MUCKRAKING TOOLS 101 - More Rhetorical Devices (or ways to spot propaganda)
Reposted from the fall of 2021 - so a few references might feel old
Continuing along the theme of the previous post, I am sharing something here that I put together two years ago. The original version was part of a larger project: Document 74 of my 2021 COMPILATION OF LETTERS, ARTICLES & RESEARCH DOCUMENTS found here. In the next post, I will share an excerpt from Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, illustrating the uses of some of these devices/techniques in that piece of writing.
I am indebted to Owen M. Williamson of the University of Texas at El Paso, for having prepared and shared this AMAZING “Master List of Logical Fallacies” https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
With its over 140 entries, this is a gold mine for anyone seeking to be wary of propaganda techniques!!!
MUCKRAKING TOOLS 101
Muckrakers – those who “rake the muck” i.e. often reform-minded journalists who point out problems in society. Early muckrakers tackled issues like child labour, racial inequity, etc.
This media literacy project introduces views to some of the famous American muckraking journalists such as Ida B. Wells, Upton Sinclair and more.
https://www.mucktracker.com/muckrakers.html
To recognize Muck, learn to recognize:
AD HOMINEM;
CHERRY PICKING;
GATEKEEPER;
LIMITED HANGOUT;
MOVING THE GOAL POSTS;
NAME IT TO TAME IT;
PROCRUSTEAN SOLUTION;
PSYOP/FALSE FLAG;
& STRAW MAN
as outlined below.
===========
→Ad Hominem:
See more from the News Literacy Project on this tactic here.
This is a form of attack meant to discredit or defame a critic through the use of name calling, insults or ‘guilt by association.’ The actual content of the critic’s views is completely side-swiped.
Statement A: There are many dangers of smoking.
Statement B: Yeah, and you’re just a little goody two-shoes.
The “fact-checking” arm of Agence France Presse (a top global news agency) used ad hominem to discredit Alberta’s Dr. Dennis Modry in its article about him. The focus was that he appeared on the same talk show as two “anti-Semitic” guests who had been on the show at another time. By the same token, they also insinuated that the talk show host is anti-Semitic. Had they familiarized themselves with more episodes, they would have noted that the host believes in combating bad talk with better talk, which can only be done when there is open dialogue. (Unfortunately, I did not carefully archive the link at the time I wrote this.)
Satirist CJ Hopkins chose to include a range of ad hominem references in the opening paragraphs of his essay The “Unvaccinated” Question.
→Cherry picking:
This is when someone defends a position with half-truths, ignoring counter arguments, using one-sided observations, withholding evidence that would go against that position. For example, Snopes writer Alex Kasprak in his critique of statements made by Dr. Michael Yeadon selected only two key points (that Dr. Yeadon was the Chief Science Officer and VP of Research of one branch of Pfizer only, and not of the entire company, and that he was wrong to predict there would be no second wave in Britain) instead of digging into scientific research to refute the crucial points of Dr. Yeadon’s work.
→Gatekeeper:
This is a person or organization who appears to be critical but only to a point. Gatekeepers often come at the topic from a left of centre point of view. If a journalist, a gatekeeper may ask “softball” instead of “hardball” questions, not trying to put the person being interviewed “on the spot”, not revealing the weaknesses of their position. One wonders if the gatekeeper’s “hands are tied”, i.e. if they could lose their job or if their institution could lose its funding if they were to actually pursue a more robust line of critical questioning. Essentially gatekeepers function as “controlled opposition” and use tools such as limited hangouts in their analyses. Despite having written the book on Manufacturing Consent, Dr. Noam Chomsky often responds as a gatekeeper, helping in that way to also “manufacture” consent. Independent journalist Eva Bartlett points to an interview by the CBC’s Carol Off illustrating this gatekeeper function.
The use cumulative effect of the other tactics being used on a person willing to speak out often has a gatekeeper function. Other potential whistleblowers may keep their observations to themselves so as not to need to go through the negative attacks.
