• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I agree - but is it even possible to give accurate news coverage if you are "leaning" in a certain political direction?

Again, that is not the issue. You are leading the conversation down an unproductive path. Whether or not a network leans one way or another is far less important than whether frequent viewers of that network are factually misinformed or lied to in ways that result in their adopting false views. The scientific studies I cited strongly suggest that happens to be the case with Fox News viewers -- and moreso with them than with viewers of other channels.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
See post 18 as to why the sort of study you're asking for would be inconclusive.

I'm confused - I thought you asked me for scientific studies which confirm media bias, and the level of it per media source.

Post 18 is my own post - asking if it is possible for a news organization to be unbiased in it's reporting if it "leans in a particular direction."

Here are your words:

Could you save us some time by pointing out which of your references is to a scientifically conducted study or studies? Anecdotes can be informative in some ways, but they give little information on how frequently something happens. I agree that most -- and probably all -- news channels lie to, or mislead, their audiences. I just think the science supports the contention that Fox does it at a rate, or to a degree, that is exceptional.

I then provided a link to a study by UCLA which did specifically address the question of the exact level of bias in mainstream media sources in the US. Their methodology was quite specific.

Did you read it? What are your thoughts?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Post 18 is my own post - asking if it is possible for a news organization to be unbiased in it's reporting if it "leans in a particular direction."

Sorry about that. I meant post 19 (I have corrected it). See also post 21.

The thought occurred to me since asking for studies showing media bias that such studies would be inconclusive. Rather, we should be asking for studies that might show the effects of media bias on viewers. After all, media bias doesn't much matter if it is insignificant enough that it has little or no effect on the viewer's perception of facts.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sorry about that. I meant post 19 (I have corrected it). See also post 21.

The thought occurred to me since asking for studies showing media bias that such studies would be inconclusive. Rather, we should be asking for studies that might show the effects of media bias on viewers. After all, media bias doesn't much matter if it is insignificant enough that it has little or no effect on the viewer's perception of facts.

Did you read the study by UCLA? What are your thoughts on that study?

In my opinion, there are too many factors to consider to make such an assumption based on simply whether or not a person watches Fox News.

For instance - I watch Fox News on occasion - but I also watch ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and various international news programs. I listen to all manner of talk radio - from Rush Limbaugh to OutQ.

I guess you could do a survey comparing people who only got their news from one particular news source. Do you know of such a survey?
 

MD

qualiaphile
I watch fox news for a good laugh, it's by far the most biased bull crap excuse for news I have ever seen.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Just kind of odd but in modern times the terms "Leftist" and "liberal" are more synonymous with 'truthful' than their opposites, even though folks want to turn both into 'dirty words'.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Time for a revival. I will now post 2 videos exposing fox and their ways. Please discuss.

Part 1
[youtube]5rqdtZlec0s[/youtube]

Part 2 (recently shown)
[youtube]yXJIV4f4ZQ0[/youtube]

So, considering the propaganda techniques used and the internal testimonies, still think fox does the same thing as MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc...(all lame-stream media)?

Btw, let's not forget that they demonize all other news outlets to make sure their ratings don't get lower. Sneaky sneaky.

I will gladly welcome MSNBC and other lame-stream media examples to discuss difference.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Why does it even matter? Isn't the subject matter over-done as it is? How many times can you honestly discuss Fox bashing before it gets old?
And yes, MSNBC can be pretty rotten at times. They aren't quite as crazy as Fox, but the nevertheless indulge in many of the same tactics Fox does.
As for CNN, they done away with their investigative reporting so they could be more like Fox and MSNBC because investigative reporting isn't getting the ratings that the lower quality outlets like Fox and MSNBC pull in with their emotional and inflammatory opinion driven news talk shows.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Why does it even matter? Isn't the subject matter over-done as it is? How many times can you honestly discuss Fox bashing before it gets old?
And yes, MSNBC can be pretty rotten at times. They aren't quite as crazy as Fox, but the nevertheless indulge in many of the same tactics Fox does.
As for CNN, they done away with their investigative reporting so they could be more like Fox and MSNBC because investigative reporting isn't getting the ratings that the lower quality outlets like Fox and MSNBC pull in with their emotional and inflammatory opinion driven news talk shows.
I've explained why it matters multiple times. If we don't address the problem, and dismiss it, how can we actually correct it? All these lame-stream media outlets you despise are not of your actual investigation, but of what you are told.
How is that examining the evidence (fact checking)?
I have stated multiple times that all media is biased (opinions and not to be taken seriously), it's when a media outlet intentionally and purposefully tries to dupe the audience. That's dangerous.

