They're not dead, and they're not inanimate. Next come three pages on the politics of the research from Evan Thomas and Eleanor Clift. Subhead: "The president is trapped between religion and science over stem cells.
And yet Bush is clearly discovering that the politics and ethics of stem-cell research are more complicated than a simple 'no' from the federal government. By a margin, the public wants to go forward with research that has the potential to provide magical cures for a host of neurological and other diseases. Finally, a note of fairness: The magazine's religion correspondent, Kenneth Woodward, has a short piece on the ethics of stem-cell research that doesn't have a conclusion to pound us over the head with.
It is not until the reader read the last two lines that the connection is made: Abdul Qadeer Khan "the father of the Islamic bomb" "Quote of the Day" By connecting the speaker with the nuclear weapons, the Post was able to thus connect the rural feeling created by the quote to the nuclear technology. Since one does not imply the other, there is a sense of uneasiness created in the mind of the reader.
The critical point is that although the quote is correct factually, the context in which it is presented, the specific form and placement of labels, is what makes it propaganda.
The article continues by explaining that "Myron Weiner, a sociologist and South Asia expert at MIT, is one of the many analysts who say they are concerned that if Pakistan is pushed to the brink of financial ruin This tactic relies on authority of an expert testimony which is explained in the introduction as a heuristic that when someone credible and in this case by title of an expert, a person will automatically believe the information to be correct.
To media uses this tactic to help establish the ideologue that the unstable region of Pakistan can only cause problems with their nuclear technology. In effect, the purpose of the propaganda will be to ensure that French nuclear technology appears non-threatening. In order to achieve this goal, the media had to take the focus of nuclear technology away from the military implications and focus it elsewhere. Many articles that came out in newspapers across America after France exploded their first atomic bomb on February 13, shifted the focus toward more political themes.
This is a clear example of the Dune affect, which states that those who control the media control the opinions of the people. Subjectively, the media focuses on shifting the focus from something bad to something good when it serves the ideology they wish to spread. Furthermore, it is possible for this to be work because this exploits a well-known principle of human behavior which says, "people simply like to have reasons for what they do" Cialdini 3. Thus, the media only needs to give a reason for their message despite its validity in order for it to be accepted.
Thus the reader becomes interested the diplomacy that comes with the nuclear technology instead of the implications for destruction. To strengthen this effect of the shift of emphasis, the Tribune article moves to discuss the effects of the nuclear weapons of "restoring French grandeur and influence Effectively turning the emphasis from war to de Gaulle and French diplomacy relies heavily on the persuasive techniques in reprogramming which allows the author to shift the focus and begin making greater speculations.
Twisting the focus degrees, from the destructive technology, to diplomacy, to disarmament talks, the article was able to spin the truth or reality because it served the purpose of the propagandist who had control of the media.
Similarly, the New York Times published an article a week after the test in which it emphasized the impact of the French nuclear technology on NATO instead of war: "By joining the atomic club, de Gaulle hopes to gain a voice in big power disarmament decisions and to increase the influence of French diplomacy" Sulzberger And so the propaganda tactic of giving any justification because people simply like to have reasons for what they do comes into play as the article persuades the reader to focus on the non-threatening nature of the technology.
This persuasion comes across the strongest when the article explains that the French nuclear technology was designed "to increase the influence of French diplomacy," since this goal encompasses no aggressive intentions on the part of the French. The article continues by stating that "Eventually it would be sensible to give the French certain nuclear arms in return got promises to use such weapons as NATO requires" Sulzberger Since the article began by suggesting that France is worthy of nuclear weapons, since they will not use them for ill deeds, the idea of giving them nuclear technology would now seem logical.
This is a persuasion tactic known as commitment to consistency, which is plays on human's "obsessive desire to be and appear to be consistent with what we have already done" Cialdini The tactic works by starting small and building by slowly reinforces be consistent with commitment whether it be public or private. This tactic allows the author and media in general to slowly bring the reader to a conclusion that would normally be difficult to justify.
