Our Survey

Item 1.

“We could go on and on and play soundbite after sound bite just like those. It was an orgy of demagoguery today all the words delivered with Joe Biden’s signature lack of shame. Literally nothing embarrasses this man. Maybe that’s one of the benefits of senility, but we’re not going to play those clips. We’ve done enough of that this week and for the past year. It’s too close to Christmas now, and that’s the point. As its power wanes and its destruction of the ballot box looms on the horizon, the Democratic Party is trying to wreck your Christmas. It’s their latest psy-op. They can’t convince you of anything anymore, you no longer believe them, why would you? So, they’re trying to punish and terrify you in the submission instead. But here’s the good news. It’s not working. Americans are going to celebrate Christmas anyway. They always have and they’re going to this year. This is still America.”

“Tucker Carlson Tonight” airing on the 21st of December 2021 on Fox News. A complete version of the transcript and accompanying video may be found here: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-the-democratic-party-is-made-up-of-entitled-white-liberals

Responses:

Yes it is propaganda, because…

“This person is making radical, hateful comments that aren’t backed by data, just a speech and some opinions. It calls on the people watching to rally with the celebrators of Christmas, turning a non-political holiday into a political event” 

“The Democratic Party is trying to wreck your Christmas. It’s their latest psy-op” this statement is crazy lol — it’s definitely another attempt at fear mongering against a certain demographic (in this case, democrats as a whole).” 

“It seems purely opinion-based, and part of me thinks it could be clickbait.” 

Our Interpretation….

Tucker Carlson’s segment qualifies as propaganda due to its use of manipulative techniques designed to promote a partisan narrative and provoke emotional reactions rather than encourage informed discourse. His language is hyperbolic and inflammatory, using phrases like “orgy of demagoguery” and “punish and terrify” to incite fear and resentment. His claims that Democrats are orchestrating a “psy-op” to ruin Christmas, are not based on sufficient evidence. Fear mongering is central to his rhetoric, portraying Democrats as an existential threat to democracy. He resorts to ad hominem attacks against Joe Biden, dismissing him with personal insults rather than engaging with policy. The segment employs an us-vs-them framing, painting Democrats as hostile while presenting Carlson’s audience as resilient patriots. By reinforcing existing biases, leveraging patriotic sentiment, and co-opting national identity, he deepens polarization and solidifies viewer allegiance. As a Fox News host, Carlson exploits his platform’s credibility to amplify these claims, aligning with propaganda’s goal of persuasion over truth by stoking fear, fabricating crises, and dehumanizing opponents to consolidate political power. 

Item 2.

“All over the country, Christmas is taking flak. In Denver this past weekend, no religious floats were permitted in the holiday parade there. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled the holiday tree and no Christian Christmas symbols are allowed in the public schools. Federated Department Stores, [that’s] Macy’s, have done away with the Christmas greeting, “Merry Christmas.” Now, all of this anti-Christian stuff is absurd, and may even be a bias situation. But the real reason it’s happening has little to do with Christmas and everything to do with organized religion. Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation, and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition. But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That’s what happened in Canada.””

‘Christmas Under Siege: The Big Picture’ by Bill O’Reilly, published on December 24th 2004 on Fox News. The link to a full version of this article may be found here: https://www.foxnews.com/story/christmas-under-siege-the-big-picture

Responses:

Yes it is propaganda, because…

“Creates a false ‘us versus them‘ dynamic between all democrats being “Anti-Christian/religion” and all Christians being anti- gay, abortion, drugs and economic redistribution.”

“It clearly states a specific, somewhat extreme opinion of one person (or group) as if it were fact. It makes defamatory claims, attempting to undermine the opposite political party/view. It also draws illogical conclusions based on the information provided.”

“The content is speculative and easy to shift blame to the agenda of progressives. The authors strong opinion saying “the real reason” construes the evidence to an unreasonably high confidence that ultimately benefits their affiliated party.”

No, It is not propaganda because…

“It’s news and an unfortunate pattern“

Our Interpretation….

