{"id":1155,"date":"2008-10-03T10:56:32","date_gmt":"2008-10-03T14:56:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/johnesimpson.com\/blog\/?p=1155"},"modified":"2008-10-03T11:26:28","modified_gmt":"2008-10-03T15:26:28","slug":"fact-fiction-and-the-gray-in-between","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johnesimpson.com\/blog\/2008\/10\/fact-fiction-and-the-gray-in-between\/","title":{"rendered":"Fact, Fiction, and the Gray In-Between"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"In a college linguistics course, I first encountered the work of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA), a pre-World War II organization — we’d probably call it a think tank, nowadays — which (per Wikipedia<\/a>):<\/p>\n

…formed with the general concern that increased amounts of propaganda were decreasing the public’s ability to develop their own critical thoughts. The purpose of the IPA was to spark rational thinking and provide a guide to help the public have well-informed discussions on current issues. “To teach people how to think rather than what to think.” The IPA focused on domestic propaganda issues that might become possible threats to the democratic ways of life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’m not going to use RAMH<\/em> for political commentary, in one direction or the other. But in light of the political atmosphere in the US this year, I thought it might be useful to reiterate, briefly, the seven categories of propaganda techniques which the IPA identified:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Name-calling<\/li>\n
  2. Glittering generalities<\/li>\n
  3. Transfer<\/li>\n
  4. Testimonial<\/li>\n
  5. Plain folks<\/li>\n
  6. Card stacking<\/li>\n
  7. Bandwagon<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Each category is covered separately in links from the Wikipedia article. Another couple of excellent resources for further reading on this subject are:<\/p>\n