trust," Communication Essays, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 19
2. David Sless and Ruth Shrensky (2023),A New Semiotics: An Introductory Guide for Students,London and New York: Routledge, p. 98
3. Noam Chomsky (1993),Language and Thought, Kingston, RI: Moyer Bell, p. 23
Propagandists are weird. As far back as July 2021, this blog named the contemporary pseudo-populists in politics as "propagators of weird social beliefs."[1] Even then, the swill of truthiness, trash-talk, and outrageous screeches for the camera of these propagandists was so amplified that some perspective was required.
The plea in later blog posts was that it is:
...often safest and best to assume that a propagandist is weird, driven to develop extraordinary skills of self-preservation from probably a very early age, by a distorted commitment to being right and winning–at everything, by whatever means–including as an adult through remarkably protracted gaming of the legal system. All the lies, distortions, and dodges are tactics to prove to anyone who'll react that the propagandist is right and a winner, at your cost.[2]
Yet, the history of the word weird offers its own twists. Unsurprisingly with a living language, this word's story is, well, a bit weird.
Today, we mainly use weird to describe what's bizarre, cringeworthy, creepy, odd, peculiar, unusual, or eerie–with a strongly negative connotation. At the same time, Internet slang in its perversity can use weird to describe something unique or unconventional[3]–as a compliment, akin to how the word "Sick!" becomes a positive.
These are modern twists in the word's history from the Modern English period (c. 1500). In Middle English (c. 1100) connotations of the supernatural or uncanny were dominant. Mainly, before this, all the way back to the originally recorded Old English (c. 725), the word referred to fate or destiny and was often associated with supernatural or mystical beings.[4]
Other changes were to the word's spelling. The transition to "weird" came with the Anglo-Norman influence from the 1100s. Old Norse (c. 900) had adopted "urðr," referring to the fate or destiny of individuals–which was "often associated with the Norns, who controlled the destinies of gods and humans." Earlier, Old High German (c. 800) had ushered in the use of "wurt" in place of the original Old English "wyrd."[5]
This etymological story might serve as a timely warning. It'd be unfortunate and confusing if the Old English referent for what's "wyrd" as fate or destiny was in current use. Thank goodness we give the most common, modern meaning to "weird."
Its application to propagandists seems especially apt. What's really WEIRD are the obsessive energies of these zealots, who foment hate to target and marginalize any group not serving the propagandists' self-interest.
Nothing mysterious or supernatural here–just cruel perversion and self-obsession. If there's any othering worth doing, in the spirit of George Orwell's urging,[6] what is needed are ongoing efforts at scale to drive the lies and drivel of propagandists "into the dustbin" where they belong.
Of course, words are not dodgy since they have no meaning other than the significance that authors and readers or listeners give them.
But certainly, how a journalist uses verbs reveals much about the journalist. For example, have you noticed how a public figure is often reported as "trying" to do or say something?
Weirdly, a television journalist will share a video clip that clearly shows a public figure taking an action or making a comment–then the journalist paraphrases what we've just seen with a redraft of what the public figure is "trying" to do or say.
Especially when the verb "try" occurs like this repeatedly in successive sentences, it's at least distracting, or puzzling, or downright annoying. At worst, the insertions insult our abilities, since we've just seen or heard what the public figure did or said. With some journalists, these qualifiers punctuate news reports like raisins in a fruit cake.
The cumulative effect is to imply the public figure is someone who is continuously trying but never succeeding. And "trying" in this context implies failing or weakness.
This is especially so when the journalist cites in the same report that the public figure's opponent "slams" or "blasts" the actions or statements–verbs that imply power, dominance, or strength, which are likely lifted directly from a media release. Really?! No wonder so many journalists are considered useful idiots by propagandists.
Are such habits taught in journalism classes or demanded on the job by editors? Perhaps this is some sort of carry-over from editors' directives to insert verbs like "believe," "understand," or similar to distinguish what is not fully known or knowable, or to label what are merely claims. Or maybe this is all part of some misguided or naive effort to appear objective.
