Newspaper

Analysis 

What are the stories? How are they told? what sort of language is used?How many words in the headlines? What makes up the opening sentence? 

• French election: "Au revoir, Austerity" 
• 3 words,
• using: 
• euphemism ( au revoir), 
• language
• jargon: using foreign language 
• sensational 
• UK royalty: "The day William finally confronted 'the Rottweiler'"
• 7 words, 
• using 
• name calling
• language: 
• informative 
• came to a conclusion "finally"
• UK clean up of litter: "PM backs Mail's royal spring clean" 
• 6 words
• using: 
• testimonial ( royal) 
• language: 
• informative 

Then, using what you have found, consider what audience reads the paper you have selected.

• reading age of 11-13 years
• audience: 40 years- 65years
• because it talked a lot about the royal family of the UK but also about politics

Quotes

Media Control

Section 1: Early history of propaganda

·      “…Turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb for limb…” (11/12)

·      “more intelligent members of the community” (12)

·      “State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect.” (13)

Section 2: Spectator democracy

·      “the common interests elude public opinion entirely… and only be managed by a specialized class of responsible man” (15)

·      “…the big majority of the population, they are what Lippmann called “the bewildered herd””(16)

·      “Those of us who have rationality have to create “necessary illusions” and emotionally potent “oversimplifications” to keep the naïve simpletons more or less on course.” (20)

Section 3: Public Relations

·      “That raised two serious problems. For one, democracy was malfunctioning.” (23)

·      “Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda.” (26)

·      “The media are a corporate monopoly.” (29)

Section 4: Engineering Opinion

·      “But it is effective in changing opinion, contrary to what a lot of people believe.” (33)

·      “By the prevailing conception that’s a problem, a crisis that has to be overcome. The population ahs to be driven back to the apathy, obedience and passivity that is their proper state.” (33)

·      “If you want to have a violent society that uses dorce around the world to achieve the ends of its own domestic elite, it’s necessary to have a proper appreciation of the martial virtues and none of theses sickly inhibitions about using violence.” (34)

Section 5: Representation As Reality

·      “It’s also necessary to completely falsify history. That’s another way to overcome these sickly inhibitions…” (35)

·      “When you have total control over the media and the educational system and scholarships is conformist, you can get that across.” (36)

·      “It is necessary to overcome the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force and other democratic deviations.” (37)

Section 6: Dissident Culture

·      “Skepticism about power has grown, and attitudes have changed on many, many issues, It’s kind of slow, maybe even glacial, but perceptible and important.” (39/40)

·      “Everybody thought that the use of violence to suppress people out there was just right.” (40)

·      “Organization has it’s effects. It means that you are not alone.”(40)

Section 7: Parade of Enemies

·      “useful to prepare instead of just reacting.” (42)

·      “But they’re losing their attractiveness as an enemy, and it’s getting harder and harder to use that one, so some new ones have to be conjured up.”(43)

·      “There’s always an ideological offensive that builds up a chimerical monster, then campaigns to have it crushed.”(45)

Section 8: Selective Perception

·      “This in an unusually explicit and comprehensive testimony, probably unique in its detail about what’s going on in a torture chamber.” (48)

·      “Very little information about that ever appeared. The media never asked whether exposure of the atrocities…”(49)

·      Talking about bombing in Lebanon. ”All, fine the United States backed it. That’s one case. Yu didn’t see anything in the media about it or any discussion about whether Israel and the Unites States should observe the UNSC..”(51)

Section 9: The Gulf War

·      “We continued with “quite diplomacy” and ended up with ample reward for the aggressors.” (57)

·      “Was there a way out? … These questions were not discussed, and it’s crucial for a well-functioning propaganda system that they not be discussed.” (60)

·      “It was drilled into people’s heads over and over again: He’s about to take everything.”(63)

·      ‘It’s whether we want to live in a free society or whether we want to live under what amount to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism, with the bewildered herd marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming patriotic slogans...”(65)

War on Terror

·      “it requires too much detailed analysis.”(69)

·      “…Guidelines: principles of fairness, accuracy, relevance, and so on…”(70)

·      “in order to rise to the absolutely minimal moral level we have to agree, in fact insist, that if some act is right for us then it’s right for others, and if it’s wrong when others do it then it’s wrong when we do it.”(77)

·      “namely, that we and our allies are the main victims of terrorism, that terrorism is a weapon of the weak.”(81)

·      “…credibility. Another term for it is declaring that we’re a terrorist state and you’d better be aware of the consequences of you get in our way.” (84)

·      “we accept moral truisms. If we rise to that level, we can then, and only then, honestly raise the question of how to respond to terrorism crimes.”(98)

·      “leaves us with a dilemma… either conventional hypocrisy…other option…that we profess with grand self-righteousness.” (100)

SCAVENGER HUNT

Propaganda types:
These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.

