Frequently Asked Questions
What should I do if I have suggestions for the site? Last week, I saw a bumper sticker that would be perfect for this site. I also have ideas about new topics that the site should investigate.
Great! We would love to hear more about your idea.
Your site strikes me as biased. What should I do about this?
We are sincerely committed to creating a site that includes a wide range of political examples. If you feel that some of the examples or ideas are unfairly biased, please let us know more about why you feel this way. If you can think of examples from the “other” side of the political spectrum, we would love to know about them.
Who is the propaganda critic?
The name “propaganda critic” should not be interpreted as suggesting that there is only room for one propaganda critic. In a functioning democracy, all thinking citizens should question and criticize the messages they receive.
What is your political agenda?
In the wake of the 2016 elections, journalists, educators and political activists have expressed their alarm about the destructive influence of fake news, bots, sockpuppets, and trolls. Unfortunately, many people have argued that responsibility for fixing these problems rests on the shoulders of public officials and social media platforms.
Some argue that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should terminate accounts of individuals and organizations that distribute harmful or offensive propaganda. Others call for the implementation of algorithms that would identify, flag, and delete problematic online content. There are even some who suggest that the only way to solve these problems is to pass legislation that would make it impossible to speak anonymously online.
The authors of this site believe that censorship is a very bad idea, whether it is carried out by human beings or implemented via computer code. We also believe that the right to speak anonymously is an essential human liberty.
Politicians and technocrats cannot save us. Censorship and government regulation will not cure the problems that plague democracy at a national and global level.
This site is premised on the belief that all of us — regardless of party affiliation — are capable of stepping up and renewing our commitment to civic engagement and authentic democratic dialogue. By studying the ways that other people seek to persuade us, and by reflecting on logical fallacies and emotional underpinnings of our own political statements, we can help to revitalize the lost art of political conversation.
With the exception of few pages in the Case Studies section, many of the examples on this site seem to be at least seven years old. Why is this?
It is not a secret that today’s political climate is remarkably polarized. In a recent study of contemporary media habits, the Pew Research Center reported:
When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust. And whether discussing politics online or with friends, they are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals… [1]
In order for this site to truly make a difference, the explanations must be accessible to people on all sides of the political spectrum. For this reason we try to use older examples that are less likely to generate emotional partisan reactions whenever it is possible to do so.
However, because computational propaganda is a relatively new phenomenon, it is difficult to explain topics such as bots and sockpuppets without referencing current events. We are constantly seeking out new examples in an attempt to preserve some sort of balance.
How can I help support this project?
We hope you will share this link with your friends, colleagues and family members. Also, if you notice that something is wrong with the site, please let us know and we will try to fix it as soon as possible.
References
[1] Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocilyn Kiley, and Katerina Eva Matsa (2014, October 21) “Political Polarization & Media Habits,” Pew Research Center: Journalism and Media.