Sulzberger ends this New York Times article on such a note: "In aiding France we cannot risk offending other allies. But there is no doubt this country now qualifies for special" treatment Thus Sulzberger takes the tactic of commitment to consistency to the next level as he leaves the future ambiguous, not stating exactly what type of "special treatment" he is referring to. A Chicago Tribune article published the day after the French test used a similar approach as the New York Times article, in that it turned the focus away from the precarious nature of the atomic technology.
In particular, the article noted that "authoritative sources in Britain said the French explosion was an undeniable achievement which will have important political implications" "World Praise, Anger, Greet French Blast" 4.
Although more direct, the Chicago Tribune article will have a similar persuasive effect on the reader, who is encouraged to note the "political implications" of a technology designed for war. The examples of articles using such a propaganda tactic are numerous, and most can be found by studying articles printed the week of the French atomic bomb explosion.
A New York Times printed the day after the explosion points to other diplomatic issues with the new French power: "Politically, the French are now entitled to a seat in the conference room [in Geneva]" Rosenthal 2. The subtle point that was made was that the French are now involved with disarmament talks, something that completely shifts the focus away from aggressive acts as a result of having nuclear technology. Indeed, there is more to the presentation of information than the facts one uses.
The placement of the facts and the order can slowly mold the understanding of the reader. Through specific propaganda techniques reprogramming, authority, and commitment to consistency the author is able to take a potentially dangerous situation and make the reader feel completely comfortable with the various scenarios that may ensue.
How to Defend Against Propaganda As a result of our increasing sophistication and to build our civilization, we have created and environment so complex, so fast-paced, and information-laden, that we must increasingly deal with it in the fashion of the animals we long ago transcended.
Thus, from the case studies on how the media uses propaganda, we can understand that the media does more than presentation facts and information. The media has the ability to exploit persuasive tactics to the specific definition of propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. Indeed, as we have shown, this does not have to be the "in your face," World War II propaganda.
Instead, the presentation is subtle and unaware to the untrained eye, so that even slight difference in the presentation can help change contextual understanding. We are not advocating that propaganda is wrong; we have tried to show, that overall it is usually helpful to respond to messages mindlessly, and that the truly only way to defend against it is to be more aware of the tactics being used.
Phil Zimbardo, an expert in mind control tactics, outlines in a paper twenty ways to resist unwanted social influence. We have listed three ways that are most relevant to defending against propaganda: Be aware of the general perspective that others use to frame the problem or issue at hand, because accepting their frame on their terms gives them a powerful advantage.
For example, the reader of newspaper articles on Pakistan's nuclear weapons must be aware that the author has inserted his understanding of situations that do not fall into the category of the article headline: whether this be in terms of Pakistan as a nation, Pakistan's military, or the Pakistani culture.
In fact, it is usually through this framing of the situation that the author can persuade the reader to think of the issue in a different light. Be sensitive to situational demands however trivial they may seem: group norms, group pressures, symbols of authority, slogans, and commitments. Don't believe in simple solutions to complex personal, social, and political problems.
As with the media coverage of Pakistan and France, it is usually much easier for the reader to let an article tell him what to believe, instead of using the article as merely a suggestion of what may be believed. Especially as the tactics grow more and more refined, more and more subtle, and more and more persuasive, we find that the minute we stop observing with a critical eye, we have already been persuaded.
It is so often that we find ourselves overwhelmed by work that needs to be done. It is so often that we do not have time to sort through the information presented to us so that we may derive our own solution. And sadly, it is so often that we let ourselves fall prey to propaganda for we have grown too weary to defend ourselves.
In the end, it must be remembered that it is not enough to dissent vocally -- one must be willing to disobey, to defy, to challenge, and to suffer any ensuing consequences of these actions Zimbardo The goal and proactive nature of this paper fall under this category. We hope that through our case studies of Pakistan and France, we were able to educate the reader in such a way that he becomes less susceptible to propaganda and realizes that it is all around, not just limited to a collection of World War II posters.
