|
The August 22, 1978
Awake! published the article "Do Others Do Your Thinking?" It encouraged people not to allow evolutionists to browbeat them into believing evolution. On pages 3 and 4 the article said: Education teaches you how to think. Propagandists tell you what to think. True educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists hammer hard on their view and discourage discussion. Many times their true motives are hidden. They sift the facts, tell the favorable ones and conceal the others. They distort and twist facts, specialize in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. Many fall easy prey because it takes no effort to feel, whereas thinking is hard labor. And the propagandist sees to it that his message is made to seem wise, the right and moral one, and gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure -- so they say. Next on the list of seven common Propaganda techniques is the "Transfer" "Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something which otherwise we might reject. In the most simple and concrete terms, what is the proposal of the speaker? What is the meaning of the the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to transfer authority, sanction, and prestige? Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the revered thing, person or institution? Leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the proposal viewed alone? |
The Transfer is what takes place in the witness mind when they hear the word "faithful slave", "Governing Body"
," annointed,". The literature coming from them, carries the same weight as if God personally penned the words. When "new light" comes down the pike, in the witness mind, it comes directly from God, and is to be accepted without question.
When the society quotes the words of men of science, clergymen, and politicians, etc., they do so in an effort to get us to transfer the authority and acceptance of these men to our acceptance of whatever information the organization is wanting us to accept..
Number 4 on the list is the Testimonial
Tiger Woods is on the cereal box, promoting Wheaties as part of a balanced breakfast. Cher is endorsing a new line of cosmetics, and La Toya Jackson says that the Psychic Friends Network changed her life. The lead singer of R.E.M appears on a public service announcement and encourages fans to support the "Motor Voter Bill." The actor who played the bartender on Cheers is an outspoken environmentalist.
"This is the classic misuse of the Testimonial Device that comes to the minds of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently and tell ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents or even our parents.
With our next breath, we begin a sentence, 'The Times said,' 'John L. Lewis said...,' 'Herbert Hoover said...', 'The President said...', 'My doctor said...,' 'Our minister said...' Some of these Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device; others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion..." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)
There is nothing wrong with citing a qualified source, and the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair, well-balanced argument. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and misleading.
The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals who are not qualified to make judgements about a particular issue. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. Both are popular performers, but there is no reason to think that they know what is best for this country.
Unfair testimonials are usually obvious, and most of us have probably seen through this rhetorical trick at some time or another. However, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity that we did not respect. When the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.
According to the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we encounter this device.
Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?
Why should we regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?
What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the Testimonial?
You may have noticed the presence of the testimonial technique in the previous paragraph, which began by citing the Insitute for Propaganda Analysis. In this case, the technique is justified. Or is it?
It use to be the custom of the organization to tell where their quotes come from, but now, they rarely do so. Why? because when these quotes were checked, many were taken out of context.
Rockhound