[OT] Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

I came across this earlier today and thought it interesting enough to share. Feel free to add your own...

Michael

For fair use education/research purposes.

The link: http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave/article3/991228.html

From this original link: http://www.stand77.com/cgi-bin/clinks/category.cgi?category=/Reference&start=0

The commentary:


Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

by DCDave

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

good list mike

sheeesh..I've used a few of those myself..not on purpose tho..just get sucked into the process I guess when ya see so much of it everywhere...bigsigh

One of the more effective psycho-manipulators is what I call a "seeder". A seeder is dropping in a one-liner in the middle of a seemingly different stream of thought/conversation/article, and then going on as if you never said it.

Usually because of the way our brains auto-filter stuff that doesn't fit in a particular pattern flow, especiallly if the overall info is 1) something we're interested in and 2) something we already have familiarity with. The "odd-stuff-out" is dismissed on the conscious level but the "seed" is registered in the subconscious. And unless the "seed" idea is abhorent to the listener/reader, the idea will surface later as our own creation. Often associated with something else altogether, but usually as a "new" idea/perspective.

Seeders work best in oral/audio conversations cuz unlike written media it doesn't usually allow going back to reread/analyze. A TV/radio newscast/interview/talk-discussion shows are that sort.

Exaggerated example of a seeder using the lead-in paragraph of this article:

"Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. Good is evil. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party."

If ya carefully watch TV commercials and political speeches (bigtime marketing!) you'll catch a lot of this sort of manipulation once you know to look for it.

Thanks for the post Mike,what's great is that the programmers can have a change of heart and give us the info we need to combat their dirty tricks[for those of us still able to think at all.

You forgot #18: Send out subliminal suggestions that "whoever isn't with us, is against us" by suggesting that everyone who dissents is "unAmerican" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "communist."

Any label will do if you say it with the proper degree of contempt and make it obvious that those "(insert label)" are horrible people, and everyone will immediately break their fool necks to prove that they aren't a "(insert label)".

While this is an excellent list, and these techniques are undoubtedly effective, the problem is they are indistinguishable from telling the plain, flat truth to someone who chooses not to believe it.

The basic problem, as always, is that nearly nobody under the best of circumstances, and absolutely nobody under the worst, has sufficient pertinent information to know absolutly what happened or what was done.

So just as a mental exercise, let's presume innocence and look at each of these techniques in a different light:

1) Yes, it's absolutely true that covering up works -- we all did this as children, I'm sure. But it's equally true that an infinite number of things that did not happen, did not get reported. The question is, how can anyone tell the difference between something that didn't get reported because it didn't happen, or because it wasn't considered newsworthy, or because it was kept secret from reporters, or because editors decided that certain stories (like, for example, using guns to *prevent* crime) simply SHALL NOT BE REPORTED. With all of these various reasons for nonreporting, why, we each get to pick the reason we prefer. The truth has become a victim of our preferences.

2) If you were accused of something you did not do, would you be indignant? Would you be suppressing the truth by being indignant? If I see you being indignant, how can I possibly tell if you are being genuinely wronged, or if you are faking? Usually, as ever, I use what I *want* to believe as the basis for my decision.

3) Here we see the same problem. Some things really ARE rumors. Hey, bin Laden has been rumored to have been found at least daily for weeks! And some people really ARE paranoid and/or hysterical. Does the use of this "dismiss it as a rumor" technique mean that we should believe ALL rumors, all the time? If not, which ones do we believe, and which do we reject as being part of "truth suppression"?

4) Which men are really made of straw? Sure, this is a fine technique when you need it to get away with something. Problem is, it looks *exactly like* the technique used to tell the truth.

5) Here we are again. I agree calling people names is not good argument. But what DO you call anyone who sees contrails and conjures up a huge, expensive *totally invisible* industries out of thin air? If you call them crackpots, you are "suppressing truth"! If you ignore them, you are "covering up". If you deny their claims and explain why, you are "knocking down straw men". The moral is clear -- "suppressing the truth" is nothing more than saying something someone doesn't want to hear. Even if you are telling the truth.

