Propaganda Project Description
1. Find and identify four examples of propaganda in our world and media (i.e., magazines, websites or newspapers). The four categories are:
One current political issue example: take an ad, video, article or statement from current political issues either in the US or any other country as long as example is in English (or translated well) and was used/is used since 2011.
One commercial propaganda example: Choose a product that you bought and find an ad/picture/statement, etc that helped convince you to buy it.
One news propaganda example: News article (newspaper/magazine/website) or news video (internet/TV news agencies) from print or internet media. Looking at the list of current event resources in this website is a good place to start looking for articles and news for this section.
One entertainment media example: Choose one example from a Movie, Video game, Music (song/video), TV/Web show that you enjoy, watch or use.
2. Each example must show two different main propaganda techniques (for example: bandwagon, fear, etc). Do not repeat main techniques. You can describe more techniques that your example could be as well, but you should select two main techniques that you will use for each of your examples.
3. Each example must include the following:
- A title that describes the category. (see #1 above).
- Below the title: the main techniques selected
- The image (from the internet, or scanned) that you selected. Make sure to have a workable link to the site or place you find the images, videos, etc.
*Note 1: If your example is in another language other than English, you will need to translate the information that we need to know in order to make sense of the example.
* Note 2: If you put a YouTube video, etc along with your work, you can do so, but it should be enbedded if at all possible.If you are linking a video or another media that may not be accessible by everyone, you need to write a description of your example next to the link. (YouTube videos and others are an example of this).
*Note 3: For the News Example, make sure to embed the video (if not possible, link to it) and write a desctription of the general content. If it is a news article, make sure to copy/paste the entire article at the bottom of your work.
- An explanation section that answers the following questions:
o Who created the propaganda? On whose behalf was the propaganda created?
o Who is the target audience? Be specific about who is the primary audience and explain why you see it that way. There might be more than one target audience.
o How does the example show the techniques selected? Explain clearly why you see the techniques you chose using the language of the techniques themselves that can be found in the “Techniques List” page on this website.
o What relevant information must we know to understand the propaganda? What historical, cultural information must the reader know in order to make sense of this propaganda? What is the relationship of the propagandist to the society?
o What is the intended message? What is the idea or belief the propagandist wants you to have? What does the propagandist want you to believe?
o Where did you find the propaganda? Use Noodle Tools to format your bibliography
- An analysis paragraph that showcases your understanding of how this example affects you as an individual and society as a whole. Included should be your analysis of what is the “whole story”? What is the propaganda example hiding or not saying? What are the effects on you/society of not questioning or fully being informed about the message of the example and the intentions the propagandist has?
4. Your final work will be presented as a website, but you should also make sure you keep copies of your work in your files for reference.
5. In addition to your four examples, you will write a final Analysis Essay which will endeavor to analyze deeply how propaganda has shaped our world. The essay is the culmination piece of all your work for this project. Prior to writing it, you will have the opportunity to brainstorm ideas with your classmates that will help you write it. You will want to take notes during the brainstorming session and throughout in order to do well on this essay.
6. Your Main page must have an original title, and must also include a general introduction of what the project was about, and what you think propaganda is.
7. Any images, videos, or information you use from anyone else must be accompanied by a full bibliography in each of the pages that it is used. All bibliographies should be placed as near the material used as possible.
The Following Examples should help you understand the general expectations of the project for each of the sections of your examples:
Economic/Political Example Propaganda
Explanation of Example
Title: Proposed Smelter in Trinidad (Cartoon can be found in the stated link bellow)
Author: Khalil Bendib (Cartoon) found in the CorpWatch Website which is dedicated to finding issues of concern with what corporations around the world are doing or plan to do.
Source: Khalil Bendib (Cartoon) & CorpWatch.com “Smelter Struggle: Trinidad Fishing Community Fights Aluminum Project.” September 6, 2006.
Target Audience: Mainly, the citizens of Trinidad, but also anyone who is looking for information on environmental issues or anyone who might be concerned about he effects of industrial plants on the environment and the people.