→Limited Hangout:
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
This is when a powerful person tries to preemptively do damage control by shaping a narrative to focus on only one aspect, in order to lure critics away from information that can well be more damming. They “get ahead” of the serious matter by using an argument that is not at the heart of the problem.
Statement A: There are many dangers of smoking.
Statement B: Yes, I agree. Especially the chance of having stained fingers and teeth. (The speaker purposefully stays away from the bigger dangers.)
In the excerpt of the Great Reset presented below, we see Klaus Schwab deflecting attention away from the bigger picture – the corporatization/financialization/commodification of all aspects of our lives headed by major corporations. Klaus Schwab does this by honing in on only one of the two ideas presented by governments ????? play the role of useful tools only and in reality, it is the corporate sector that is calling the shots. The use of limited hangouts lays the foundation for critics to focus on the lesser of the evils while almost blinding them to the greater.
Following our Canadian MPs on Open Parliament, we can see how successful Schwab has been with his tactic. Speaking at a Finance Committee meeting on November 26, 2020, London North Centre Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos chided the Opposition for perpetuating “a theory that has developed since the onset of the pandemic that suggests there is a plot under way to impose some sort of socialist world order onto the world in the interests of the elite—the elite being in the financial sector, the politicos of the world—who want to remake the world in some sort of socialist image, if I can put it that way.” Those who are alarmed at the content of Schwab’s “Great Reset” document do not fear socialism. Instead, they warn about firms using their financial and surveillance powers over the state and controlling governments. This is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, a fascist, corporate-directed dictatorship running underneath the thin veneer of elected, yet weak governments, substantially weakened now due to a deep reduction in tax revenue as a result of the economic damage from prolonged lockdowns.
→Moving the Goalposts:
Another logical fallacy in which instead of conceding that someone has successfully counter-argued a point, the opposition makes slight changes to certain aspects.
For example, each time people believed we ‘now have a handle on the pandemic,’ NEW Covid-19 variants appeared and moved the goalposts. (Comment added in 2023: While once it was sufficient to take two injections to be “fully up to date” we now note that people who wish to be “up to date” have recently taken their EIGHTH shot! Another example of a moving goalpost!)
Not quite “moving the goal post” but actually directing focus to the “other end of the field” is this interesting example:
Evgeny Morozov stated that governments and firms would both continue making use of surveillance technologies post-pandemic. Schwab builds on the familiar theme of a dictatorial state, fanning the fears of strong governments among his readers. This lets him drive focus away from the idea that corporations would continue to make use of and profit from surveillance technologies post-pandemic. We are to drive our outrage at government use of personal data. By hinting repeatedly that governments would be the problem to be wary of, Schwab allows readers to give private firms free rein over our data.
→Name it to Tame it:
This is a psychological technique used as an anger management and mindfulness exercise. When faced with overwhelming emotions, saying the names of the emotions aloud helps individuals “tame” them, as it helps them learn to better live with the feeling created by these emotions. When choosing the title “The Risk of Dystopia” for his chapter on falling victim to surveillance powers, Klaus Schwab deliberately names the state of affairs that critics would have used anyway upon reading the chapter. He also lists a number of literary works that focus on dystopias. By claiming the term before readers have access to the chapter, he is technically trying to tame this future state of affairs, to make life as he foresees it seem less horrific. He even states that “some may realize that their country has suddenly been transformed into a place where they no longer wish to live” and informs readers that “Dystopian scenarios are not a fatality.” There you have it folks, nothing to worry about. Whatever is to come has been named. And tamed.
→Procrustean Solution:
Named after a mythical Greek figure, Procrustes, this tactic focuses on enforced conformity – both of data and of individuals. Procrustes would capture people and then try to fit him into his bed, stretching those who were too short and cutting off limbs of those who were too long.