•  Card stacking:technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion
• 
  

Word games

Name-calling: 

to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. 

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=NY_NYP&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=MA_SC&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=GA_SMN&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=CA_LAT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Glittering generalities: employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_LEP&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=WA_TH&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Euphemisms: try to obscure the meaning of what is being talked about by replacing plain English with deliberately vague jargon

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=FL_TIMES&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=IRL_IT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

False connection 

Transfer:to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols 

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=NY_ND&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Testimonial: is a specific type of transfer device in which admired individuals give their endorsement to an idea, product, or cause

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=FL_TIMES&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Special Appeals

Plain Folks:convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart

• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=FL_TIMES&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=GA_SMN&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

Bandwagon:  technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd

• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=CA_TR&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=WY_WTE&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Fear: is a device that attempts to reach you at the level of one of your most primitive and compelling emotions

• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_LEP&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

Reflection

Why there is still debate…

The expectations weren’t set, which lead to a confusion in how to present the oral. The requirements were to watch our given videos, take appropriate notes, and find external sources to support or counter various arguments and later on in form of a forum or discussion present the information to the class.

Here is the first step to a better understanding and meeting the outcome, question what a forum is. Katie and me weren’t quite sure what a forum is or had a different understanding than what it actually is. Since both of us had watched both our videos but each had a greater focus on either one or two, we knew our topic and what we were talking about very well. Therefore our idea was to talk about the main arguments of our videos, which we though was most efficient to bring the main idea across. There are various definition for what a forum is, the one that should have been applied to this discussion is, loud Merriam Webmaster: “a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion/ a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities”[1].

Furthermore as a better preparation and make the discussion flow, I should have had a meeting with my partner to discuss the outline of our discussion so we are able to talk back and forth. This would create a more controversy aura while informing the class about why there is still debate about global warming/climate change/destabilization, what ever you might call it, but that’s another point of discussion. The best way to have that done is by listing our arguments, finding the linkages and then create an outline, which can then be brought more into depth by adding the appropriate detail, evidence and external sources as required.

As being the first ones, not that this is a direct excuse, but Katie and me weren’t quite sure what to expect and how to handle it. We kind of had an idea of how our “discussion” should look like, but we hadn’t practiced it before, which could have been a good idea, therefore in the classroom there wouldn’t be any surprises. For example how to end the discussion, maybe with a resolution or a summary of all the arguments and how that leads to a conclusion. Our ending was more left open and if we had developed it more, there would have been a clear ending.

During the forum, I was kind of nervous and therefore forgot to mention different points, which happens to me often. I had stated the main arguments but supporting evidence to make it more credible or the linkages between the arguments was missing. Especially in the beginning I was kind of jumping around from one point to another which then settled towards the end. If we had a discussion, as Katie saying something then me, this would have limited it because I’d have focused just on arguments but not about the other people around me.

Through this activity I learned how to improve or actually have a forum between other students and me. Also that citing the external sources is very important to bring the credibility and reliability across. This made me aware that more sources give you more evidence and show which ones involve bias and which ones are not. To hold a forum you need to know your arguments and have a clear understanding of the outline, of course changes can be made through out incase new ideas arise. But the main flaws of our presentation is, not knowing what the requirements of a forum are and not having a meeting with my partner to precisely discuss a timeline of why there is still debate.

---

[1] Definition of Forum, Merriam Webmaster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum

External Sources

• http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html
• for: republicas against change

Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?

Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html#ixzz1urhWLyHi

• http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/

What Causes Global Warming?

Scientists have spent decades figuring out what is causing global warming. They've looked at the natural cycles and events that are known to influence climate. But the amount and pattern of warming that's been measured can't be explained by these factors alone. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans.

To bring all this information together, the United Nations formed a group of scientists called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC meets every few years to review the latest scientific findings and write a report summarizing all that is known about global warming. Each report represents a consensus, or agreement, among hundreds of leading scientists.

One of the first things scientists learned is that there are several greenhouse gases responsible for warming, and humans emit them in a variety of ways. Most come from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories and electricity production. The gas responsible for the most warming is carbon dioxide, also called CO2. Other contributors include methane released from landfills and agriculture (especially from the digestive systems of grazing animals), nitrous oxide from fertilizers, gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes, and the loss of forests that would otherwise store CO2.

....

