die each year in the country or countries where the research was done. He would then
have taken the number of such cancer deaths per 100,000 of population, divided the
area population by 100,000, and multiplied by the number. This kind of result is very
unreliable. However, being the local medical authority, his estimate took on a much
more solid appearance, as if there had been an exact number of death certificates list-
ing “second-hand smoke” as the cause of death.17
Science gets its credibility by appearing to be objective, giving us results from
nature and not what individuals or corporations wish to be the case. Yet, individual
scientists have been known to skew results in the hope of getting fame or further
funding. The crafty consultant, we are sometimes told by insiders, will insist on main-
taining his or her integrity but will be interested, at the start of contracted research,
to know what the sponsoring party would like the investigation to reveal. This can
affect what aspects of the investigation are trumpeted and what will be effectively sup-
pressed. When industries are the sole funding sources for the safety of their products,
the public has reason to be apprehensive about the level of detachment connected
with the research. Scientific testimony, to be fully credible, needs to be assessed in the
light of potential biases. The issue is of great concern in the light of recent cutbacks in
funding for universities and research institutions.
The importance of adequate scrutiny of sources can hardly be overestimated.
Again and again, the public is misled by appeals to people or institutions that seem to have the requisite authority but that do not.
4. Plain Folks. This device is defined as “the method by which a speaker attempts to
convince the audience that he and his ideas are good because they are ‘of the people,’
the ‘plain folks’” (FAP 92–93). In practice, it is put into action by presenting oneself
to the public as a homey type, “just like you”; for North American politicians, it may
involve such things as showing devotion to little children and pets, attending church
services, pitching hay, and going fishing. Aristotle understood the reasons for such a
104 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 104
9/5/13 4:52 PM
device: people will vote for a friend, someone who values the same kinds of things they do, not for an enemy. A candidate for election who is seen taking part in the same day-to-day activities as the general public wil be more likely to be trusted than someone
who appears to be aloof. The number of people who actually talk directly to a state,
provincial, or national politician is relatively small. However, people like to vote for
someone who “speaks their language,” with whom they feel they would be comfort-
able communicating. What is missing from the “one of us” characterization is a careful
enumeration of policies, which the electorate should try to discover.
5. Card-stacking. This is defined as “the selection and use of facts and falsehoods, illustrations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or
the worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product” (FAP 95).
Card-stacking covers a very large area, including many misuses of statistics, polls,
and the like, which we deal with separately below. It seems an especially appropriate
term when applied to the mass media selection of experts to quote or to engage in
debate on major issues of the day. The complaint is often heard that radical viewpoints
are left out of political reporting and that, with only a few non-threatening exceptions,
speakers are chosen because they support the existing power structure. Alternatively,
voices on the right will often complain that reporters are on the whole more “liberal”
than the mainstream population. By choosing an appropriate mix of speakers, one
can ensure that a given viewpoint will be likely to emerge as strongest in debate. It is
card-stacking to ignore or under-represent important positions on issues with a view
to preordaining that one’s own favoured view will be dominant.
What is true of choosing speakers or experts is true also of scholarly sources. It is
card-stacking to select as evidence only those writings that agree with certain of one’s
preconceptions and to ignore contrary opinions, no matter how well argued they may
be. It is to be expected that there will often be disagreement about what constitutes
a fair selection of opinions or evidence, but opposing ideological factions can reach
agreement on the matter.
6. Band Wagon. This is the attempt to persuade based on the premise that “every-
body—at least all of us—is doing it.” The idea is that the group addressed should
therefore accept the propagandist’s program, follow the crowd, and “jump on the
bandwagon” (FAP 105).
Mass ral ies and demonstrations give people the sense of overwhelming support
for the party, program, cause, etc., on whose behalf the rally is being held. This will
help undecided people to join on the grounds that the movement is unstoppable and
that it is better to share in the benefits of joining than to be left out. The propagandist
employs for this purpose “symbols, colours, music, movement, all the dramatic arts.
He gets us to write letters, send telegrams [e-mails today] to contribute to his ‘cause.’”
To combat this form of propaganda, the Institute recommends asking, first, precisely,
CHAPTER 3: PRoPAgAnDA TECHnIQUE: An AnALySIS 105
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 105
9/5/13 4:52 PM
what is the program that the propagandist wants us to accept? Second, what is the evidence for and against the program? And third, does the program serve the interests
of one’s group? One might also question the motives of others who show up to a rally.
