Public Education Forum a NAFO Initiative

Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary

"Propaganda is the technique of influencing human action by the manipulation of representations." Harold D. Laswell

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.

Search for glossary terms (regular expression allowed)
Term Definition

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:

  1. "A computer is like a brain. It can make intuitive leaps as well."
    • This example mistakenly attributes human-like intuition to computers, which do not possess such abstract capabilities.
  2. "The Boston Matrix tells us that our product range has a cash cow, two question marks, and a dog. We should remove one question mark and the dog."
    • Here, the Boston Matrix, a conceptual business tool, is treated as if it could actively communicate and make decisions.
  3. "Alan is a god amongst men. He will know you better than you know yourself. He will be able to heal you with a single touch."
    • This statement reifies Alan as a deity with supernatural abilities, which is an exaggerated and concrete representation of his qualities.

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.

Synonyms - concretism, hypostatization, misplaced concreteness

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:
"I don't care if it was an accident! Somebody with deep pockets is gonna pay for this!"

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.

Synonyms - dicto simpliciter, secundum quid et simpliciter, ignoring qualifications, sweeping generalizations, misuse of a principle

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:

  1. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
  2. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
  3. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
    Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
Synonyms - strawman

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."
Here, the judgment is based on the speaker's style rather than the actual content and viability of the policies being proposed.

  • Flashy Presentation: "The company's new product must be revolutionary because the launch event had amazing special effects and a dynamic speaker."
    In this case, the product is being judged based on the impressive presentation rather than its actual features and benefits.

Tu quoque

Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent is hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.

Example:
The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the template:

  1. Person A claims that statement X is true.
  2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
  3. Therefore, X is false.
Synonyms - personal inconsistency, ad hominem tu quoque, whataboutism

NAFO Public Education Forum

The purpose of NAFO-PEF is to engage in identifying and analyzing disinformation, formulating defensive strategies, and crafting proactive measures to counter and minimize its impact.

To support our efforts, you can check out our merchandise available on Buy Me a Coffee and our Bonfire Store. Every purchase directly helps fund the forum’s activities and our ongoing fight against disinformation.