Ironically, for anyone paying attention, this failure to use words wisely helps progressively to diminish the credibility of the journalist and the media.
[NOTE: This post was written and published ahead of the June 27 "debate," which has stimulated a flurry of editorial and other media conjectures and projections that further illustrate points below.]
Unsurprising to anyone except those most involved in the media industry is the smoldering recognition that this industry is its own problem.
For example, the much-touted Question & Answer event that's branded as political debate between United States presidential aspirants usefully illustrates the low bar that the industry sets for itself (and us) to deliver either information or entertainment.
The media's self-hype that pitches this 90-minute non-debate as "most watched" and "potentially decisive" is suitable fodder for late night comedians, who instead exaggerate the incongruous and ironic to pillory both candidates for laughs.
Amid all the hyperbole for this not-so spectacular, it seems just one serious late night anchor is prepared to challenge such presumptions–repeatedly clarifying how this Q&A session, that's fit to be called a "NOT-Debate," requires no skill or activity of the candidates that's relevant to being an effective president of the country.[1]
Even after the 1960 presidential debates between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, it was generally agreed that the "images" television projected of the candidates was most determining of an apparent "winner," rather than the candidate's views or abilities to handle national and international issues facing America.[2] Persistently for decades, scholars and other thoughtful commentators have accumulated useful insights about what's really going on during these made-for-TV efforts.[3]
It's long acknowledged that photographs can lie. Yet the physical characteristics of a television stage set, camera angles, the frequency and duration of reaction shots, and a host of videography features will greatly impact viewer perceptions. What viewers get to see of facial expression, eye contact, use of gestures, body movement, and spatial considerations is important to imply power, dominance, and strength, or weakness.[4]
Some genuine analysis of these nonverbal features immediately following the verbal jousting might be more useful than all the conjecture and projections generally filling the commentary of pundits. This nonverbal "veil of distortion"[5] by the medium is arguably most critical in determining which candidate may have "won" in the eyes of viewers.
Such nonverbal features are especially influential in framing conscious or unconscious inferences. And the absence of useful insights about the impact of nonverbal factors that are often beyond the control of the candidates on stage is particularly unfortunate, since the comments afterwards of pundits still seem to matter most to how viewers see the so-called debaters.
Not that such important considerations seem to matter much to gatekeepers of the media industry in many western countries. Apart from a relatively few thoughtful members of the media and the very notable exception of some Scandinavian and European media organizations,[6] western broadcast media seem to lack ability (or perhaps even willingness) to benefit from available information about themselves.
Rather, media executives slavishly sustain a mockery of the public square. For almost a decade, most media in the United States at least have provided so much mention, video, photos, and verbatim quotes of one politician versus any other that their elevation of that name and "brand" surely now totals an incalculable billions-of-dollars value in free publicity.
As I've noted elsewhere, 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.[7]
And likely well into the future, overall this industry appears set to keep performing poorly for voters and the democracy that protects media freedom.
References
1. Lawrence O'Donnell (2024), The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, New York: MSNBC, June 26
2. Bruce G. Bryski and Jerry K. Frye (1980), "Nonverbal Communication in Presidential Debates," in Rodney G. Miller and Jerry K. Frye (Eds), Australian Scan of Nonverbal Communication, Brisbane, Qld: The Communication Institute, p. 31
3. See, for example, Robert Williams (1965), "On the Value of Varying Television Shots," Journal of Broadcasting, 9, Winter, pp. 33-43; Robert Schlater (1969), "Effect of Irrelevant Visual Cues on Recall of Televised Messages," Journal of Broadcasting, 14, Winter, pp. 63-70; and Daniel J. Boorstin (1978), The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, New York: Atheneum
4. Bryski and Frye, p. 29
5. John Zada (2021), Veils of Distortion: How the News Media Warps Our Minds, Toronto: Incognito
7. Peter K. Fallon (2022), Propaganda 2.1: Understanding Propaganda in the Digital Age, Eugene, OR: Cascade, p. 95; see also Rodney G. Miller (2024), Get Ahead of Propagandists: Countering Disinformation, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 13
.jpeg)
.jpg)