6) But motives are important! In criminal cases, method and opportunity are insufficient. We must also establish motive. It's critical. This technique (#6) assumes that your opponents have no political agenda nor any use for money. These assumptions, unfortunately, apply to *nobody*. Motives matter. This doesn't mean that YOU are free of motives either, of course. But when we have a case of obviously competing motives, whom should we believe? On what basis?

7) Invoking authority is too general a notion. What constitutes authority? We rarely hear any politician making the empty claim that he's right because he holds office and you do not. Most claims are to authorities of knowledge -- to scientists, say, or to eyewitnesses.

8) Yes, we've seen things dismissed as old news. Sometimes it IS old news. When creationists are called on their canards and demonstrated to be wrong beyond any question, they drop the subject and raise it, *without modification*, at their next lecture. In other words, some people continue to raise old news for political reasons, *knowing* it's baloney, just because maybe someone hasn't heard it yet.

9) Coming half-clean is a good technique. It sounds like you're coming all the way clean. In fact, in the absence of knowledge your audience lacks, you MIGHT BE coming all the way clean. What if you are? And then, what if your opponent claims that in addition to what you did and admit to, you are FAILING to admit to much more, yet you have confessed to everything? Should you make up stuff you didn't do and confess to that too, to appease your critic? How much imaginary, false confessing should you do to "reveal the truth"?

10) The problem here is, the truth in most cases is not knowable if there is any complexity. And in a world of "plausible deniability", complexity is the norm. Even simple events show that multiple witnesses disagree violently with one another! So while it's true that this technique makes a good smokescreen when needed, it's also true that in many if not most cases, it's the fact.

11) Logic is indeed limited. Deduction and induction are useful but not sufficient, because the real world is complicated and messy, not airtight like a mystery story or a theorem in math. The media's failure to report something is only one clue. All by itself, it's nearly meaningless or even misleading. But it can lend weight if it agrees with many other clues. We end up with the "preponderance of evidence", which is neither consistent, nor is it ever ALL the evidence. But look, if 90% of the evidence points in the same direction, you can take any individual datum out of that 90% and make the claim that it's not enough. You're right, it isn't. There is NO SINGLE DATUM sufficient by itself.

12) This doesn't often work. Usually, someone claims technique #12 is being used when instead someone is pointing out contradictions -- that those who claim otherwise are holding mutually exclusive conditions to be true. So the demand is made to drop one or the other so as to be consistent, and instead the opponents claim you are using technique #12.

13) Changing the subject is an excellent distraction when you don't care to have people focus on uncomfortable topics. Conversely, if you've honestly said all that CAN be said on a topic, and there are many topics to be covered, what should you do? Remember, there are going to be SOME people who distrust you no matter WHAT the subject. To paraphrase Lincoln, All the people are fooled some of the time and some of the people are fooled all of the time. In practice, this means you simply *cannot discuss more than one subject* without SOMEONE thinking you are hiding something by changing the subject. Whether you are or not.

14) How much emphasis is sufficient? According to a Wall St. Journal article, when two rednecks murdered one gay man, within a month there were over 3000 stories published about the case nationwide. When two gay men murdered one redneck, there were FORTY-SIX stories published within a month, nationwide. Which level of emphasis is appropriate? Either? Neither? While nobody likes to dwell on facts that incriminate them, how MUCH should be made of them depends on who is grinding which axe.

15) Lying is very effective. As Paula Gordon has demonstrated numerous times on this very forum, she can attribute "facts" to an anonymous "insider" or "expert" OVER AND OVER and we STILL have posters here who *refuse* to see through this. Even though Paula has no *incidents* for her anonymous sources to even explain!

16) Great idea. But people on this forum are "exposing" scandals and conspiracies all the time. Most of them don't exist. Are these people stooges? Or just stupid?

17) This is just silly. Agents must be paid, and budgets don't allocate resources to people who just sit around obscure internet news groups defending what they know to be false or bad. Why should they?