In a sense, the main theme of prevention is awareness; understand the situation and act accordingly. The infamous cases of Aldrich Ames and Edward Snowden have been highly publicized and extensively researched by the intelligence community, media, and academics alike. There is definitely a bias in this article which was discovered through research and inference. Previous articles and books written by Kamenetz show a bias on the behalf of disagreeing with how the future has been molded financially for young adults.
History can be a vague concept to study and understand. History depends on the point of view of the person that is being studied and no two stories are ever exactly alike.
January , Olsen, Casey. It is so often that we do not have time to sort through the information presented to us so that we may derive our own solution. Phil Zimbardo, an expert in mind control tactics, outlines in a paper twenty ways to resist unwanted social influence. This tactic relies on authority of an expert testimony which is explained in the introduction as a heuristic that when someone credible and in this case by title of an expert, a person will automatically believe the information to be correct. In addition to linking Pakistan with terrorist nations, there was a desire to also link it with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. Why Were Pakistan and France Chosen?
Most people will look at that image and think, "That doesn't look like a human being at all. Case Study 2: Enemy as Barbarian, and Authority We will explore another example of how the facts are tinted using propaganda tactics with a focus on how the American media portrays the stability of Pakistan. For instance, in order to persuade the American public to think of Pakistan in such terms, media will link Pakistan to historically defined United States enemies such Libya, Iran, Iraq and the former Soviet Union. Shockingly, even more adults get their news from cable TV than a network — 28 percent in Matsa — which most likely means people are tuning in to stations that are compatible with their own biases. Don't believe in simple solutions to complex personal, social, and political problems. Furthermore, it is possible for this to be work because this exploits a well-known principle of human behavior which says, "people simply like to have reasons for what they do" Cialdini 3.
The American Press Institute and the Washington Post both have fact-checking categories on their websites, too.
Many articles that came out in newspapers across America after France exploded their first atomic bomb on February 13, shifted the focus toward more political themes. Thus, linking to a country America already has shared beliefs about quickly allows one to associate and project the existing beliefs on the new group, which in this case is Pakistan. In addition to linking Pakistan with terrorist nations, there was a desire to also link it with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. They're not dead, and they're not inanimate. In short, although nuclear proliferation as a general matter is contrary to the interests of both superpowers, it is arguably less damaging to the superpower that ultimately prefers fundamental changes in the structure of world politics than to the one that favors evolutionary change in the world order
Arguably, the presentation of this quote may be deemed important factually for the development of the article, but the placement of the quote right at the start of the article strongly suggest propagandistic intentions. It is not until the reader read the last two lines that the connection is made: Abdul Qadeer Khan "the father of the Islamic bomb" "Quote of the Day" Thus the media describe Pakistan in terms that will establish it as a global threat because of their instability. The infamous cases of Aldrich Ames and Edward Snowden have been highly publicized and extensively researched by the intelligence community, media, and academics alike. We simply don't know how embryonic cells might help people who are suffering and dying today. Another excellent chart that ranks the trust levels of media outlets by conservatives and liberals is found on Businessinsider.
January , Olsen, Casey. Scrolling through my own social media feeds, seeing highly-biased and deceptive posts shared by my friends, it strikes me how easy it is to confuse a biased news article with an opinion column; to conflate satire with fake news. Ellul, Jacques. To strengthen this effect of the shift of emphasis, the Tribune article moves to discuss the effects of the nuclear weapons of "restoring French grandeur and influence
But even with the description, 36 percent thought it was satire.
The Jerusalem Post and the Washington Post articles also take another approach to the propagandistic tactic of creating an enemy as friend of enemy.
Finally, a note of fairness: The magazine's religion correspondent, Kenneth Woodward, has a short piece on the ethics of stem-cell research that doesn't have a conclusion to pound us over the head with. Marijuana is a complex drug and its contradictory claims of medical purposes, and harmful destruction, fuel the debate on whether or not the legal constraints of consuming marijuana should be reconsidered. Furthermore, it is possible to rely on past stereotypes as form of linking one idea to another group. Blaire, Granger. And a recent Pew study showed that as of August , 62 percent of U. If students personally comment on their research, they will be more engaged and evaluative, explaining why they chose the main points and evidence they used as well as what they chose to leave out.