It is great to see that the site ‘propagandacritic.com‘ is still alive and well, as I found it’s material drawn from The Institute of Propaganda Analysis very helpful. Here’s a taster of the infromation on the site:
“This site is inspired by the pioneering work of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). In 1937, the IPA was created to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. Composed of social scientists and journalists, the IPA published a series of books, including:
- The Fine Art of Propaganda
- Propaganda Analysis
- Group Leader’s Guide to Propaganda Analysis
- Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It
The IPA is best-known for identifying the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, “these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects.” (Combs and Nimmo, 1993)”
Euphemism
“When propagandists use glittering generalities and name-calling symbols, they are attempting to arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive words. In certain situations, however, the propagandist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic.
Since war is particularly unpleasant, military discourse is full of euphemisms. In the 1940’s, America changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. Under the Reagan Administration, the MX-Missile was renamed “The Peacekeeper.” During war-time, civilian casualties are referred to as “collateral damage,” and the word “liquidation” is used as a synonym for “murder.”
The comedian George Carlin notes that, in the wake of the first world war, traumatized veterans were said to be suffering from “shell shock.” The short, vivid phrase conveys the horrors of battle — one can practically hear the shells exploding overhead. After the second world war, people began to use the term “combat fatigue” to characterize the same condition. The phrase is a bit more pleasant, but it still acknowledges combat as the source of discomfort. In the wake of the Vietnam War, people referred to “post-traumatic stress disorder”: a phrase that is completely disconnected from the reality of war altogether.”
I’m a keen supporter of the plain English campaign, but I also used Foucauldian discourse analysis as the basis of my PhD! In @timeshighered this week: