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 |
---|---|
Scapegoating |
An ancient fallacy that says whenever something goes wrong, there's always someone other than oneself to blame. Although this fallacy sometimes is a practical denial of randomness or chance itself, today it is more often a mere insurance-driven business decision. Example: A particularly corrupt and cynical example of scapegoating is the fallacy of Blaming the Victim, in which one falsely casts the blame for one's own evil or questionable actions on those affected. In extreme cases, this can also be described as coercion or extortion. |
Secundum quid |
Meaning "[what is true] in a certain respect and [what is true] absolutely". What often happens here is that the general rule being used is either assumed to have a wider scope (being more general) than is reasonable, or that it is simply mismatched with the case that it is being used to cover. We have a deep need to explain things that happen, which leads to many people accepting a general rule as explanation for a specific case, even when that rule clearly does not apply. A convenient Secundum quid may thus be used deliberately when there is no general rule available. |
Slippery slope |
A series of statements that have a superficial connection with one another, and which lead into what is often a rather far-fetched conclusion. In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. Example: If we ban smoking, then people will start taking soft drugs and then move onto hard drugs, and the crime rate will go up and up. We should therefore prevent crime by allowing smoking. |
Straw man |
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Examples:
|
Style over substance |
The style over substance fallacy occurs when an argument is judged or accepted based on its presentation rather than its content. This fallacy places undue emphasis on the eloquence, appearance, or delivery of the message instead of the actual evidence and logic supporting it. This fallacy can mislead people into believing a claim is true or valid simply because it is presented in a polished, attractive, or authoritative manner. While style and presentation can enhance communication, they should not overshadow the importance of solid reasoning and factual evidence. Examples: Charismatic Speaker: "The candidate gave an incredibly moving and passionate speech, so he must have the best policies."
|