A Question of Propaganda.

[ferryman]

Could you please explain what you mean by 'own sphere of influence' FM?

Cause celebres among their own kind ...

[Alfred R Jones]

Firstly, what is propaganda? From my understanding of it it's an attempt to persuade others to believe something. It is spread by different methods; public relations techniques and biased newspaper reports, for example.

Propaganda uses ad hominem attacks instead of valid arguments; ad nauseam repeating of the 'message' in the hope that if you say it often enough it'll be accepted; appeals to authority by citing prominent figures to support an idea or argument; appeals to prejudice by using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Although some sceptics use some of the above techniques on twitter, the ones using them in the media are Team McCann via their PR mouthpieces.

Most of the facts in this case are in the PJ Files, which sceptics tend to direct people to look at. I have never seen a supporter tell someone to read the files and make their own minds up.

Most of the personal attacks,appeals to authority (SY) and emotive language on this forum do not come from those labelled as 'sceptics'.

Would you describe something like the 60 Reasons pamphlet by Tony Bennett  as propaganda or not?  If not, how would you describe it? 

[faithlilly]

Firstly, what is propaganda? From my understanding of it it's an attempt to persuade others to believe something. It is spread by different methods; public relations techniques and biased newspaper reports, for example.

Propaganda uses ad hominem attacks instead of valid arguments; ad nauseam repeating of the 'message' in the hope that if you say it often enough it'll be accepted; appeals to authority by citing prominent figures to support an idea or argument; appeals to prejudice by using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Although some sceptics use some of the above techniques on twitter, the ones using them in the media are Team McCann via their PR mouthpieces.

Most of the facts in this case are in the PJ Files, which sceptics tend to direct people to look at. I have never seen a supporter tell someone to read the files and make their own minds up.

Most of the personal attacks,appeals to authority (SY) and emotive language on this forum do not come from those labelled as 'sceptics'.

Good post G-Unit.

[G-Unit]

Would a person be hard-pushed to find at least half a dozen anti-McCann blogs on the internet?

No idea, sorry. What is the point of all these questions? Are you trying to say there are more anti-McCann sites on the internet than pro ones? Does that mean anti's outnumber pro's then, do you think? Or could it be that the 'anti' viewpoint is only able to be presented on the internet due to the McCann stranglehold on the media.

[Mr Gray]

It has been suggested on another thread that sceptics are mere victims of propaganda directed at the McCanns. While I accept that towards the end of 2007 and early in 2008 there were many scurrilous articles written about the couple, with their success in suing of the Express the scales were well and truly rebalanced and it would be a foolish editor who would now publish anything that was less than supportive towards the McCanns.

My question is this, if a propaganda campaign is being waged against the McCanns how is it being achieved ? How is, we are told, a small minority of individuals able to convince the numbers who are joining groups on social media and posting comments on newspaper comment sections that the McCanns are involved in their daughter's disappearance ? With the full might of the British of the British media on their side and the McCanns innocence, we are told, self-evident how are a tawdry, dissatisfied band of miscontents ( we are lead to believe ) holding such sway over the British public ?

The propaganda happened in the early years when people believed the lies coming out of Portugal leaked by the Portuguese police.  The damage was done. Only this week I spoke to someone who thought the McCanns were involved...because she believed maddie's blood had been found in the hire car and that dogs had signalled the scent of cadaver in the apartment. If these things were true I would be calling for the arrest of the MCCanns...but they are not true.
You are wrong to think a small band hold sway over the british public. It is still only a small percentage of the population who think the parents covered up maddie's death. Those that do doubt the mccanns because of the lies continually being told. You only have to look at HDH on CMOM to see what I am talking about.

[Mr Gray]

No idea, sorry. What is the point of all these questions? Are you trying to say there are more anti-McCann sites on the internet than pro ones? Does that mean anti's outnumber pro's then, do you think? Or could it be that the 'anti' viewpoint is only able to be presented on the internet due to the McCann stranglehold on the media.

The McCanns do not have a stranglehold on the press....that is an ill informed myth.....

[ferryman]

Good post G-Unit.

Is it?

I tend to see sceptics direct others to things like the Almeida interim report (admittedly a part of the files) but a part superseded by the PJ final report, seldom, if ever, referred to by sceptics; AND, of course, NEVER the prosecutors' archiving dispatch which makes very plain that the McCanns have no case to answer.

[faithlilly]

Do you have a link to a pro-McCann blog on the internet, please?

Didn't ferryman have one at some point ?

[faithlilly]

Cause celebres among their own kind ...

Their own kind ?

[Alfred R Jones]

The McCanns do not have a stranglehold on the press....that is an ill informed myth.....

It's the same argument used by all conspiracy theorists - Sandy Hook hoax theorists, 9/11 Truthers, Holohoax proponents etc...

[ferryman]

Their own kind ?

Dedicated to denigrating and maligning the McCanns ...

[misty]

No idea, sorry. What is the point of all these questions? Are you trying to say there are more anti-McCann sites on the internet than pro ones? Does that mean anti's outnumber pro's then, do you think? Or could it be that the 'anti' viewpoint is only able to be presented on the internet due to the McCann stranglehold on the media.

If you understand real journalism, you will know that it has to be an unbiased presentation of facts. MSM is only allowed to publish information which does not compromise the ongoing investigation in any way. That is not, as you put it, a McCann stranglehold.
On the internet, however, there is a plethora of unregulated propaganda, orchestrated by sceptics, often on an almost daily basis (hence you cannot immediately direct me to any pro-McCann blogs). Most supporters have already educated themselves simply by reading the files and need no prompting to do so. The same cannot be said of those who still believe in syringes & disposed refrigeration products.

[faithlilly]

Dedicated to denigrating and maligning the McCanns ...

Or simply doubting the story they have told.

[ferryman]

If you understand real journalism, you will know that it has to be an unbiased presentation of facts. MSM is only allowed to publish information which does not compromise the ongoing investigation in any way. That is not, as you put it, a McCann stranglehold.
On the internet, however, there is a plethora of unregulated propaganda, orchestrated by sceptics, often on an almost daily basis (hence you cannot immediately direct me to any pro-McCann blogs). Most supporters have already educated themselves simply by reading the files and need no prompting to do so. The same cannot be said of those who still believe in syringes & disposed refrigeration products.

In fairness, there is a pro-McCann blog, still on the net, that no longer writes articles, and there was another, no longer on the net, which was officially sanctioned by findmadeleine.

I wrote articles for both.

[G-Unit]

Would you describe something like the 60 Reasons pamphlet by Tony Bennett  as propaganda or not?  If not, how would you describe it?

I haven't read it, Alfred, but it was clearly an attempt to persuade.