Relevant Information: Trinidad is a relatively poor island country in the Caribbean Ocean. The community in which the plant is to be built has suffered from a chronic unemployment for many years, and in recent times it has also seen a rise in the net violence due to unemployment problems. It is an economically poor community, but it also seems to lack the problems that come with industrialization. The government of Trinidad is very supportive of the opening of the plant as they see it as a good opportunity for jobs and also increased revenue from the company’s presence in the country. The lion share of the profits from the aluminum produced would go to the company as they are a world wide corporation that send the aluminum products that are produced in their plants around the world for things like cans or other machine parts.
The Message: the article, as well as the cartoon point to the results that “will come” to the community if they allow the opening of the plant. This cartoon is telling the reader to be against the opening of the plant because on the left there is a drawing of a corporate tycoon who is talking about the great benefits that the project supposedly will bring to the community, all of which are commonly associated with the perceived benefits of capitalism in the society, but on the right, the “reality” of the evils of capitalism and what the project would do to the local community are expressed. The negative aspects of the opening of the plant are highlighted and therefore give the reader an overall negative image.
Propaganda Technique: Name Calling
Reasoning: It is an example of name-calling propaganda because all of the words and images on the left side are directly associated with the very negative words and visuals on the right: A cadaver, a factory polluting the air and words such as malignant and toxic to name a few. One can not but feel a sense of danger and repugnancy for the project by just looking at the cartoon.
Analysis of Example
The positive results of believing in the cartoon and the article blindly may be that if indeed the plant was to create all the negative results that are promised, and as a result, the community in Trinidad and Tobago does not accept the project, the people that would have been affected would be saved. Another positive outcome of this propaganda might be that people who see it may be shocked into thinking more about how plants and factories around them may be creating such problems in their neighborhoods and communities. A negative result of such propaganda on the other hand might be that if people do not question the correctness of the cartoon’s statements a great opportunity may be lost by the community for capital growth. Does an aluminum smelter plant create as much pollution and health problems as the cartoon claims? Could the benefits of having a plant there outweigh the problems? Are there only one hundred people in the community, and is this number enough to not have a plant? How many people could the plant benefit? Who might lose and who would gain? All of these questions are not dealt with by the cartoon, so following it blindly would negate making an informed decision that either way may affect the community positively and/or negatively. Environmental decisions are often at odds with financial decisions that our leaders make partly because people do not ask the questions necessary to make an informed decision beforehand. The citizens of Trinidad now have a tough decision to make, but this type of one sided propaganda (for or against) fails to give enough information to make a truly informed decision. I do not get a sense that the people are given all of the info, so ultimately the owners of the plant and those in the government that have helped put it there are likely to be the only ones that benefit from it in the end since the people are not making themselves a part of the process.
|News Article Propaganda Example (Full Article is pasted at the bottom) Explanation of ExampleTitle:Spreading Capitalism is Good for PeaceAuthor: Doug Bandow (Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute and Special Assistant to President Reagan)Source: Doug Bandow, The Korea Herald/ https://www.cato.org , November 10, 2005
Propaganda Technique: Logical Fallacies
Reasoning: Statement 1: Capitalism encourages free trade
This article is an example of Logical Fallacies because even though his assertions regarding the connections between capitalism and free trade to countries where there is no war may be true, his conclusion is faulty. There are presently countries that embrace capitalism were there is a lack of political freedom (China is an example). There are also countries where capitalism is practiced that are involved in wars (the US is an example) and there are countries that are not at war where free capitalism is suppressed such as some pro-socialist countries in Europe.
Intended Audience: All the readers of the website, specifically people who are either learning about economic policy or people who are interested in economic issues in Asia.
Relevant Information: The Cato Institute is a big “think Tank” of conservative economic policy in America and has worked with some of our US administrations including Ronald Reagan and both Bush administrations. The Cato Institute is very pro-free trade, pro-capitalist group that aims to propagate the positives of the system.
Message: In this article, Mr. Bandow gives some statistical evidence and names some famous philosophers and political figures to argue that peaceful countries (meaning countries that do not resort to war or attack as a means to get what they want) have become so because they have embraced capitalism. He further argues that capitalism above democracy is a means by which countries can hope to become peaceful since people are less likely to fight in war when they have a good economic life since they have a lot more to lose.
