Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John Jorsett
Good Post - you're well on your way to a small book - you just need more real-life examples citing the date and source. Keep up the good work!
:-)
42 posted on 11/29/2005 9:17:25 AM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Tunehead54
Here's one for you - I'll let you categorize it - you're the expert! ;-)
NEW HOME SALES SURGE IN OCTOBER
44 posted on 11/29/2005 10:09:22 AM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Tunehead54; caver; All
[you just need more real-life examples citing the date and source.]

Actually, examples abound. This one, from the Toronto Star,

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1133218897841&call_pageid=968332188492

is a classic example of #15 Fogging an Issue. It starts with a catchy title, "Liberals Lose-Vote Looms", knowing that conservatives will rush to read the article, then it begins a long strange story about celebrations in the house as the Liberal's government COLLAPSES! It only talks about everyone celebrating, as if no one lost anything, which of course is meant to fog over the loss of the Liberals. That would help prevent confidence and opportunism on the part of their enemies (the conservatives). When I got to the line about the Prime Minister laughing out and wishing everyone a merry election ("“Let’s get started here,” a smiling Martin shouted to his MPs amid loud cheers at a caucus meeting. “Time’s awastin”’"), I knew this was Fogging an Issue, HE HAS JUST LOST POWER (for being too corrupt, among other things), NO ONE WOULD CHEER AT THAT!

It's funny, because I defined that technique 5 years ago, but if you look at #15 Fogging an Issue, you will see it follows the description precisely. Catchy title, nonsensical article. The media templates are definitely getting a little stale these days!

Another example is an article here on FR concerning Tom Tancredo.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1526916/posts
(you can see my post #183 on that thread)

I'm not commenting on his candidacy one way or the other, but this article uses #17 Preemptive Strike against him. With 82% of the population supporting immigration law enforcement, Tancredo CAN win. But this article starts by saying he CAN'T win at least three times right off the bat, it also states that he doesn't even expect to win, although that does not appear in a quote from Tancredo anywhere in the story. At the end of the article there is a paragraph instructing the GOP on how to defeat Tancredo. A strange bit of information in an unbiased "news" article, isn't it? The attack on his candidacy at the beginning and the directions on how to defeat him at the end are a classic example of #17 Preemptive Strike.
(My example of Preemptive Strike in the list bears an uncanny resemblance to this article, doesn't it? Shhhhh, don't tell!!)
53 posted on 11/29/2005 5:28:36 PM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson