Creation of False Media Narratives: Technology

Cherry Picking and Misinterpretation of Actual Facts as Main Propaganda Tools

Preface: Again I had originally written this piece three years ago, so there is an analysis of some old events here, but it’s relevant as ever now as well. Propaganda technology is essentially the same now, and had only gotten worse since then.

Original Article: Analysis of Mainstream Media Propaganda Technique on Examples of major American media outlets ( CNN and New York Times)

Some people were telling me that if media outlets like CNN or New York Times engage in political propaganda, and selective and politically biased coverage, it's 'not a problem as long as they report truthfully and factually'. In other words, all instances of political propaganda and selective coverage don't matter for them as long as there are no open fakes and downright lies. I do not agree with this assessment. I consider manipulating facts in order to create a certain story (to benefit a certain political side), pushing certain narratives by misinterpreting certain facts, and open cherry picking of facts to suit a certain narrative to be no less harmful than downright lies and open fakes.

In any social and political discourse, facts do not matter as much on its own as in CONNECTION with each other. For example, what does it tell you if you learned that a certain person smokes and also that the same person has a lung cancer, separately? Nothing much, just two certain details of one person's life. However, if you were told that this person has a lung cancer exactly BECAUSE of smoking, then these two facts are connected with each other to tell a certain STORY (presumably, about the potential dangers of smoking for your health in this case). So, it's not only about facts, it's also about a STORY that one can tell using those facts. It's about INTERPRETATION of these facts as well. In my example with smoking and lung cancer, the interpretation of these facts was scientific, the connection between those facts - logical, and the whole story is not misleading as well. However, now assume that one misinterprets certain facts to push an entirely false narrative. Or connects two facts with a wrong link. How harmful THOSE stories would be?

Take another two facts. For example, gay men are more susceptible to HIV compared to straight men, and it's a scientific statistical fact. Black people, being roughly a 13% minority in US, yet are responsible for about 50% of violent crimes committed in US. This is also a statistical fact. However, which STORIES one can TELL using those facts? I guess I don't need to say even that pretty nasty, racist and homophobic narratives presenting gay and Black men as a 'huge threat to the public', 'grave danger to public health and safety' might be pushed using those facts as a tool. Moreover, those narratives were actually pushed in US back in 80s and 90s when HIV pandemic and gang drug crime were used against gay and Black men, hence contributing to higher levels of racism and homophobia in American society, and more hate crimes against gay and Black people. Those pretty harmful narratives were pushed based on actual facts, not on open lies. Those facts were just misinterpreted and framed in certain way to achieve certain ends. Do you understand my point now why in politics - and in political journalism (and I guess more or less everyone agrees that CNN and NYT are doing POLITICAL journalism?) - not only facts per se matter? It's of no less importance HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THOSE FACTS, WHICH CONCLUSIONS DO YOU MAKE OUT OF THEM, and WHICH STORY ARE YOU TELLING USING THEM.

Take another fact. Statistically, men are much more often than women commit violent crimes, and much more often are imprisoned for them. Which narratives can be created, however, using this statistical fact? That 'men are evil and violent by nature, and women are so much better than men'? Or, in the contrary, another narrative: that men do not as such commit more crimes, but are just imprisoned more often, hence there is 'widespread systemic sexism against men' in police? (even when police officers are men themselves - basically, in BLM narrative being Black isn't an obstacle to be 'racist' against another Blacks, especially in police) But the truth is another one. Being physically stronger than women, men just have more opportunities to exercise this physical strength and to get violent, that's all. Yet, how many false and harmful narratives might be created using that one true statistical fact - and misinterpreting it to one's political ends.

Do you get at whom I'm digging now? Ofc, at American dishonest media coverage. I'm telling you how major American media outlets as CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., were using certain true facts to push entirely false political narratives by misinterpreting and framing those facts in a certain way, or by cherry picking the facts to suit their narrative (e.g., by picking only the facts which suit their narrative, and by ignoring everything else which doesn't).

The examples of it are multitude even from the last year. For example, take terrible deaths of Brenna Taylor and George Floyd in US last year in police custody. These things had really happened and they were terrible. Were these two incidents enough of a reason though to push the whole narrative of 'widespread police brutality' and campaign to 'Defund the police' as CNN were doing as well? No, absolutely not. These two particular incidents, however brutal they were, were still extremely rare cases, and not representative of overall American police conduct towards people in their custody and Black people in particular. In most of the cases, police was just doing their job, yet CNN and other dishonest media with their false narrative were creating a false impression that actually police in US has nothing better to do but to hunt Black people down. I'm serious, many of people whom I know in Finland did really start to believe that Black people can't even walk on the street in US without being arrested and abused by police! In truth, abuse at police custody was only about 0.01% of all reasons of deaths for Blacks in US, statistically. In fact, there were also white people like Tony Timpa who was terribly abused and died at police custody as well but CNN weren't covering his case that much because it didn't help them to push their narrative. So, CNN created an entirely false narrative based on some true facts. How?

CNN and other dishonest media outlets achieved this by overreporting these two particular facts (George Floyd and Breonna Taylor) to play on people's emotion, by ignoring and not reporting the majority of facts which contradict their narrative, etc. You know, if you enter a room and put only one small chair inside this room into a spotlight, ignoring all other furniture, the public would think that this chair is literally ALL which is located in this room (which is untrue, there is a lot of other furniture, you just don't see it because it's not in the spotlight of the media). So, here you succeeded to mislead people into believing an utter bullshit and lies without telling a single untrue word! You just put in the spotlight what you wanted people to see, and didn't show them what you didn't want them to see. This simple and pretty harmful technique was applied by CNN and another major American media outlets for quite a while now already, and people swallow it just because CNN don't post open fakes, and, hence, they are 'trustworthy'. Human stupidity and naivete is incredible.

CNN were doing exactly the same with BLM and Antifa riots last summer: not covering all their violence, burning and looting but focusing only on peaceful parts, hence creating yet another false narrative that 'BLM protests were mostly peaceful'. But this narrative was untrue (shitload of local videos showing burning, looting and even occasional shooting of BLM protesters which weren't covered by CNN, proved it) and it was created by cherry picking of facts. CNN had shown you ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY, which suited them, and totally omitted another side, which didn't. They didn't directly lie to you, they just hid uncomfortable truth from you. For me, this is no better.

CNN were doing the same shit long before BLM and Antifa riots last summer. All their dirty smearing campaign against Trump was based on the same strategy - to over report any Trump's failure and flaw, sometimes taking his phrases out of context to frame him even more, and not to cover at all any of his achievements. Simple enough - exaggerate every Trump's fault, however small, and ignore all his achievements, however big. With this technique, it's possible to demonize everyone including Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King. The best part of it that CNN didn't tell even any single word of open lies, and yet they created an entirely false narrative by this cherry picking of facts, by their misinterpretation of them, and by the usage of emotional language to create more public outrage against Trump.

Do you see the whole thing now? For me what CNN are doing - to misintepret and cherry pick actual facts to create an entirely false and harmful narrative based on them - is pretty bad, harmful, and inexcusable. It's no better than open lies and fakes. It's manipulation of facts, it's misleading the public on purpose by those false narratives to achieve their political ends. So yeah, fuck CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and other dishonest and biased American press.