In order to understand the effects of all the gases together, scientists tend to talk about all greenhouse gases in terms of the equivalent amount of CO2. Since 1990, yearly emissions have gone up by about 6 billion metric tons of "carbon dioxide equivalent" worldwide, more than a 20 percent increase.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers

Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty

Mann became a target of climate deniers' hate because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost 1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented "during at least the last 1,000 years" and which has been linked to rising emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still reject his conclusions.

Mann's research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told theObserver, he only entered this research field by accident. "I was interested in variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures: coral growth, ice cores and tree rings."

By studying these he could trace temperature fluctuations over the past 1,000 years, he realised. The result was a graph that showed small oscillations in temperature over that period until, about 150 years ago, there was a sudden jump, a clear indication that human activities were likely to be involved. A colleague suggested the graph looked like a hockey stick and the name stuck. The results of the study were published in Nature in 1998. Mann's life changed for ever.

"The trouble is that the hockey stick graph become an icon and deniers reckoned if they could smash the icon, the whole concept of global warming would be destroyed with it. Bring down Mike Mann and we can bring down the IPCC, they reckoned. It is a classic technique for the deniers' movement, I have discovered, and I don't mean only those who reject the idea of global warming but those who insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer or that industrial pollution isn't linked to acid rain."

.....

In addition, Mann has been attacked by Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general of Virginia who has campaigned to have the scientist stripped of academic credentials. Several committees of inquiry have investigated Mann's work. All have exonerated him.
.....

 the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them."

"Words like those give me hope," says Mann.

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-behind-climate-change

The Physical Science behind Climate Change

For a scientist studying climate change, “eureka” moments are unusually rare. Instead progress is generally made by a painstaking piecing together of evidence from every new temperature measurement, satellite sounding or climate-model experiment. Data get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over and over again. Do the observations fit the predicted changes? Could there be some alternative explanation? Good climate scientists, like all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest standards of proof apply to everything they discover.

And the evidence of change has mounted as climate records have grown longer, as our understanding of the climate system has improved and as climate models have become ever more reliable. Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future. This increased certainty is starkly reflected in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the fourth in a series of assessments of the state of knowledge on the topic, written and reviewed by hundreds of scientists worldwide.

The physical science assessment focuses on four topics: drivers of climate change, changes observed in the climate system, understanding cause-and-effect relationships, and projection of future changes. Important advances in research into all these areas have occurred since the IPCC assessment in 2001. In the pages that follow, we lay out the key findings that document the extent of change and that point to the unavoidable conclusion that human activity is driving it.

....

Why is there still debate?

Video 1:

• different opinions are the reason why there is still debate
• lack of absolute uncertainty 
• every statement in science: acknowledgment with an uncertainty --> very explicit 
• controversy in good (firm's like it) 
• other side created illusion to seem like both side are equal -NOT 
• public opinion can be easily manipulated, because scientists complex it all and they don't notice where it comes from it 
• "society knows now, that there is enough risk to be taken
• risk.com
• "we are all seekers for the truth here" 
• look at same evidence, come to different conclusions
• climate change so interesting 

Video 2: 

• resist conclusion because they are afraid of it 
• scare tatics: fail criticism 
• credibility is destroyed 
• human brain responds to threats that are immediate, quick, visible and personal
• no where to go to, the world is already flooded with people, if we face struggle
• people ignore problems in hope it goes away, therefore they don't take action 
• confirmation bias : 
• more attention to evidence that support believe than evidence that's against the own belief
• Political belief: what is physically real 
• Example: both look out the same window 
• republicans 
• dark, rainy 
• greater distaste of government than democrats 
• when there is the believe or evidence that through human actions the global change is happening, republicans don't want to help, don't want to see it happen
• democrats 
• blue and shiny 

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of AMBIGUITY 

Definition:
incorrect reasoning through imprecise use of language 
An ambiguousword, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.


Examples: 
- she sees more of her children than her husband. 
- Really exciting novels are rare. But rare books are expesive. Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive.
- 

Shakespeare used this more than once in his plays:

9. The Duke yet lives that Henry shall depose. (Henry VI, Part II; Act 1, Scene 4)

10. Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn the power of man, for none of woman born shall harm Macbeth. (Macbeth; Act 4, Scene 1)

Both of these predictions are ambiguous. In the first, it is unclear if there lives a duke whom Henry shall depose, or if there lives a duke who shall depose Henry. This ambiguity is caused by unclear grammar. The second example is the result of ambiguous terminology: Macbeth's enemy Macduff had been born by Caesarian section - "ripped untimely from his mother's womb" - and thus was not "of woman born" in the normal sense.

-

 Last night I caught a prowler in my pyjamas.