Bill O’Reilly’s article “Christmas Under Siege: The Big Picture” employs several propagandistic techniques to frame secularism as a threat to religious traditions. Through emotionally charged language like “siege” and “anti-Christian,” he provokes fear and outrage, while straw man arguments misrepresent secularism as a movement to “destroy religion” rather than a stance on inclusivity.

The false dichotomy of “us vs. them” creates polarization, reinforcing division instead of fostering understanding. O’Reilly further uses fear mongering and slippery slope reasoning, suggesting that secular policies will lead to dystopian consequences without substantiating such claims.

His reliance on generalizations, conspiracy framing, and cultural allusions like referencing “Brave New World” manipulates readers into viewing progressive policies as a calculated assault on Christianity. By prioritizing emotional manipulation over factual discourse, the article exemplifies propaganda, reducing complex societal issues to a battle of good versus evil. 

Item 3.

 “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Hillary Clinton during a campaign speech on September 9, 2016. More information regarding this speech may be found here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/10/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.cnn

Responses:

Yes it is propaganda, because…

“Even with the admittance of saying “grossly generalistic”, it still is propaganda as heavily generalized evidence to spread belief on a particular group is dangerous and only serves to inform readers of an uninformed view.”

No it is not propaganda because…

“Aligns with my worldview.”

“Mrs. Clinton qualified her statement saying, “to be grossly generalistic…”, meaning the words followed were meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Since it happened during a debate for a presidency where she as a candidate felt democracy was threatened, so it seems more like outrage than manipulation.”

I am not sure because...

“It’s coming from a rival politician. Like, I agree with the statement. but I don’t think the reason she is saying it is the same reason an average citizen would say it.”

Our Interpretation….

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign remark referring to half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” employs propaganda techniques by using generalization, emotional appeal, and demonization to influence public perception. By broadly categorizing Trump’s supporters as racist, sexist, or xenophobic, Clinton oversimplifies a diverse group and reduces them to a single, negative label, a tactic often used to discredit opposition. Her use of charged language evokes strong emotions, reinforcing an “us vs. them” divide that vilifies Trump’s supporters while rallying her own base. Additionally, the statement fails to acknowledge the varied motivations behind Trump’s support, such as economic concerns or dissatisfaction with the status quo. By leveraging name calling, loaded language, and moral framing, Clinton’s remark prioritizes emotional persuasion over balanced discourse.  

Item 4.

“We have to vote and we have to make sure that we stop them from cheating, because they cheat like dogs,” Trump said Aug. 3 in Atlanta.

 “Watch for the voter fraud, because we win without voter fraud, we win so easily,” he said Sept. 6 to the Fraternal Order of Police.

“Anytime you have a mail-in ballot, there is going to be massive fraud,” he told Dr. Phil McGraw on Aug. 27.

“Fact-checking Trump’s false claims about voter fraud and ‘rigged elections’ by Amy Sherman, Published on October 5th 2024 on PBS. The link to a full version of this article may be found here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-false-claims-about-voter-fraud-and-rigged-elections

Responses:

Yes it is propaganda, because…

“Use of derogatory and dehumanizing language to describe the “other,” grandiose claims with use of inciting and fear-inducing language, use of claims that do not follow evidence-based research.”

“His statements have no factual basis and undermine the vital voting systems in place within the US. He had major personal gain to be had from spreading this propaganda effectively.“

No it is not propaganda, because…

“To me propaganda means ads, posters, and other forms of physical and digital media. If the simple act of speech is propaganda then the term would seem to apply to every act in which someone is trying to convince people of something.”

“Propaganda feels like more of an intentional, highly produced campaign. Trump does not come across as intentionally destructive in these quotes.”

Our Interpretation….