If all countries embraced capitalism as their credo, the benefit of peace that Mr. Bandow proposes may in fact occur because it is evident that many people can prosper and gain a better standard of life under capitalism. Such progress, however, is not JUST a result of capitalism in reality since in capitalism it is possible to have monopolies which benefit only very few people, as it is also possible to have a system under capitalism where a few people who own most of the wealth get to have the power to chose for the majority of the people what they should buy or “want to buy.” Mr. Bandow says that a higher standard of living is a major reason for people to want to denounce war, and that is statistically true. The question, however, is whether such standard can only be achieved by capitalism? One would have to also look at what government laws create fair trade so that a majority of people can gain access to the market, and what resources each country has to make free trade work for the most people. The danger with blankly believing in Mr. Bandow’s statements is that we could come to embrace a system that historically has been present when some of the most terrible wars have occurred, and at a time when there is a global question of exactly what the motivations for control over economies and natural resources are. What are the negatives of capitalism? Is everyone happy as a result? Who gains and who loses? I do not feel that Mr. Bandow deals with those issues, and it is therefore important to question his conclusions.
November 12, 2005
Spreading Capitalism Is Good for Peace
by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Reagan.
In a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks: What causes peace? Many people, including U.S. President George W. Bush, hope that spreading democracy will discourage war. But new research suggests that expanding free markets is a far more important factor, leading to what Columbia University’s Erik Gartzke calls a “capitalist peace.” It’s a reason for even the left to support free markets.
The capitalist peace theory isn’t new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britain’s classical liberals, such as Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism.
But World War I demonstrated that increased trade was not enough. The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and security fears from trumping the power of markets.
An even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully, World War II left war essentially unthinkable among leading industrialized – and democratic – states. Support grew for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that republics are less warlike than other systems.
Today’s corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce conflict. This contention animated some support outside as well as inside the United States for the invasion of Iraq.
But Gartzke argues that “the ‘democratic peace’ is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom.” That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states.
Thus, while “democracy is desirable for many reasons,” he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, “representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to international peace.” Capitalism is by far the more important factor.
The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches.
Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends.
Positive economic trends are not enough to prevent war, but then, neither is democracy. It long has been obvious that democracies are willing to fight, just usually not each other. Contends Gartzke, “liberal political systems, in and of themselves, have no impact on whether states fight.”
In particular, poorer democracies perform like non-democracies. He explains: “Democracy does not have a measurable impact, while nations with very low levels of economic freedom are 14 times more prone to conflict than those with very high levels.”
Gartzke considers other variables, including alliance memberships, nuclear deterrence, and regional differences.
Although the causes of conflict vary, the relationship between economic liberty and peace remains.
His conclusion hasn’t gone unchallenged. Author R.J. Rummel, an avid proponent of the democratic peace theory, challenges Gartzke’s methodology and worries that it “may well lead intelligent and policy-wise analysts and commentators to draw the wrong conclusions about the importance of democratization.”
Gartzke responds in detail, noting that he relied on the same data as most democratic peace theorists. If it is true that democratic states don’t go to war, then it also is true that “states with advanced free market economies never go to war with each other, either.”
The point is not that democracy is valueless. Free political systems naturally entail free elections and are more likely to protect other forms of liberty – civil and economic, for instance.
However, democracy alone doesn’t yield peace. To believe is does is dangerous: There’s no panacea for creating a conflict-free world.
That doesn’t mean that nothing can be done. But promoting open international markets – that is, spreading capitalism – is the best means to encourage peace as well as prosperity.
Notes Gartzke: “Warfare among developing nations will remain unaffected by the capitalist peace as long as the economies of many developing countries remain fettered by governmental control.” Freeing those economies is critical.
It’s a particularly important lesson for the anti-capitalist left. For the most part, the enemies of economic liberty also most stridently denounce war, often in near-pacifist terms. Yet they oppose the very economic policies most likely to encourage peace.
If market critics don’t realize the obvious economic and philosophical value of markets – prosperity and freedom – they should appreciate the unintended peace dividend. Trade encourages prosperity and stability; technological innovation reduces the financial value of conquest; globalization creates economic interdependence, increasing the cost of war.
Nothing is certain in life, and people are motivated by far more than economics. But it turns out that peace is good business. And capitalism is good for peace.
This article appeared in the Korea Herald on November 10, 2005.