Has free beer, pizza, or other benefit been promised? Are they going because they like
the music, the colour, and the excitement rather than because they have a strong com-
mitment to the cause?
Ral ies have a legitimate role to play in a democracy. People who pay to support
election campaigns have an interest in getting a fair estimate of the chances a given candi-
date might have of winning. It becomes propaganda when efforts are made to artificially
boost the numbers by extraneous inducements or hinted threats of some kind.
Use of a term such as “American” when addressing an audience in the United
States is often calculated to promote bandwagon effects. To say that Communism is
un-American is to promote a herd mentality, that is, “us” versus “them.” Such an appeal
is insidious because there is no single set of characteristics that defines an American
as American, or a Canadian as a Canadian, and so on with other nationalities. Every
society has its dissenters, people who disagree with the majority view. There is no good
reason to define them as not belonging to the given nationality merely because they do
not share the prevalent views. The defence the Institute offers against this propaganda,
as with the other devices is simple: “Don’t let yourself be stampeded, beware of your
own prejudices, suspend your judgment until more sides of the issue are presented, and
analyze them” (FAP 134).
Some Examples from Eleanor MacLean
There are many other ways in which language can be used to manipulate an audience.
One obvious way is simply to lie. However, once caught in a lie, the liar loses credibil-
ity. Therefore, propagandists are reluctant to lie unless there are special circumstances,
such as the likelihood of achieving some desired goal before the lie gets detected or
some way of arguing that a lie was not involved (this is called “plausible deniability”).
Eleanor MacLean, in her 1981 book Between the Lines,18 compiled a list of such decep-
tive practices involving language. I will illustrate her list with real-life examples where
some device has been used. Ideally, every device should come with a citation of its use.
If it is claimed that such-and-such a device is commonly used in deceptive persua-
sion, then why should it be difficult to provide an example? One problem is this: it
is difficult to know the intention of the writer or speaker who supposedly has made
use of a deception. In using a real-life example, charity should predispose us to allow
for the possibility that some honest mistake is involved. To circumvent this problem,
I will give real-life examples but treat them as possibly hypothetical. The examples
would be well-suited to propaganda purposes whether or not the individual men-
tioned intended to deceive a given audience.
106 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 106
9/5/13 4:52 PM
1. Bold Assertions. Sometimes dubious claims are presented with expressions such as
“unquestionably,” or “undeniably,” or “as everyone knows.” The exaggerated claim helps
to deflect attention away from weakness. A particularly striking example of bold asser-
tion occurred in a letter to a Toronto newspaper, in which the writer, attached to
the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, wrote: “Despite intensive
efforts by Chileans of the left, the international media and a US Congressional inves-
tigation to establish a connection between the coup [that overthrew Allende] and
the US government, not one shred of evidence of such a link has ever been uncov-
ered.”19 But a lengthy study by a US Senate Committee established that the United
States spent approximately $7 million in covert action to support opposition groups in
Chile; that the CIA spent $1.5 million in support of El Mercurio, the country’s largest newspaper; and that “[a]ccording to CIA documents, these efforts played a significant
role in setting the stage for the military coup of September 11, 1973.”20
2. Selective Omission. One common device for deceiving an audience is the omission
of certain facts or circumstances connected with an event so that the hearer forms a
false impression. The device has been around so long that it has a pair of Latin names,
namely, suppressio veri with suggestio falsi: “suppression of the (or a, or an aspect of ) truth, with suggestion of the false.” For example, take the case of a politician who has
to vote on a bill combining very popular measures along with some unacceptable ones.
It is selective omission to report that the politician voted against the popular measures
without mentioning that the bill also contained the other, unacceptable features.
A notable example of truth suppression occurred immediately prior to the
Falklands invasion by the British in 1982. Sir Frank Cooper, the British Undersecretary
of Defence, was asked by the press whether there was going to be a D-Day style inva-
sion on the Falklands; he denied this. The next day there was a massed landing of
troops. In response to an outcry against such deception, he gave testimony before a
Defence Committee of Inquiry established by the British Parliament. He said, “We
did not tell a lie—but we did not tell the whole truth.” He explained that in denying
that there was going to be a D-Day style invasion, he had in mind a landing where
there is opposition. The forces landing at San Carlos were “unopposed.” This led to
the following exchange between Dr. Gilbert, MP, and Cooper:
DR. GILBERT: There is a legal phrase with which you are no doubt familiar: sup-
pressio veri and suggestio falsi— suppression of the truth and the suggestion of what is false, in the course of which you do not tell a single lie. Would that be a fair assessment of the role of your Department in this crisis?
