Propaganda for dummies(R) - quick DIY guide

[CarbEast]

The coming war with USA

War with USA is now inevitable. The only question is: Will it happen sooner or later? Washington’s recent missile tests and war games suggest that the apocalyptic imperialists have reached the same conclusion.

USA is on the march. Their medium-range missiles can reach Cuba, the entire Socialist Eastern Europe and parts of USSR. Washington is slowing expanding its regional sphere of influence. It has backed insurgency groups in Afghanistan, which have killed soviet soldiers. It sponsors Contras and UNITA. It has transformed Iran into a political vassal. It has forged an alliance with Pinochet’s Chile. It has put to use Nazi missile projects.

USA President Richard Nixon is a Ku Klux Klan-denier and virulent racist. He is a American Fascist strongman who vows to wipe Cuba "off the map." He is an imperialist. He believes the Communists must be extinguished in order to usher the coming of the capitalist dream, the so-called "Democracy".

As you can see it's typical article of Soviet propaganda published in Pravda... Well actually it's NOT.

The text above is in fact an article from Washington Times from October 4 2009 titled "The coming war with Iran", where I replaced all Iran related terms with USA related terms from Cold War.

Exercise 1.1: find 10 differences between this article and products of propaganda of authoritarian states.
Exercise 1.2: use the above text to make a propaganda article for: a) North Korea, b) Imperial Japan, c) Nazi Germany.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Oh the washington times is a fun little rag. Always fearmongering claiming that jessie helms was a great crusader for freedom and stuff like that.

[Gauvin]

Ahh, the moral equivalency game.

Forgive me if the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics makes me nervous. I'd even prefer them in the hands of the Soviets rather than Shuras.

It's obviously a hawkish article, which I think is why you concluded its propaganda, but why don't you simply ask yourself the most important question you should be asking; and its not "Is this propaganda?" but, "Is this true?"

This is why instead of claiming it's a lie, you instead denounce it as fear mongering. You can't call the facts contained fabrications, so you instead call it propaganda.

You should concern yourself with what's true, rather than what feelings it might incite in people. It's true that following this model has lead to me being seen as an offensive person to some, but I can never say I do not stand firmly in defense of what is true, and that to me is some consolation.

[CarbEast]

Oh the washington times is a fun little rag. Always fearmongering claiming that jessie helms was a great crusader for freedom and stuff like that.

It's funny how "freedom crusaders" and their enemies use the same language to agitate people to support their cause.

Ahh, the moral equivalency game.

Forgive me if the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics makes me nervous. I'd even prefer them in the hands of the Soviets rather than Shuras.

It's obviously a hawkish article, which I think is why you concluded its propaganda, but why don't you simply ask yourself the most important question you should be asking; and its not "Is this propaganda?" but, "Is this true?"

This is why instead of claiming it's a lie, you instead denounce it as fear mongering. You can't call the facts contained fabrications, so you instead call it propaganda.

You should concern yourself with what's true, rather than what feelings it might incite in people. It's true that following this model has lead to me being seen as an offensive person to some, but I can never say I do not stand firmly in defense of what is true, and that to me is some consolation.

Sorry, but if there's moral aspect to this, it's only you who bringing it into discussion. And your point is that yes, it's propaganda, but I (because it's not "the most important question") should still ignore this. So basically you say that from point of view of your moral values propaganda is a OK. Fine with me. But my interest is purely academic. It's quite... fascinating... to find Goebbels methods of persuasion put to good use by a US newspaper from both sociological and historical points of view.

Sorry but this is fail, its like saying the regimes in burma and france are the same.

Fail at what? This guide didn't help you to improve your propaganda skills? Did you complete the exercises? And seriously, what is connection between Washington Times, Burma, and, god forbid, France anyway?

Well, at least you can't call the Russians pro-Iran anymore it seems...

And they never were anyway. Russia have only limited interest with Iran in short term and pretty much no interest at all (at this point) in long term, and to be fair this is mutual.

[roy34543]

Sorry but this is fail, its like saying the regimes in burma and france are the same.

[Kiljan Arslan]

that and the washington times is a moony rag.

[Dr. Croccer]

Well, at least you can't call the Russians pro-Iran anymore it seems...

[Kiljan Arslan]

Just do what I do and laugh at the rag.

[Nikitn]

I think this needs some discussion. Pretty awesome and relavent in the new 2010 shitfest propaganda about Iran.

[Visna]

I think this needs some discussion. Pretty awesome and relavent in the new 2010 shitfest propaganda about Iran.

Oh, the propaganda has been going for a lot longer.

[Nikitn]

I personally feel safer if Iranians have nukes than the Americans..

[MrMofo]

I personally feel safer if Iranians have nukes than the Americans..

That's sorta silly seeing in 65 years the Merkins haven't launched any past the first two theyve developed. And theyve developed tens of thousands of them, and have lately been quietly dismantling many of them.

[Phier]

I personally feel safer if Iranians have nukes than the Americans..

And that would be expected from those living in the former Evil Empire

[xcorps]

I personally feel safer if Iranians have nukes than the Americans..

I saw your name on the CIA's 10 most nukeable.

[roy34543]

Good god, Thats one heck of a necropost.

[Darth Red]

I see no reason to leave this open as there wasn't enough added for a thread bump to make this discussion relevant again. Closed.

[Phier]

The original article isn't loading for me, but meh.

The Russian's couldn't have missiles in Cuba, and we stopped that.

Iran can't have nuclear weapons, and if Obama wants to be reelected he will stop that.