An Analysis Of WW\’s Propaganda Machine

2 June, 2006. 1,604 words.

Sorry, this is really long.

Going back to yesterday’s article by Uncle Jimbo, I found the anonymous comments by “WW” completely fascinating, in the way one might find a train wreck fascinating. You can read his comments in this comment section, so I won’t quote very much. Besides, WW seems like the kind of person that would try to sue me for copyright infringment. Anyway, WW crafted a carefully orchestrated attack, but if you get past the inflammatory remarks, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and he makes no attempt to reinforce his assertions. I considered commenting on the thread myself, but the most vicious response to this sort of person is no response at all.

WW’s first comment, Tue May 30, 2006 9:14 pm, is pretty lucid on the surface. He is, at least, literate. I note that he edited his comment twice after it was posted, after other commenters had responded to it, and after he himself had responded to other commenters. This is not incriminating by itself, but it would be interesting to see exactly what he changed. Whatever the changes were, the implication is that he wanted his first comment to “look good,” perhaps knowing that most people wouldn’t read any further.

In WW’s first paragraph, he writes of Uncle Jimbo’s article, “You have come up with a list of situations that we already know did not exist.” He does not mention who “we” are. He goes on to mention a “whitewash inquiry”, but does not mention who conducted the inquiry or where we might read and confirm it. He mentions videotape evidence, but does not mention who recorded the videotape or where it came from, or why it should be considered “evidence.” The assertions in WW’s second paragraph presume that the videotape is accurate and authentic, but no evidence is provided to substantiate that claim. The assertion in WW’s third paragraph does the same. In the beginning of his fourth paragraph, WW refers to the videotape evidence as “fact,” but in light of the above, this suggests he is “begging the question,” a logical fallacy. He goes on to assert that the “story of the firefight was a lie” and “this has already been established as fact,” without providing any evidence to support this claim, thus continuing to “beg the question.” In his fifth paragraph, WW makes the assertion that Rep. John Murtha “told the truth,” which suggests that WW relies on Rep. Murtha as a primary source of supporting evidence. But we know that Rep. Murtha did not personally witness the events in Haditha, so his testimony would be hearsay at best. Murtha’s conclusions are based on the word of “the Commandant of the Marine Corps,” but as far as I know we have no public record of “the Commandant’s” statements. We don’t even know if “the Commandant” is personally involved in any the investigations. I will concede, however, that Murtha did not lie. Whether he was given accurate information or drew the right conclusions from that information, however, is yet to be proven. WW’s sixth paragraph is “transfer” propaganda (he attempts to discredit Uncle Jimbo by associating him with the negative actions of another blog) and a deliberate attempt to manipulate the debate by inciting an angry response.

It’s worth noting that in the transcript, Murtha clearly conceded to Charlie Gibson that “the Commandant” did not actually tell him the marines committed murder; Murtha drew that conclusion for himself.

WW’s second comment, Tue May 30, 2006 9:19 pm, asserts that Uncle Jimbo is “lying,” but Jimbo’s comment makes no assertions related to Haditha. WW goes on to set up irrelevant “straw man” arguments by stating that Jimbo claimed to be a “guardian of Truth” and “believes John 8:32 stuff.” No such claims were made by Jimbo, at least in the article or the comment thread.

In WW’s third comment, Tue May 30, 2006 9:24 pm, we find a continuation of the themes in his first comment, and many repeated assertions (“argumentum ad nauseam”) and “question begging.” He asserts that his information is “fact,” but provides no evidence to allow an independent observer to reach that conclusion. This is “begging the question” again. His conclusions rely on evidence that isn’t known or proven by experts in the public record. He again references the “videotape evidence.” This time he does indicate that an Iraqi journalism student recorded it, but he still does not indicate why this video should be considered “evidence.” He references testimony of Haditha villagers, but does not indicate where this testimony can be found. Through my own investigation, I learned that WW’s “facts” are in fact paraphrased from the original TIME magazine article about Haditha. In other words, WW presumes that TIME magazine interviews are irrefutable “fact.” These are not the kinds of facts one would find in, say, a court of law. (I hope.) WW ends his fourth comment with, “Only cowards and liars run from the truth.” This is another attempt to incite an emotional response so that attention is diverted away from the fallacies in his arguments.