Look to the divisiveness in America and it's population. You have 100's of millions of people living in reality, and 100's of millions of people living in a paranoid, miserable, fearful, angry world. How does this happen?

How is this good for humanity?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I've explained why it matters multiple times. If we don't address the problem, and dismiss it, how can we actually correct it? All these lame-stream media outlets you despise are not of your actual investigation, but of what you are told.
How is that examining the evidence (fact checking)?
Then why keep it in a web forum where pretty much every active member is well aware of the corruption of cable media? Outside of this forum I will fiercely debate against Fox and MSNBC, but here I really see no point in it here because just about everybody knows. And then instead of standing in unison over an issue, it creates division because then you are thrown into the position of defending that Fox is the supreme evil, when MSNBC's mountain of crap looks just as high from a distance, and the rest are far from being innocent.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Then why keep it in a web forum where pretty much every active member is well aware of the corruption of cable media?

Word of mouth, which is why it's so dangerous. I expect people to take what I toss out and decide for themselves whether it's true or not. How will one change a perspective if the bubble isn't pierced?
And then instead of standing in unison over an issue, it creates division because then you are thrown into the position of defending that Fox is the supreme evil, when MSNBC's mountain of crap looks just as high from a distance, and the rest are far from being innocent.
Please provide links, videos (just like I did) that proves the MSNBC mountain of crap. I'd love to discuss!
From the video's and information I provided from ex-Fox employees, you're saying they're lying and an Obama conspiracy?
How is not examining ALL sides of a claim beneficial? The information I provide clearly shows why fox tv viewers are less informed than people who watch zero news.
I can link that study if you want. BTW, republican Bobby Jindal recently made a blistering confession to the conservative base. He was 'spot on.' Maybe I'm Bobby Jindal, you'll never know.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
When I watch fox I can see these techniques. How do fox viewers not notice this going on?

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans

"TruthOut.org by Cynthia Boaz
July 2,2011
The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you.

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping."

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans | News & Politics | AlterNet

BLUNT: 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox News Uses to Brainwash Americans - YouTube
Hey, its RF summed up into one post!
:run:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
MSNBC Caught Doctoring Clip From Romney/Ryan Rally - Greg Hengler
During the 3:00PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC Friday, co-host David Shuster admitted that racially charged quotes he and other hosts attributed to Rush Limbaugh had not been verified: “MSNBC attributed that quote to a football player who was opposed to Limbaugh’s NFL bid. However, we have been unable to verify that quote independently. So, just to clarify.” Shuster did not formally retract the quote or apologize.
Rachel Maddow Exposed for Lying About Wisconsin Having Budget Surplus | NewsBusters
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow began her show Thursday claiming, "Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin's finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year."
On Friday, the website Politifact exposed Maddow's assertion as 100 percent false (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
Another MSNBC Scandal? Blaze Readers at Campaign Event Claim Network Misled in Video of Rally Chant (With Audio Comparison) | Video | TheBlaze.com
If you listen closely, it’s obvious the audio in the clip has been adjusted. But that’s not uncommon. Sound technicians usually cut out the audience to ensure speakers aren’t drowned out (which you can do by simply turning the mics up and down — or you can do after the fact). However, where the controversy comes in is in the caption on the screen quoting the audience as chanting “Ryan!” Why is that controversial? Because people who attended the event say that’s not what happened, and that the MSNBC caption grossly misrepresents what actually occurred.
And that's not the only time the crowd response has been manipulated to make the situation seem different from what it actually was.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
That's the best you can do? 3 links and 2 are the same? Try harder next time. We've already gone through that junk before.
Anything else you got? I'm a generous guy so I'll help you. Go to youtube and search for "lame-stream media lies" and click 'go.' I hate generalizations, so let's just get down to the dirty of it and make sure we all understand.
I guess a good point in the end is that we could agree to disagree (without the taunt of eternal hellfire).
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That's the best you can do? 3 links and 2 are the same? Try harder next time. We've already gone through that junk before.
Honestly, I just picked a few random ones from a quick search. I can assure you though there are many more than just three links and two stories, it's just such a foolish thing to debate. Finding stuff on MSNBC is just as easy as Fox, and you seem to put alot of energy into that.
 

Pastadamus

Member
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping."

These are all excellent points. I don't know why Faux "Noise" as I like to call it is even still allowed to be on the air given that it has been exposed many times their only aim is to lie about Obama, instill fear, and even at times try to encourage violence (aka promiting the Teabaggers). They are basically no different in how they present news than say Chinese state media, the difference being one shills for the Chinese government and the other one shills for the extreme right of the GOP.
 
Top