The statements attributed by Donald Trump in the PBS article qualify as propaganda because they use manipulative tactics to distort reality, provoke fear, and advance a political agenda rather than engage in factual discourse. By employing dehumanizing language like “cheat like dogs,” he vilifies opponents to rally support through anger rather than policy. He also engages in fear mongering, falsely claiming that mail-in ballots lead to “massive fraud” with out providing sufficient evidence to support his claims. In addition he repeatedly asserts falsehoods about election integrity to normalize distrust in democratic processes. His rhetoric seeks to undermine democratic institutions by framing elections as rigged and positioning himself as the sole truth-bearer. Additionally, he strategically targets trusted audiences, such as law enforcement groups or mainstream media figures, to lend credibility to his claims. These statements rely on emotional manipulation over facts, creating division and mobilizing supporters based on fabricated threats.  Such propaganda distorts reality, erodes democratic trust, and prioritizes fear over reasoned discourse.  

Item 5.

“Kaepernick took a knee during the playing of the national anthem before games last season. He said he was protesting treatment of people in black communities during a time of great tension sparked by police shootings of African-Americans. But his actions sparked outrage. Critics called his pregame protests anti-American, even accusing him of being against the military, a charge Kaepernick has repeatedly denied. Bringing awareness and sparking social change were his only motivations, he says.”

‘He Took A Knee On The Field In Protest; And He Still Has No Team’, by Tom Goldman, published on August 10 2017 by NPR. The link to a full version of this article may be found here: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542562923/he-took-a-knee-on-the-field-in-protest-now-he-has-no-team

Responses:

No it is not propaganda, because…

“The author is not making any value claims about the football protest, just reporting the events. There is no call to action.”

“It isn’t displaying a specific opinion or taking sides, it’s explaining his actions, the reaction to them, and his response to those reactions. Its main purpose is to help people understand his actions, not tell them what to think about them.”

I’m not sure, because…

“This is a report of what another person did as an act of protest. It’s hard to tell if they’re accurately representing Kaepernick’s full intentions from just this section, but I think they are?”

Our Interpretation….

The NPR article detailing Kapernick’s protest, is not propaganda. While it addresses a politically contentious topic, Kaepernick’s protest of racial injustice and patriotism, the text itself does not employ propaganda techniques. Propaganda typically relies on manipulative or deceptive methods to advance a specific agenda, such as emotional manipulation through exaggerated language or fear mongering, omission of key facts to present a one-sided narrative, demonization of opposing views, repetition of slogans or loaded terms, and appeals to authority or false consensus. However, the NPR excerpt neutrally reports facts and perspectives without resorting to these tactics. It presents a balanced perspective, acknowledging both Kaepernick’s stated motivations “bringing awareness and sparking social change” and his critics’ objections “anti-American,” “against the military”. The language remains factual, avoiding loaded terms that could frame the issue in a biased way. Additionally, the article does not attempt to deceive or coerce readers into adopting a specific viewpoint but rather informs them about the controversy. While discussions of race and patriotism are inherently charged, the article’s neutral tone, factual reporting, and inclusion of multiple viewpoints distinguish it from propaganda.  

Item 6.

“In a presentation last week, Fire Chief Sara Boone said fireworks greatly increase the risk of a major disaster, particularly as climate change increases periods of extreme heat and drought becomes more common. In 2017, she said, a single firework scorched over 48,000 acres of forest and the Columbia River Gorge; the Eagle Creek Fire was the largest wildfire in Multnomah County’s history. On July 4, 2020, fireworks caused 18 fires in Portland, according to the ordinance. That number dropped dramatically in 2021 after the mayor signed an emergency declaration temporarily banning the sale of fireworks due to a severe drought. “Even on a temporary basis, the results were dramatic. We saw a reduction by 66% of fire calls related to fireworks,” Fire Marshal Kari Schimel told City Council members last week. “This is the lowest number of fire calls related to fireworks that we have seen in the last 20 years.”

‘Portland Bans the Sale and Use of Personal Fireworks’, by Rebecca Ellis, Published March 2nd 2022 by OPB. The link to a full version of this article may be found here: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/03/02/fourth-of-july-celebrations-portland-fireworks-ban-fires-climate-change/

Responses:

Yes it is propaganda, because…

“I think an article, something that is able to be distributed en masse, can count as propaganda. That said, propaganda of this sort must be viewed differently than propaganda used to deceive the public.”

