Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary
Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary
Propaganda is an old concept. The term was first used in 1622 by the Catholics on Congregatio de propaganda de fide (Congregation for the propagation of faith). It has been used in different ways, but nowadays, it is mostly associated with disinformation.
Jowett & O’Donnell's (2013: 7) definition: ”Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”
Authors distinguish between white, grey, and black propaganda. They can briefly be described as follows:
Black propaganda means intentional lies. This concept resembles Wardle's concept of disinformation, fabricated and manipulated content (more about Wardle on "disinformation").
Grey propaganda may contain correct facts, but the facts are framed och presented in a misleading way. This resembles some of Wardle's categories, but in Wardle's taxonomy misinformation is not intentional.
White propaganda is pretty much any kind of openly strategic communication, such as advertising, marketing, or well-meaning campaigns like "Stop smoking." Critics, however, point out that if anything can be classified as propaganda, the concept loses its meaning. Wardle doesn't include this type of content.
The point is that strategic communication can take many different forms and be used for many different purposes. Obvious lies are easier to detect than more subtle attempts to shape perceptions or behavior. Some attempts at persuasion may be positive (for example, health campaigns), and some negative (disinformation campaigns).
Jowett, G. S. & O'Donnell, V. (2013). Propaganda and Persuasion. Sage.
Wardle, C. (2018). The Need for Smarter Definitions and Practical, Timely Empirical Research on Information Disorder, Digital Journalism, 6:8, 951-963, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1502047.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
Red herring |
Something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit. If you want to avoid talking about something, change the subject. Pick something that will engage the other people. It can be completely off the current track or something related, but not really relevant. Something controversial or anything that arouses their emotions is often a good idea. Examples:
|
Reductio ad absurdum |
Is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. If X is false, then the situation would be absurd. So X is true. When you want to prove something is true, indicate that if it were false, then the situation would be plainly ridiculous and things might happen that are obviously nonsensical. Make it seem that anyone who believes that the item is false would also be ridiculous and unworthy. A variant on this is to start by assuming several things might be true, then show that if the (desired) item is true then other items must be false. Examples:
|
Reification |
Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept, idea, or something that is not concrete, as if it were a concrete, tangible object. While reification is common and often acceptable in everyday language and literature, using it in logical reasoning or rhetoric can be misleading and is usually considered a fallacy. Examples of Reification:
In logical reasoning and rhetoric, reification can distort the truth and lead to faulty conclusions. It’s important to distinguish between metaphorical language and precise, factual statements to avoid this fallacy. |