At this point I will mention that the TIME magazine article which WW cites as fact states, “The available evidence does not provide conclusive proof that the Marines deliberately killed innocents in Haditha.”

WW’s fourth comment, Tue May 30, 2006 9:40 pm, is admitted speculation. WW then sets up another straw man by suggesting that Jimbo “and his buddies at Blackfive” — transfer, again — would have approved of the hypothetical situation he presented.

In WW’s fifth comment, Tue May 30, 2006 10:12 pm, we begin to see the fruits of his deliberate provocations. Most of this comment is an ad hominem, attacking the messenger, Jimbo. He again uses “transfer” to discredit Jimbo by associating him with Blackfive and Mudville, and sets up a straw man by insinuating that if Jimbo had the power, he would “take the lying coward’s way out and just censor me.” He claims to have logic on his side, but as I’ve clearly illustrated here, he in fact only has manipulative propaganda techniques and logical fallacies on his side. One might consider him “smart,” though, in the usage of such propaganda. (Except it’s completely transparent to reasonable people.)

WW’s sixth comment, Tue May 30, 2006 10:42 pm, contains no assertions. It is an “appeal to emotion,” another common propaganda technique.

WW’s seventh comment, Wed May 31, 2006 1:06 am, is a response to criticism from “TheNewGuy.” It begins with straw man after straw man, refuting assertions that TheNewGuy never made. He then reiterates that “the basic facts of the Iraq Massacre are well known.” This is a two-fold fallacy. First, I’ve already established that WW is relying on a single TIME magazine article for “facts.” The article is indeed well-known, but as I said above, the article itself refutes the notion that it should be taken as fact. Secondly, he is employing a common spin technique in referring to the incident as the “Iraq Massacre.” This is designed to create a negative connotation in the reader’s mind. WW ends with a paragraph attacking “bmadison’s” “sputtering rage,” and here we again see the fruits of WW’s earlier debate manipulation. By deliberating inciting angry responses, he slants the debate away from the weak assertions in his original argument. He also sets up more straw men by ridiculing responses that he predicts will be made against him.

As a side note, I found it interesting that WW’s profile was blank. In other words, he made no attempt to disguise the fact that he was hiding behind a shield of anonymity. This alone says a lot about how he feels about the validity of this own remarks.

WW’s eighth comment, Wed May 31, 2006 1:45 am, is another response to “bmadison.” Straw man after straw man, followed by another deliberate attempt to incite an emotional response.

WW’s ninth comment, Wed May 31, 2006 2:05 am, is employing the propaganda technique of “argumentum ad nauseam,” which is establishing an unproven statement as “fact” by repeating it over and over again. The comment ends with yet another deliberate insult.

As another aside, I’d be interested in tracing the IP address of this guy — I would presume it was logged. It would not surprise me at all to learn that this was a computer-saavy Iraqi insurgent posting actual political propaganda. He’s clearly trained in the art, though not very experienced. Then again, given his blank profile, it would not surprise me at all to learn he was masking or spoofing his IP. That would be another measure of the validity of his own remarks.

I should also point out here that WW makes no clarifying responses to anyone who questions his assertions. He only applies ad hominems and repeats his original question-begging assertions.

WW’s tenth comment, Wed May 31, 2006 2:10 am, is an ad hominem against “bmadison.”

WW’s eleventh comment, Wed May 31, 2006 2:23 am, is another ad hominem against “bmadison,” followed by repeating his unsubstantiated assertions again.

Whew. This is tiring. There are many, many more comments from WW, and they all follow the same pattern. He even uses the Dixie Chicks’ #1 album status as an insult! As if the Dixie Chicks’ popularity somehow proves the liberal agenda. There’s an example of almost every single propaganda technique and logical fallacy defined by Wikipedia in WW’s writing.

In conclusion, I think WW has single-handedly convinced me that I should retract all of my earlier doubts about Haditha and declare the marines completely innocent until proven guilty. Thanks, WW, for helping me see the light.

Related