No it is not propaganda, because…

“I figured that since they are using hard evidence and statistics to explain their reasoning, and aren’t simply trying to soil someone’s image or boost their own, it wasn’t. The purpose of this message was to explain why a decision was made and explain the effects of that decision. It also seemed fairly unbiased, only making assertions based on numerical data.”

I’m not sure, because…

“I think it depends on the definition of propaganda. On the one hand, it feels more objective since its focused on empirical data and trying to present an effective policy. On the other hand, it is convincing the audience that a certain policy should be a favorable one, so i’m not sure how other would categorize it.”

Our Interpretation….

Portland’s decision to ban personal fireworks, as detailed in the article, is a policy based on empirical evidence and historical precedent rather than propaganda. The ban is supported by verifiable incidents, such as the 2017 Eagle Creek Fire, which burned 48,000 acres, and the 18 fireworks-related fires in 2020. The 66% reduction in fire-related calls after the temporary ban in 2021 further demonstrates a clear correlation between restricting fireworks and reducing fire risks. While the policy references climate change as a factor exacerbating fire hazards, its primary focus is on mitigating risks, not advancing a political narrative. Regardless of one’s stance on climate science, the link between fireworks and wildfires in dry conditions is undeniable based on Portland’s fire history. Ultimately, the ban prioritizes community safety by responding to immediate, documented dangers rather than attempting to shape political opinions. 

Item 7.

On July 11, 2019, President Donald Trump tweeted about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. His tweet was part of a series of messages criticizing digital currencies and their role in the financial system. The tweet and its replies may be found here:https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1149472282584072192?lang=en

Responses:

Yes it is propaganda, because…

“It seems like Trump is trying to convince people that Crypto is bad without speaking about how crypto is now widely held and adopted. His argument that crypto fuels crime does not make sense because most crypto users are not criminals, and that cash is more widely used for crime.”

No it is not propaganda, because…

“Trump begins the tweet by saying “I”. He makes clear these are his own thoughts and not dogma or anything.”

I’m not sure, because…

“He’s stating an opinion but then trying to back it with ‘facts’ that have no citation/backing? I’m not a fan of crypto either but he’s just saying things.”

Our Interpretation….

The tweet from President Donald Trump about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies does not qualify as propaganda because it primarily represents a personal opinion rather than an effort to manipulate public perception. By stating, “I am not a fan,” Trump clearly expresses a subjective viewpoint, a stance shared by many public figures and financial experts. While critical of Bitcoin, the tweet raises legitimate concerns about cryptocurrency volatility and its potential use in illegal activities, both of which are widely discussed in financial and regulatory circles. The tweet is part of a broader conversation on the role of digital currencies in the financial system, contributing to public discourse rather than attempting to mislead or coerce. Unlike propaganda, it does not contain a call to action, nor does it employ manipulative language or imagery designed to shape public opinion in a deceptive manner. This tweet transparently shares a personal stance without attempting to systematically shape public perception.  

Item 8.

This is an illustration of a uterus. Please review the image carefully and answer the following questions. This illustration and additional information may be found here: https://www.verywellhealth.com/enlarged-uterus-signs-symptoms-complications-4174349

Responses:

“It’s literally just a picture. If this were to make someone upset i’d be concerned that the uterus did something to them directly. It’s the same as showing a picture of a brain, a liver, a heart, or literally any other organ in the human body. “

“Visual style and content, in the sense that there are no labels or names to make it an “educational” illustration, it’s just a picture.”

Our Interpretation….

The image of a uterus, when presented for educational or informational purposes, is not propaganda because it serves as fact. Its purpose is to educate, typically appearing in medical textbooks. Unlike propaganda, the image does not advocate for any political stance or social movement, nor does it contain symbols, slogans, or elements designed to influence public opinion. While reproductive health can be a politically charged topic, the image itself remains an objective representation of human biology. Its factual nature and absence of manipulative elements distinguish it from propaganda, emphasizing its role as an educational resource rather than a political statement.