COOPER: No, I think that is rather an obnoxious suggestion, if I may say so.
DR. GILBERT: You have admitted to suppressio veri.
COOPER: I would rather speak in English.
DR. GILBERT: Suppression of the truth.
CHAPTER 3: PRoPAgAnDA TECHnIQUE: An AnALySIS 107
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 107
9/5/13 4:52 PM
COOPER: No.
DR. GILBERT: I beg your pardon?
COOPER: I find those questions both obnoxious, and I do not accept them.
DR. GILBERT: But you have admitted to it already, have you not, suppression of
the truth?
COOPER: No, I have not admitted to that, and I am not going to admit to it.21
Cooper’s instincts were probably right. He no doubt sensed that the Latin terms
were terms of opprobrium, and he wanted to be sure that it was understood that he
was morally justified in omitting to clarify what he meant in issuing the denial to the
press. Once he had made that case, the acceptance of a technical term for what he had
done became easier for him, and he went on to concede Dr. Gilbert’s point.
they do not in fact hold by reproducing only a part of what a person said (selective
quotation) or by quoting out of context so that such things as ironic intent are not
conveyed.
Here is an example of quoting out of context, taken from a subcommittee meet-
ing of the Canadian Senate. Brian McKenna, of Galafilm Inc., had made a documen-
tary called The Valour and the Horror, which questioned the wisdom of World War II
blanket bombing raids, such as that on Dresden. Because the film portrayed some of
the air command leaders in an unfavourable light, veterans objected to it, complain-
ing of inaccuracies. In the subcommittee hearing, McKenna’s patriotism came under
attack. Senator John Sylvain accused him of unpatriotism since he had written in an
article published in his college newspaper, “It would appear that those Canadians
who died defending what these symbols represent were fools.” McKenna replied that
he had written the article years earlier and could not remember exactly what he had
said and why he had said it. Under pressure from another senator, Sylvain was forced
to read aloud the whole article, which was about a prank played by some US students
who hoisted their flag on a Montreal campus flagpole on a day when the news came
that the centennial flame on Parliament Hill had been snuffed out by the cold. The
article concluded, “It would appear that those Canadians who died defending what
these symbols represent were fools. The torch they threw us was extinguished long
before the flame froze over on Parliament Hill. Patriotism seems to have disappeared
from the Canadian vocabulary.” McKenna replied:
Obviously, that is written with sarcasm and irony, outraged that an American flag
could f
ly over the campus and no one would notice it.... I can supply this committee,
after the hearings cease, with all the articles I wrote during that period on this issue.
You will see that the entire record supports what I am telling you now.22
108 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 108
9/5/13 4:52 PM
In this case, clarification of the context took away what otherwise seemed to be a damaging statement by McKenna. Without the clarification, the media covering the
hearings would have had a juicy item to report, and McKenna would have had to
fight to restore a tarnished reputation. With the clarification, there was no news item
or at least none that most newspapers had space to handle. To explain what appeared
to be an attempt to deceive by quoting out of context would take a lot of ink, and
most readers would not have had the inclination to sort out the details.
4. Twisting and Distortion. Distortion can be achieved by selective quotation, as we
have just seen, but it can also occur by omitting some of the circumstances in which
something is said. In 1983, a magazine article about Mary-Lou Finlay, a popular
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) radio personality, reported her as saying
she did not know how much money her senior co-host, Barbara Frum, made. In a let-
ter to the Ottawa Citizen, Finlay protested that the way the interview was reported
made her seem interested and possibly jealous of Frum. What really occurred, she
said, was that the interviewer had asked her if this were so. “Why should I be jeal-
ous?,” Finlay answered. The interviewer suggested, “She makes more money than you,
doesn’t she?” To which Finlay responded, “I don’t know, I’ve never asked her.” To
illustrate how the misreporting occurred, she retold an apocryphal tale about Pope
John Paul II’s first visit to New York. When asked whether he was going to visit any
night clubs, he replied with disdain and affected ignorance, “Are there any nightclubs in New York?” The story that appeared began “The Pope’s first words on visiting New
York were ... (you guessed it).”23
5. Meshing Fact with Opinion. Sometimes a controversial opinion can be concealed
behind claims that appear to be purely factual. MacLean gives this example: “Southern