1. Glittering Generalities
Propaganda
Card Stacking
Glittering Generalities
False Dilemma
Lesser of Two Evils

2. Propaganda – 4 characteristics
persuasive function
sizeable target audience
representation of a specific group’s agenda
use of faulty reasoning and/or emotional appeals

3. Part 3: Card Stacking Gives unfair advantage to one point of view
Presents counterpoint (other side) in its weakest form, or not at all
Honest information shared, but misleading
Present info out of context
Obscure (hide) important facts

4. Card Stacking
Emphasizes travel and adventure serving in the Marine Corps
Plays down considerable sacrifice required

5. Part 3: Card Stacking
Can be convincing because often rely on sound reasoning and facts
Problem – opposing perspectives downplayed or left out
Sometimes referred to “sin of omission”

6. Part 3: Card Stacking Example:
A pharmaceutical company wants to test a new drug and advertises its need for volunteers to participate in the study. The advertisements emphasize the benefits of participating in the study. The drug’s possible side effects are mentioned in passing in a speedy voiceover at the end of the commercial.

7. Often, a propagandist will acknowledge alternative views, but in an oversimplified, dismissive way.
Example:
A group invites two experts on different sides of an issue to speak. The expert invited to support one side is a well-known, eloquent speaker, with extensive scientific credentials. The expert invited to represent the other side is a fringe scientist, known for a number of unconventional theories and for his loud, blustering demeanor.
There is an underlying bias in this kind of debate. The person who represents one side of the argument was chosen for his strengths, while his opponent was chosen for his unappealing demeanor, his unfavorable reputation, and his unconventional views, all of which are likely to alienate some listeners.

8. Written or visual propaganda & Signing contracts
information that is not favorable to the propagandist’s case may be printed in a smaller typeface or in some way visually obscured.
people are often warned to read “the fine print.” That’s because often, the least attractive terms of a contract will appear in small, barely legible type.

9. Card Stacking - commercials
In this example, in addition to revealing the woman’s weight loss, the “after” photograph also reveals card-stacking efforts. In the second photo, the subject’s hair is styled differently, and she is wearing makeup and jewelry.

10. When faced with possible instances of card stacking, ask yourself the following questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” card stacking is probably taking place.
Are opposing viewpoints misrepresented?
Does one side seem to be presented more thoroughly than the other?
Does it seem that important factors are being ignored?

11. Identify the audience and purpose for this advertisement, and discuss whether this is an example of card-stacking propaganda.
Aimed at adults with mild sleeping problems, this ad tries to promote use of a sleep aide. This is an example of card stacking. Only positive information about the product is clearly visible; the side-effect warning is all in small print at the bottom left-side of the ad.

12. Part 4: Glittering Generalities
is a colorful term for the appealing but vague words that often appear in propaganda.

13. Part 4: Glittering Generalities
This World War I poster requests billions of dollars in the name of “Liberty.” Here, “liberty” is a glittering generality—a pleasant term that is used in an overly vague manner.

14. Glittering Generalities
are frequently used in advertising
also a prominent part of political discourse.
In the modern age of ten-second sound bites, glittering generalities can make or break a product’s reputation or a candidate’s campaign.

15. Glittering Generalities
Example:
I stand for freedom—for a strong nation, unrivaled in the world. My opponent believes we must compromise on these ideals, but I believe they are our birthright.

16. Popular Glittering Generalities:
freedom/liberty
security
choice
equality
change
prosperity
strength

17. Glittering Generalities
This poster asserts that “Americans will always fight for liberty,” without explaining what this pleasant-sounding phrase means.

18. Glittering Generalities
advertising slogans must be short and to the point
advertisers frequently use vague, positive words
Spotting glittering generalities is simply a matter of looking for vague, positive words that are not explained. A reasonable argument, by contrast, will justify the words being used, explaining exactly what they mean in context and how they will be achieved.
Orange Cola: made from the best ingredients on earth

19. Under what conditions are words like “freedom” and “choice” not glittering generalities? Use each word in a sentence that does not qualify as a glittering generality.
Words like “freedom” and “choice” often qualify as glittering generalities when they are left to stand alone, with no explanation. However, they are not glittering generalities when they are assigned specific meanings.
For example, “freedom” is not a glittering generality when used to describe emancipation from slavery (e.g., “The former slave had earned his freedom through years of hard labor”) Likewise, “choice” is not a glittering generality when it is used to refer to a specific kind of choice (e.g., “She was given the choice to rewrite the paper, but she chose, instead, to accept a failing grade”).

20. Part 5: False Dilemma
known by many names, including “black-and-white thinking,” “false dichotomy,” and “false choice”
reducing a complex argument to a small number of alternatives and concluding that only one option is appropriate

21. False Dilemma In this kind of propaganda
One product always works, and the other never works.
One group intends to save the country, and the other is trying to ruin it.
The view or product that the propagandist is promoting is depicted positively, and all competition or opposing views are depicted in a negative light.
In reality, however, there are usually many possibilities that go unmentioned.

22. False Dilemma most often in political and ethical discourse
One option is described as being good, and the other is made to seem bad, or even evil
oversimplifies the situation and denies the existence of any neutral ground
You are either an ally or an enemy.

23. The message of this poster from World War II is that if you don’t join a car-sharing club, you are directly supporting Hitler.

24. Advertising often makes use of the false-dilemma technique as well.
If you aren’t using White Bright Detergent, your clothes are not clean.
You can subscribe to Propaganda Weekly, or you can stay uninformed.

