Propaganda: Gentle Reader Series #2

Gentle readers:

Many of you may be legitimately wondering what the heck I mean by “propaganda”, and some of you may suspect that I am simply trying to portray people with whom I disagree in a negative light by using this term. You are right to be skeptical, so I need to begin by defining the term “propaganda”. 

First of all propaganda is much more than what we commonly call “persuasion”. A useful definition of propaganda is put forward by Jowett and O’Donnell (Jowett, Garth S., and O’Donnell, Victoria. What is Propaganda and How does it differ from Persuasion?” in Propaganda and Persuasion. p. 4):

“Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve responses that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” 

Jowett and O’Donnell also provide us with sub-categories of propaganda:

White Propaganda – this propaganda “…comes from a source that is identified correctly, and the information in the message tends to be accurate.” (ibid., p.8.)

Black Propaganda – this propaganda “…is credited to a false source, and it spreads lies, fabrications and deceptions.” (ibid., p.9.)

Grey Propaganda – this propaganda “…is somewhere between white and black…the source may or may not be correctly identified, and the accuracy of the information is uncertain.” (ibid., p. 13.) 

The above sub-categories of propaganda are useful, because some propaganda is relatively benign (e.g. national symbols such as flags are used by government to induce patriotic sentiment towards one’s country), yet other examples can be downright destructive. 

Emotion usually plays an important role in forming an individual’s attitudes and behaviours (notwithstanding the rational responses we tend to espouse when confronted by a challenge to our cherished attitudes). It is therefore little wonder that we find emotional appeals as the basic building block of propaganda. Good propagandists appeal first to emotion, and then provide the audience with a plausible rationale to paper over that emotion. The more negative the emotional appeal, the stronger and more plausible the covering rationale must be. 

To illustrate my point, let’s examine an article published on the website, Renew America. The article is entitled “Homosexuality and the Church Crisis “, and is written by Brain W. Clowes. It can be found on this link:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

This article is a typical example of contemporary propaganda, and it is a good example of how Catholics are currently employing propaganda against gay men. Ostensibly, the article is a defense of Catholic priests and their role in the “sex scandal”. On its way to making some dubious points in defense of priests, it makes a number of anti-gay claims.

Firstly, the article links gay men to pedophilia. This is done to invoke the emotion of disgust in the minds of the audience. Interestingly, the author is not satisfied to simply raise the emotion of disgust. He is also quick to give his assertions an air of scientific validity by quoting a number of scientific studies. As I will point out later, the author fails to draw valid conclusions from a number of the studies.

Secondly, the article presents the audience with a ready-made set of “scientific” reasons that buttresses a negative attitude towards gay men. Nothing in our society is more legitimating than science, and consequently, this article is littered with scientific titles, terms, scientific studies taken out of context, and pseudo-scientific studies inserted where necessary.

Most readers will not actually check each reference in the article to ensure that the studies which are cited in fact support the conclusion being drawn. The propagandist counts on this fact – otherwise why list studies that do not support your conclusions, if not to give your article the veneer of “truthiness”? Those folks who rely on such articles as a reasonable basis for their own anti-gay bigotry (after all bigots are only those folks without good reasons for their opinions), should not be judged too harshly for not checking the individual studies cited. In fact, the anti-gay propagandist is relying upon this common behavior.

This article is a great example of grey to black propaganda. Most of the sources are credible studies, however, the conclusions drawn are entirely invalid.

Lastly, Mr. Clowes’ PhD features prominently in the article, however, the fact that his PhD is in Civil Engineering is not disclosed in either the article, or on the Renew America website where it is printed. 

The anti-gay claims in the article are designed to support the alarming proposition that “…there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse.”

Please ask yourselves this question: if the scientific evidence was so clear cut that gays are overwhelming pedophiles, and they are a significant threat to our children, then why would secular courts and governments appear to be utterly unaware of this fact? Why would world renowned medical research clinics, such as the Mayo Clinic, clearly state that the studies referenced by Mr. Clowes in his article, in no way implicate gays as being disproportionately pedophiles?

Outrageous or extraordinary claims require credible evidence. As I will demonstrate - none is to be found in this article – notwithstanding the article confidently suggests the opposite.

Cheers…Martin