This article has very good information on the differences between bias and propaganda, as well as a good summary of the six primary propaganda techniques.
And BTW -- for a quick heads-up the bottom line is that NPR does not run propaganda against Trump.
Why does the NPR station have so much propaganda against Trump?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-.../answer/Peter-Kruger?share=3a55a0f2&srid=HDrG
In the words of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Part of the premise of your question is because of linguistic drift in the community that you, OP, are pretty obviously a member of. In your mind, propaganda has become equivalent to “journalism I don’t like.” This happened in part because Republicans and those who call themselves conservatives have taken such a hard right turn that the center has become part of the left. So, what used to be centrist, even Republican-leaning media has become considered left-biased, because the definition of “left” has shifted. Then, right-leaning communities have confused the terms “bias” and “propaganda.”
You have to understand that bias is not the same as propaganda.
Propaganda is a very specific concept, with several defined strategies. It involves the use of information (and typically misinformation) to try to distort a target’s perceptions through tempting logical fallacies that play upon emotional appeals.
There are six primary propaganda techniques.
Edit 2/6/18: a number of commenters have pointed out that stereotyping and disinformation are also propaganda techniques. I personally would roll stereotyping into the name-calling technique.
Disinformation is an odd one. I wouldn’t call it propaganda, in the traditional sense. I would really classify propaganda as a part of information warfare, rather than synonymous with it. Disinformation campaigns are another part of information warfare.
Disinformation is about changing the actual facts to fictional facts; propaganda is about getting you to ignore facts and make emotionally-biased conclusions. Disinformation is actual fake news; propaganda is spin.
You could use propaganda to sell disinformation, make it seem more credible. Propaganda outlets such as The Blaze, David Avocado Wolfe, InfoWars, or NaturalNews often use propaganda to reinforce the idea that other journalism outlets are not trustworthy and make their disinformation more credible to the audience.
That’s why it’s important to judge both the credibility and the bias of a source. Far too often, we just judge the bias, dismiss anything that doesn’t fit our bias, and forget to judge the credibility of the source. That’s how people get trapped in the right-wing as well as the left-wing trash cans. Right now, there’s simply more people in the right-wing cans and more outlets in that area targeted at the US, but, and I stress but, liberals are just as prone to fall for disinformation and propaganda techniques.
Currently, on the right, there’s a great deal of disinformation that is widely believed about denying climate change and the validity of Russian election interference. On the left, there’s a great deal of disinformation that is widely believed about genetically modified organisms and vaccines. Both Alex Jones and Gwyneth Paltrow will happily sell you things you should never insert into your bodily orifices.
One of the most important propaganda strategies is convincing you that all other sources of information are lying to you. It’s an appeal to authority. Does what you listen to or watch frequently rip on the “lamestream lyin’ media,” and tell you that they exclusively know Teh Truth!™? Then probably they’re the ones feeding you propaganda.
NPR doesn’t do that, apart from pointing out when a different source is actually factually incorrect. They might have an exclusive story, but they will not tell you that all other sources are lying and therefore you can only trust NPR.
NPR is pretty centrist, and focuses on primary fact reporting, rather than partisan analysis, for the most part.
If your only frame of reference is all that stuff down in the lower right hand corner, then yeah, everything is going to seem like left-wing media to you, because you’ve been conditioned to think that way by actual propagandists.
NPR will often focus on balance by having on credible members of opposing parties and arguments to speak for their sides. The fact that one side is capable of speaking credibly about their arguments and another side is not is not solely a reflection of NPR. Questioning a source of information or a person making an assertion to require them to explain their factual grounds and reasoning is not bias. It’s simply good journalism.
NPR running stories about whatever crazy made-up verifiable lie Trump said today is not propaganda. NPR is not trying to unfairly appeal to your emotions so that you ignore actual facts. NPR is not presenting you with only one side so that you have a selective, incomplete picture of the facts that complies with a singular narrative. NPR will present you with the facts, in context, and with follow up to verify if those things are true or false.
When you feel like the whole world is against you, sometimes the problem is you.
And BTW -- for a quick heads-up the bottom line is that NPR does not run propaganda against Trump.
Why does the NPR station have so much propaganda against Trump?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-.../answer/Peter-Kruger?share=3a55a0f2&srid=HDrG
In the words of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Part of the premise of your question is because of linguistic drift in the community that you, OP, are pretty obviously a member of. In your mind, propaganda has become equivalent to “journalism I don’t like.” This happened in part because Republicans and those who call themselves conservatives have taken such a hard right turn that the center has become part of the left. So, what used to be centrist, even Republican-leaning media has become considered left-biased, because the definition of “left” has shifted. Then, right-leaning communities have confused the terms “bias” and “propaganda.”
You have to understand that bias is not the same as propaganda.
Propaganda is a very specific concept, with several defined strategies. It involves the use of information (and typically misinformation) to try to distort a target’s perceptions through tempting logical fallacies that play upon emotional appeals.
There are six primary propaganda techniques.
- Bandwagoning. This is the technique of convincing you that all the cool kids are doing it. It appeals to the need to be part of an in-group. It is an application of the ad populum logically fallacy - if it’s popular, it must be true or good. Junk food is popular. That doesn’t mean you don’t need to eat your vegetables.
- Stacking the Cards. This is the technique of giving the audience carefully selected facts to present a compelling case, while silencing or ignoring contrary facts. It appeals to the mind’s desire for neat, orderly narratives, and to confirmation bias. It’s an application of the “Texas Sharpshooter” or cherry-picking logical fallacy - if I shoot at a barn and then paint the target around where I shot the best grouping, it looks like I’m an amazing marksman. The Nunes memo accusing the FBI of having it in for Trump is a great example of this propaganda technique.
- Transfer or Association. This is the technique of associating the concept you want to promote or negate with a highly positive or negative secondary concept. It appeals to the mind’s tendency to create associations. Notice how in beer commercials, everyone is always having a good time, and they’re usually cool, good looking people? That’s how transfer works.
- Glittering Generalities. This is the technique of using meaningless, but highly positively connotative language to promote an argument. It is appealing because we like positive things. Who doesn’t want to Make America Great? As always, though, the devil is in the details. $1.5 trillion for infrastructure? Great! Where are we gonna get the money? Well… we’re gonna build a wall ’cause we’re builders and jobs, and Mexico will pay for it! Ok… but how will that happen? Umm… something something step 4, profit!
- Name Calling. This is the opposite of glittering generalities, and it’s the use of negatively connotative labels on opposition parties or arguments. It’s an application of the ad hominem attack on the character of a person. It relies on stereotypes and painting with broad brushes - rarely specifics. Once the audience has a label, the audience fills in the rest. It appeals to popularity and association - you don’t want to be in the same party as Lyin’ Chuck, do you? The “basket of deplorables” comment by Clinton is a good example.
- Testimonials. This is the technique of using anecdotal evidence to promote the concept. It relies on the logical fallacy of oversimplification - since it worked for this person, it will definitely work for me! It appeals to the desire for proof, because here you can’t refute that it worked for this person! Infomercials and commercials that show people using the product and telling you how well it worked for them are prime examples. If you’ve ever been to a state fair or exposition, you’ve seen this.
Edit 2/6/18: a number of commenters have pointed out that stereotyping and disinformation are also propaganda techniques. I personally would roll stereotyping into the name-calling technique.
Disinformation is an odd one. I wouldn’t call it propaganda, in the traditional sense. I would really classify propaganda as a part of information warfare, rather than synonymous with it. Disinformation campaigns are another part of information warfare.
Disinformation is about changing the actual facts to fictional facts; propaganda is about getting you to ignore facts and make emotionally-biased conclusions. Disinformation is actual fake news; propaganda is spin.
You could use propaganda to sell disinformation, make it seem more credible. Propaganda outlets such as The Blaze, David Avocado Wolfe, InfoWars, or NaturalNews often use propaganda to reinforce the idea that other journalism outlets are not trustworthy and make their disinformation more credible to the audience.
That’s why it’s important to judge both the credibility and the bias of a source. Far too often, we just judge the bias, dismiss anything that doesn’t fit our bias, and forget to judge the credibility of the source. That’s how people get trapped in the right-wing as well as the left-wing trash cans. Right now, there’s simply more people in the right-wing cans and more outlets in that area targeted at the US, but, and I stress but, liberals are just as prone to fall for disinformation and propaganda techniques.
Currently, on the right, there’s a great deal of disinformation that is widely believed about denying climate change and the validity of Russian election interference. On the left, there’s a great deal of disinformation that is widely believed about genetically modified organisms and vaccines. Both Alex Jones and Gwyneth Paltrow will happily sell you things you should never insert into your bodily orifices.
One of the most important propaganda strategies is convincing you that all other sources of information are lying to you. It’s an appeal to authority. Does what you listen to or watch frequently rip on the “lamestream lyin’ media,” and tell you that they exclusively know Teh Truth!™? Then probably they’re the ones feeding you propaganda.
NPR doesn’t do that, apart from pointing out when a different source is actually factually incorrect. They might have an exclusive story, but they will not tell you that all other sources are lying and therefore you can only trust NPR.
NPR is pretty centrist, and focuses on primary fact reporting, rather than partisan analysis, for the most part.
If your only frame of reference is all that stuff down in the lower right hand corner, then yeah, everything is going to seem like left-wing media to you, because you’ve been conditioned to think that way by actual propagandists.
NPR will often focus on balance by having on credible members of opposing parties and arguments to speak for their sides. The fact that one side is capable of speaking credibly about their arguments and another side is not is not solely a reflection of NPR. Questioning a source of information or a person making an assertion to require them to explain their factual grounds and reasoning is not bias. It’s simply good journalism.
NPR running stories about whatever crazy made-up verifiable lie Trump said today is not propaganda. NPR is not trying to unfairly appeal to your emotions so that you ignore actual facts. NPR is not presenting you with only one side so that you have a selective, incomplete picture of the facts that complies with a singular narrative. NPR will present you with the facts, in context, and with follow up to verify if those things are true or false.
When you feel like the whole world is against you, sometimes the problem is you.