With regards to data, a Procrustean Solution is “the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure. In a Procrustean solution in statistics, instead of finding the best fit line to a scatter plot of data, one first chooses the line one wants, then selects only the data that fits it, disregarding data that does not, so to "prove" some idea. It is a form of rhetorical deception made to forward one set of interests at the expense of others.”
As laypersons, we wonder why the “test positivity rate” (positive tests)/(total tests) x 100% is being used in daily COVID-19 updates (which will climb and fall alongside of the number of tests done day by day) instead of a cohort population positivity rate (the number of positive test results within a geographical group, a particular age range, etc.) which would stay more consistent from day to day. Or one could report the number of positive results on a given day (assuming PCR test cycles are scaled down to the 28 or lower range to avoid false positives) compared with the number of existing true positive cases being treated on an outpatient basis and the number in hospitals on that same date. Without clear explanations as to why only test positivity rates are reported, it is understandable that some may ask...Is this a choice purposefully made to create unease in the population and to thus prepare people for the “vaccine solution.”? Clear information and rationales would be the antidote to suspicions of Procrustean solutions in use by those managing our country’s pandemic response.
Likewise, when thinking of the push towards a standardized global format for an internationally recognized vaccine passport, one notes this definition of the Procrustean Fallacy: “falsely and inappropriately applying the norms and requirements of (standardization)... to inherently diverse free human beings, their lives, education, behaviour, clothing and appearance. This fallacy often seems to stem from the pathological need of someone in power to place in "order" their disturbingly free, messy and disordered universe by restricting others' freedom and insisting on rigid standardization, alphabetization, discipline, uniformity and "objective" assessment of everyone under their power. This fallacy partially explains why marching in straight lines, mass calisthenics, goose-stepping, drum-and-bugle or flag corps, standing at attention, saluting, uniforms, and standardized categorization are so typical of fascism, tyrannical regimes, and of tyrants petty and grand everywhere.”
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
→Psyop:
See more on this tactic here.
The Urban Dictionary describes psychological operations as: “A government or corporate-sponsored operation, usually taking the form of a "terrorist attack" or "crazed gunman on a spree", with the intent of panicking the public into demanding more police and laws inhibiting freedom.” The movie Wag the Dog stands as a critique of the classic psychological operation, the (fake) reports of Kuwaiti babies being torn from their incubators as a reason for a whole coalition of countries to attack Iraq in the first Gulf War (1990). Beware of the use of media companies to stage and film compelling, heart wrenching narratives and nowadays of naïve citizens providing social media footage that can be misused in similar ways.
In the case of COVID-19, astute observers point out various US governors, including Gov. Cuomo, directed authorities to move highly contagious patients from hospitals into nursing homes without ensuring that these homes would have the means to properly isolate the ill from the healthy population, thereby (purposefully? inadvertently, negligently, uncaringly...?) resulting in thousands of needless deaths and heightened fears, thus perfectly matching the definition of a psyop. (Closely related to False Flags – covert attacks, deliberately created by one party to be blamed on another party, often as a precursor to war... i.e. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation, Northwoods, etc.)
→The Straw Man
See more from the News Literacy Project on this tactic here.
(also "The Straw Person" "The Straw Figure"):
Owen Willisamson of the University of Texas, El Paso provides this perfect definition:
The Straw Man is “the fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand. E.g., "Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!" Or, "Pro-choicers hate babies and want to kill them!" Or, "Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!" A too-common example of this fallacy is that of highlighting the most absurd, offensive, silly or violent examples in a mass movement or demonstration, e.g. "Tree huggers" for environmentalists, "bra burners" for feminists, or "rioters" when there are a dozen violent crazies in a peaceful, disciplined demonstration of thousands or tens of thousands, and then falsely portraying these extreme examples as typical of the entire movement in order to condemn it with a wave of the hand.”
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
So now, is your toolbox packed?
Let’s go identify and call out muck… find the fuzzy logic behind the propaganda and keep on top of what is broadcast our way! I plan to start this in the next post!