05-18-2018, 12:00 AM
One of the techniques of propaganda used a lot these days is the "propaganda flood". This consists of presenting tiny bits and pieces of an ideology scattered throughout many different areas so as to make it difficult for others to present arguments against the ideology itself. Cumulatively these bits and pieces create a "flood" of messages saying similar things from different areas. Those things simply being "This ideology is good". This works particularly well if one controls the mainstream media, (at least, so I would imagine), or if one is promoting an ideology the mainstream media also promotes.
By presenting only tiny pieces of an ideology, or perhaps just associating the ideology with heroes and hip slogans over and over again; the actual premisses of the ideology remain hidden and thus hard to examine/attack. If one doesn't care about the truth of an ideology and merely wishes to promote it, this is a good means to do so. As the main arguments on which the ideology is based will already be familiar to most of the audience, (if it's one that's promoted by the mainstream media that is), and the arguments against it will be unfamiliar, (due to censorship from the media as well as in schools), keeping the conversation down to short quips, unexamined claims, and occasional one-liner zingers is beneficial to those promoting the ideology.
For example, most people have heard that 1 in 4 women are raped in their lifetime. They've heard this many times from many different sources. It's been flooded at them. Yet, very few know where this number came from. That's because this almost always was presented as a quick fact, unexamined, and usually unsourced. If it were examined, sourced, and discussed, people would find out that it originally came from a telephone survey of women conducted by a feminist organization led by women who had, (among other things), called for the complete annihilation of men from the planet and claimed that all sex is rape. That alone would get people to question it. Further, they would find out that 80% of the women the survey labelled as having been raped answered the question "Have you ever been raped?" with "No". You think this might have generated a bit more skepticism? Additionally, a discussion could lead to the changing definitions of rape over the years. None of these things being discussed could be good for anyone who doesn't care about truth and only wishes to promote a feminist worldview.
With propaganda flooding, such a person can use this statistic over and over again without worry of it's validity being examined. In fact, it's been done for about 50 years now, and only recently have more than a small handful of people started questioning it. Until the internet, most probably assumed this came from police statistics and actual cases of convicted rapes, (although when these statistics came out I suspect most found them unbelievable, until they heard them over and over again enough times without ever hearing the arguments against them). It's now a lot more common knowledge that police reports on rape are nowhere near 1 in 4 women being victims in their lives, (closer to 1 in 1,000). Of course, whenever the discrepancy is mentioned the quip "Most rapes go unreported" is usually good enough to get people to quit asking questions. On the very rare occasion that someone does ask "How do you have data on things that haven't been reported?" the usual retort of this sort of propagandist is something like "You've given us a lot to think about", and then immediately change the subject before any actual thinking about it can occur.
Of course, this is just one piece of the worldview. The view itself is composed of many other pieces as well which can all presented in a likewise flooded manner. In fact, doing so in a disconnected way helps keep the audience from focusing on any one thing for too long, and also spreads out the argument such that it appears more massive and hard to deal with. In fact, even if someone did reply to all of the various parts of the flood with in-depth explanations as to how it is dubious how many people do you think will take the time to read them all?
Now that you know what a propaganda flood is, can you recognize it when you see it?
Can you provide any examples of statistics or other "facts" you've heard over and over again without ever seeing them examined in depth or even sourced?
When engaging a propagandist, do they reply in ways that encourage or discourage questioning of their worldview?
How might you try to argue against a propaganda flood if you were so inclined?
By presenting only tiny pieces of an ideology, or perhaps just associating the ideology with heroes and hip slogans over and over again; the actual premisses of the ideology remain hidden and thus hard to examine/attack. If one doesn't care about the truth of an ideology and merely wishes to promote it, this is a good means to do so. As the main arguments on which the ideology is based will already be familiar to most of the audience, (if it's one that's promoted by the mainstream media that is), and the arguments against it will be unfamiliar, (due to censorship from the media as well as in schools), keeping the conversation down to short quips, unexamined claims, and occasional one-liner zingers is beneficial to those promoting the ideology.
For example, most people have heard that 1 in 4 women are raped in their lifetime. They've heard this many times from many different sources. It's been flooded at them. Yet, very few know where this number came from. That's because this almost always was presented as a quick fact, unexamined, and usually unsourced. If it were examined, sourced, and discussed, people would find out that it originally came from a telephone survey of women conducted by a feminist organization led by women who had, (among other things), called for the complete annihilation of men from the planet and claimed that all sex is rape. That alone would get people to question it. Further, they would find out that 80% of the women the survey labelled as having been raped answered the question "Have you ever been raped?" with "No". You think this might have generated a bit more skepticism? Additionally, a discussion could lead to the changing definitions of rape over the years. None of these things being discussed could be good for anyone who doesn't care about truth and only wishes to promote a feminist worldview.
With propaganda flooding, such a person can use this statistic over and over again without worry of it's validity being examined. In fact, it's been done for about 50 years now, and only recently have more than a small handful of people started questioning it. Until the internet, most probably assumed this came from police statistics and actual cases of convicted rapes, (although when these statistics came out I suspect most found them unbelievable, until they heard them over and over again enough times without ever hearing the arguments against them). It's now a lot more common knowledge that police reports on rape are nowhere near 1 in 4 women being victims in their lives, (closer to 1 in 1,000). Of course, whenever the discrepancy is mentioned the quip "Most rapes go unreported" is usually good enough to get people to quit asking questions. On the very rare occasion that someone does ask "How do you have data on things that haven't been reported?" the usual retort of this sort of propagandist is something like "You've given us a lot to think about", and then immediately change the subject before any actual thinking about it can occur.
Of course, this is just one piece of the worldview. The view itself is composed of many other pieces as well which can all presented in a likewise flooded manner. In fact, doing so in a disconnected way helps keep the audience from focusing on any one thing for too long, and also spreads out the argument such that it appears more massive and hard to deal with. In fact, even if someone did reply to all of the various parts of the flood with in-depth explanations as to how it is dubious how many people do you think will take the time to read them all?
Now that you know what a propaganda flood is, can you recognize it when you see it?
Can you provide any examples of statistics or other "facts" you've heard over and over again without ever seeing them examined in depth or even sourced?
When engaging a propagandist, do they reply in ways that encourage or discourage questioning of their worldview?
How might you try to argue against a propaganda flood if you were so inclined?
