When I was young I loved taking apart things to see how they work, and strangely, the better it worked, the more I was drawn to dismantle it. I was always amazed at how complicated things were and that they needed all these parts to work effectively. Later on I found out that the English language too can be taken apart. I have chosen two statements to deconstruct from the point of view that they both work very well as propaganda. Good propaganda is like an army tank, it has to have offensive punch and strong armour. Both statements are by Mark Steyn, because I admire his work from a technical point of view. Just because I am not swayed by it does not mean it isn't good propaganda.
"Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history." Mark Steyn
"Unthinkable" is not an everyday word a clumsy propagandist would choose, such as if he had come out and clearly said "only in Canada would this cowardice happen". A clear statement would be easily disproved with examples such as the Titanic or the Sonderkommando. "Unthinkable" is a clever choice because it has two meanings. Meaning one is that "you would not think of it". The second meaning is "a horrifying act". A clever propagandist finds it easier to defend himself if his statements use unfamiliar words with multiple meanings. The meaning may be clear, but it can be denied later if necessary.
Saying "Unthinkable in almost any other culture" does not say it was thinkable in Canada. Although it is a conclusion that most people would make from the context. Still, Mark has the option to deny that he said Canadians would think of it. When writing propaganda, multiple escape paths are always good.
By saying "almost any other culture" you are planting the subconscious idea that it is normal in some cultures. But actually it is not, and Mark Steyn could not name those other cultures. This is unthinkable in all cultures, including Canada by the way. (depending on which meaning of unthinkable)
"The Serbs figured that out - as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em."
Presenting two alternatives and making you choose is a classic logical trap used in much propaganda and other persuasive writing. To avoid this trap, you would need to insist there are many more alternatives.
"Cull" means 1. to choose or gather 2. to remove or kill (the inferior or surplus) animals from a herd . Cull a better propaganda word than kill" because it has multiple meanings, and any given meaning can be denied later. It's also a good choice because the Bible says "Thou shalt not Kill", but not "Thou shalt not cull"
Here is a draft someone else might come up with "Figure out for yourself which we need to do - outbreed them or cull them." Although you are not directly advocating slaughter, you have set up a sentence construction that leaves only one answer - you have to cull them, as you obviously are not going to outbreed 'em. This sentence is too weak defensively, and leaves the author vulnerable to a counterstrike.
By changing the wording to "if you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em" you are wording it like a folk saying, especially using the colloquial "'em" instead of formal "them". However it's still easy to prove that it is not a folk saying, so another layer of defense is still needed.
By qualifying the made-up proverb with "The Serbs figured out", you now have yourself totally covered - in that you just quoted this from Serb folk culture (again I doubt if it is a Serb saying, but it could be.) Although this statement is very strong defensively, it is weak on offense, by not really advocating killing Moslems, just saying the Serbs did it.
The final complete sentence has offensive punch but with good defense against a counter strike, by making it clear than this is a truth that does not apply only to Serbs. "as other Continentals will in years ahead"
What I really enjoy - albeit not precisely on topic with your 'deconstructing propaganda' - are the names that many propaganda organizations assume.
ReplyDeleteDeconstruct Global Climate Coalition ... one of my all-time favourite 'front' names (which has apparently recently been disbanded ... awwww). That was the leading climate change denial outfit - funded, of course, by Big Oil.
Or ... how about Campus Coalition for Liberty? Sounds like a pretty good cause. At least until you roll over the rock and see what crawls out.
There was a front page article in the Imprint student newspaper at the University of Waterloo on the topic of Campus Coalition for Liberty about a week ago. I wanted to do a propaganda blog on it but then got sidetracked.
ReplyDeleteHmmm ... interesting ...
ReplyDeleteThought I'd Google this morning to see what came up for: canada conservatives propaganda
Congratulations! Second item on the link list was: Lost Motorcyclist: Conservative Party of Canada Fundraising.
In any event, I believe I paid Andrew Coyne a bit of a back-handed compliment in our earlier discussion about Macleans magazine.
Here's an interesting recent piece from Coyne ... Canada's left-wing, unconservative, compromise-ridden Conservatives.
Once, again, hmmmm ....
Andrew appears to be a bit shook up about the economic meltdown, where most hard core free market types are belatedly questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of unregulated free market capitalism. Kind of like a cult member when the leader admits it's a hoax.
ReplyDeleteGreenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a "mistake" in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works."
HuffingtonpostAndrew seems to not be sure what he is anymore, but I can set his mind at ease about one thing, he's not a socialist. In most of the world, socialism is nationalization of resources and industries. What Andrew Coyne is describing seems to be middle of the road Liberal (or even conservative) social policies.
Although Andrew seems dazed and confused with the economy collapsing, I don't have any trouble understanding the Conservatives. Since Harper took over they are, I believe, a party funded by U.S. based Fundamentalist Christians and the oil lobby. That explains pretty much everything I see happening. Their propaganda-based approach is similar to the conservatives in the USA as the oil lobby + Evangelicals clawed their way to the top. But the propaganda is not working that well in Canada, with it's diverse and, I believe, better informed population.
I believe you're right (about the Canadian electorate being generally better informed).
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is interesting to observe the reactions of conservatives during this 'crisis of faith.'