OK, WHY do these techniques (except the last one, which is stupid) work so well? What is it that makes them so effective? As the above brief discussions should have made clear by now, there is a simple logical explanation: The ONLY DIFFERENCE between using these techniques, and telling the truth, as far as the audience can possibly know, is whether the audience agrees or disagrees with what is being presented. Logically, it is NOT POSSIBLE to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and not be doubted and accused of essentially EVERY ONE of these "truth suppression" techniques by anyone who doesn't believe you, for whatever reason.

And conversely, you can use every one of these techniques to indeed do everything in your power to make sure the truth stays buried, and as Paula Gordon has shown, some people will swallow every bit of it and believe with all their might.

As any good trial lawyer can tell you, for $1000 a day, you can find a *qualified* expert to testify to *absolutely anything*. And sincerely mean it! But is it true? You can find another expert (for the same price) to say either yes or know. Wanna take a vote?

Until we can read minds, we will never be able to distinguish the honest from the con artists. And even if we COULD read minds, we wouldn't find the truth, we'd only find what these people *believe* is the truth. But people can sincerely believe the damndest things.

I'm not so sure #17 can be dismissed so lightly. Some discussion groups have a lot of influence, it would be worthwhile to try to sway discussion and sway the position of popular posters.

In fact, I think it's happening here on TB2K.

CeeBee:

The problem with #17 is that it has too heavy an odor of paranoia about it. Yeah, I remember several times when, unable to rebut what I said with either facts or logic, Paul Milne chose to post attacks and name-calling under a whole mess of aliases who all sounded alike and used the same words.

But look at how #17 is phrased. Like, why would anyone in their right mind actually defend the press unless someone paid them to do it!

Now, think about this for a moment. They say freedom of the press belongs to whoever owns one. Why would such people post to newsgroups when they have their own media outlets? Even so, this would be a terrible waste of money -- almost nobody reads most newsgroups anyway. If you can name one that has "a lot of influence", I'd be really curious. Most newsgroups have a very limited cast of contributors, and if any of those contributors has ever changed their mind about *anything* simply because of fact or reason, I have yet to see it.

Finally, consider the irony! Most of the people in ANY newsgroup (or even this forum) use "media sources" as their raw materials. Sure, they pick and choose those authors/articles to support their opinions, who wouldn't? But here we have "agents" defending the awful media, being suspected by people who use the media to support their suspicions!

As I recall, before rollover nearly everyone who expected less than the end of the world was accused of being a planted agent for the government or NWO or somebody. And not a word of apology when those people turned out to be right -- in fact, they were BANNED from further discussion.

A flood of agents indeed! Questioning authority is fine, provided you're open to the most likely answers no matter what they are. Questioning is very different from deciding a priori that all authorities are always lying about everything by definition. There are no questions left in such a position.

Yet we had an admission from a NASA guy a few months ago that they were trolling the chemtrail newsgroups to debunk them.

I think we have some government insiders "gently" trying to strengthen the pro-establishment voice of this board by encouraging consensus on "pro-American" points of view.

I missed that NASA admission. Do you have any links? I'd be interested. I thought that chemtrail stuff basically debunked itself, since it really can't be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't fall all over themselves abandoning any semblance of thought. Even as know-nothing paranoid luddism, chemtrails are thin entertainment. At best, they're comic relief. At worst, they're a wonderful example of what our weakness in science education actually means in practice.

If you want to believe this board is worth anyone's time and effort to "subvert" or whatever, be my guest. Kidding yourself is a happy and comfortable thing to do, and it makes you feel important, and otherwise it's quite harmless. Go for it.

NASA Trolling Admission

The admission appears in an article for USA Today, by Traci Watson: Conspiracy Theorists Read Between Lines in the Sky. I'm sorry, I don't have a date for it. I thought a link was adequate, but it went south.

After the article appeared Ms. Watson complained that the final result which appeared under her byline was nothing at all like what she had written. It had been severely edited. I believe she resigned over the incident. Soon after that she wrote another chemtrail article for a different outlet: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20010716/3484170s.htm">To Combat Global Warming...</a>