25. The false dilemma reduces all choices to a simple matter of “either/or
Either you conserve gasoline, or you’re helping Hitler.
Either you purchase a security system, or you do not love your family.
Either you use a specific brand of detergent, or you wear filthy clothes.
Either you agree with us, or you are a fool.

26. Aimed at the American public (during World War I), this poster was meant to encourage people to buy Liberty Bonds. This is an example of a false dilemma because it suggests that if people fail to buy bonds, there will be no liberty left on earth.

27. Part 6: The Lesser of Two Evils
a specific type of false dilemma that offers two “bad” alternatives.
often used when the propagandist is trying to convince people to adopt a perspective they will be hesitant to accept.
to make the choice more appealing, an even worse alternative is presented as the only other option.
It is argued that an imperfect option is, at any rate, better than the horrendous alternative.

28. Try living under a terrorist regime!
The Lesser of Two Evils
You don’t want to drive a fuel-efficient automobile?
Try living under a terrorist regime!
Senator Williams may have lied under oath, but at least he never embezzled money from his campaign, as his opponent did.
In nations like the United States, which has a de facto two-party political system, the lesser-of-two-evils argument is often used as a selling point for politicians.
A candidate who is unpopular within his or her party may suddenly appear more attractive when pitted against a member of the opposing party.

29. The lesser of two evils technique is most effective when one of the possible choices is truly awful, as in this poster, which pits frugality against fascism.
In presidential elections, this tactic is frequently used to lure people away from third-party candidates; Democrats and Republicans point out that voting for the lesser of two evils is better than simply “wasting” a vote on someone who will never win.
In the 2000 United States presidential election, for example, the Democratic Party tried to use this technique with their “Nader = Bush” bumper sticker.
The message was that a vote for the Green Party (Nader) would be the equivalent of a vote for the Republican (Bush)—whom, it was presumed, Green Party voters would not wish to support at all.

30. The Lesser of Two Evils
It is always best to be suspicious of any message that purports to show you the only two options available
When you’re faced with such a choice, consider each option on its own merits, and keep in mind that there are probably other, undisclosed alternatives.
While there are many flaws in the lesser-of-two-evils approach, the main problem is that, like the false dilemma, it usually ignores many alternative possibilities.
adopting a lesser-of-two-evils stance discourages innovative thinking by needlessly reducing the possible options.

31. Question
How is the lesser-of-two-evils technique similar to the false-dilemma approach? What sets these techniques apart from one another?
Both reduce a complex situation to a limited number of possibilities
Lesser of two evils offers two unpleasant alternatives
In the lesser-of-two-evils fallacy, a limited number of possibilities are presented (usually two). This propaganda technique also encourages you to make a decision based on the fear of one outcome, rather than the merits of the other.
The lesser-of-two-evils fallacy is often used to defend the status quo, as exemplified in the familiar idiom, “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.”

32. Create a caption to go with this image that would make the poster an example of lesser-of-two-evils propaganda.
Examples: 1) You may not want to spend your summer building a fallout shelter, but it’s better than dying of radiation poisoning. 2) Maybe you won’t be able to afford a vacation this year, but that’s a small price to pay for protecting your family against nuclear attacks. 3) It may not be pretty, but it’s better than living in a nuclear wasteland.

33. Part 7: Pinpointing the Enemy
oversimplify complex problems by pointing out a single cause or a single enemy who can be blamed
Problems rarely stem from a single cause, but propagandists often benefit from oversimplifying situations.
People tend to like clear-cut explanations, and politicians take advantage of this fact by pointing to a single enemy and placing all the blame at his or her feet.

34. This World War II poster identifies “the enemy” of the United States, giving a human face to the threat of facism.

35. Pinpointing the Enemy
When the enemy in question is blamed for problems that are actually someone else’s fault, this is a particular category of pinpointing the enemy known as scapegoating.
Blaming a scapegoat alleviates the guilt of those who are truly at fault, while providing a convenient explanation for the problem at hand.

36. Origin
This 1854 painting by William Holman Hunt, “The Scapegoat,” illustrates the origins of the term—the ancient Hebrew tradition of driving a goat into the wilderness on Yom Kippur to carry away the people’s sins.

37. Pinpointing the Enemy
Pinpointing the enemy works particularly well when the targeted group is already thought of as “the other.”
the Nazi portrayal of the Jewish people as the source of economic problems in Germany.
People who are easy to recognize by appearance or culture make perfect scapegoats; if they are easy to identify, they are easy to blame.

38. The big oil companies have stifled all talk of alternative energy sources for decades.
Uncontrolled fishing by greedy commercial fishers has reduced the numbers of some fish to one-tenth of their original population. .
McDougal’s Burgers are responsible for the obesity epidemic in America.
Social and environmental activists often use the same technique to garner support for their causes.
Listening to the full story, in all its detail, can be overwhelming, leading people to become apathetic.
When presented in their entirety, our obstacles may seem insurmountable. Often, all we really want to know is, “Who’s to blame?” Of course, the propagandist is only too willing to provide an answer to this question.
Frequently, a single company will also be targeted, while others that may have similar or even worse practices go untouched. Companies such as Wal-Mart and Starbucks have served as scapegoats for many economic problems over the years.
The technique of pinpointing an enemy can make overwhelming problems seem quite simple and easy to solve.
Remember that the propagandist’s message is always based on faulty logic. Arguments that pinpoint a single enemy are often faulty because “the enemy” they identify is really only part of the problem.
Megamart is responsible for the destruction of small businesses throughout the country.

39. Question
How is pinpointing the enemy similar to name-calling? How are the two techniques different?
Both are frequently used to attack an individual.
However, pinpointing the enemy is often used to assign blame, while name-calling is usually used to discredit an opponent.