HOME Back to Exposing the Media
Tools of Their Trade - Gatekeepers
I recently read an article in the TheDailyBeast today entitled, “A Kardashian Stumbles Upon a Chemtrail”, by Olivia Nuzzi. Olivia writes of Jenner's tweet about chemtrails. While doing so, she (Olivia) uses four (of many) tactics that are commonly used by mainstream media writers.
These tactics are as follows:
- Stating an assumption as if it were a fact to mislead
- Omitting many facts
- Ridicule
- Use of loaded and overly-used words and phrases to create negative associations in order to destroy the person's credibility.
My commentary of her quotes will follow hers and be in red and italics.
1.) Stating an assumption as if it were fact : “Jenner has unknowingly stumbled into the chemtrail conspiracy theory, which dates back to August 1996, when the United States Air Force’s university, published a paper (PDF) titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 . Some members of society who are disturbed by and reject the reality that the world is a disorganized, leaderless hellhole took the paper to mean that the government wanted to control the weather. A conspiracy was born. “
How many chemtrail-aware people came to know about them only, if at all, from just the military's "Owning the Weather" document? Many of us have seen the jets spraying with our own eyes, or heard about them from someone else, or seen other military and/or government documents that talk of aerosol programs. Examples of just a few: The Space Preservation Act of 2001, weather modification documents, patents, policies, and others. By claiming that everyone believes something for the same reason implies they are all of one hive mind who cannot think for themselves. By the way, I once saw that same claim on Contrail Science. Could Olivia have just been parroting them?
You can find almost 200 hundred pieces of chemtrail and geoengineering evidence from universities, scientists, meteorologists and other sources at http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/Chemtrail_Research.htm and over 200 military and government documents at:http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/CPgov.htm. There are plenty of other resources regarding chemtrails/geoengineering which can be found with a simple internet search. This makes me question whether Olivia did any research at all, other than the two sites she mentions in her article--one being the Wikipedia which is almost always the very first link that comes up.By stating her assumption as fact, Olivia pretty much closes the subject of chemtrails and intentionally or unintentionally leads the audience to dismiss the topic as having already been covered and after all, all the believers were only misunderstanding a theoretical document.
2.) Omitting many facts: Examples of this are the documents mentioned above. Also omitted is the hundreds of lab tests on rain water and soil samples, whistleblowers, weather derivatives, University and government documents, videos of jets spraying, ect. Anyone can find these things by doing a simple search--something Olivia Nuzzi apparently did not do. Instead she comes across as trying to make it appear as if the only thing that created chemtrail knowers was a misunderstanding of one document.
3.) Ridicule and use of loaded and overly-used words and phrases to create negative associations : Olivia ridicules Jenner not only in tone, but with her words. Here are a few examples from Olivia's article: “There is a lot to unpack in Jenner’s grammatically disastrous meme, but seeing as 9 million people have been exposed to it in less than 24 hours, it’s now irresponsible not to try.”
O'h no, danger, danger, Jenner did something bad and irresponsible, we've got to fix the damage—can you say “damage control?”
“Then Jenner descends quickly into full-on paranoia: “Is something being exterminated here? Is that something me?”
Descends? Good choice of word. Definitely indicates going downhill. Full-on paranoia? Isn't the word “paranoid” usually coupled with the phrase “conspiracy theorist? and shouldn't only a psychiatrist be the one to diagnose for that?)
“The next stage of Jenner’s meltdown is wild speculation: ...”
Meltdown?, hmmm, I guess that means Jenner has gone crazy, whacky for noticing all the jets spraying and writing about it. Speculation? What about Olivia's own speculation that people believe in chemtrails because of one pdf by the military?, or to even make any kind of claim at all to know what anyone thinks or why? Is this lady a mind reader if so, I'll stand corrected). Her own assumptions were totally baseless and writing them was totally irresponsible.
I have never read TheDailyBeast before and don't know whether it is a teen publication, but judging by the commonality and obviousness of the propaganda tactics that were employed, I would almost bet my life that it is a mainstream publication or at least is influenced by mainstream articles. I also think that whoever came up with the name of the publication was correct in calling themselves a beast.
More Examples of Opinion-Persuasion Tactics
Originally, I wanted to find a specific article that inspired me to address propaganda tactics. The writer said that conspiracy theorists were a concern. This was a statement telling people what to think about the issue of there being conspiracy theorists. I could not find it, but found instead how that now all the links that come up on the first page of a google search for chemtrails are debunking and/or gatekeeping sites. This gives so much material for this page and I will critique a few of them below. Like in above article, first I'll write quote made by publication and then put my commentary underneath in red. I'll put the links to the listed publications at bottom of this page.
The RationalWiki (choice words, name calling/labeling, and use of omission)- "According to some conspiracy theorists, some of these are actually chemtrails, a form of aerial dispersal of chemicals by The Powers That Be for some vague but definitely nefarious purpose. This is one of the youngest among the established conspiracy theories, having been first discussed around 1996, and it is still going strong despite any evidence for it being laughably lacking."
Ah hmmm (cough). "Conspiracy theorists". Really, they can't just say "people". They have to give them a title, a label? Calling people who believe "theorists" automatically implies there is no evidence and all of it is theory. Good one Rationalwiki--and you were quite clever in your phrasing when you said "...any evidence" instead of "no evidence". You used omission of facts well here by omitting evidence that DOES exist.
The use of the words "actually" and "vague". I think we all know the implication when someone says "they actually believe", "he actually did it". It implies a disbelief. Choosing to use the word "vague", makes the whole idea of chemtrails seem vague. Good choices of words to create desired feeling in reader.
Back to the statement, "...despite any evidence for it being laughably lacking"? Why do you say "laughably". Do you want people to just laugh it off as many do just from hearing the phrase "conspiracy theory" alone? And to say evidence is lacking is either a complete lie or total ignorance. There is tons of evidence in the form of scientific journals, University papers, government and military documents, in videos, photos and in lab tests.
Wikipedia - "These arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) that are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.[4] Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions"
Again, use of choice words to give a desired impression. The use of the word "community" when referring to scientists. "Community" implies that all scientists are of one group and one hive mind and all have the same results. This excludes the scientists who have not dismissed chemtrails. You can find papers from scientists (not the scientific community) on the chemtrail research page of this site.
The Wikipedia blog regarding chemtrails is long and too much to copy here, but I want to point out another important paragraph within it: "The USAF says these accusations were a hoax fueled in part by citations to a strategy paper drafted within their Air University entitled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025""I think the faultiness can be easily seen here. Wikipedia is depending on a response of the accused as evidence against the reality of chemtrails. No judge or jury is needed when it's a government agency. Also, notice how the air force document "Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning the Weather in 2025" was also cited as cause for the "theory" by Olivia Nuzzi (in article referred to at top of this page).
I will continue this later...
Links of publications mentioned: Rationalwiki, Wikileaks