part0020

If you want to become aware of how politicians, the news media, the advertising industry, public relations experts, government officials and assorted friends and enemies use the arts of manipulation and con artistry against you — enter their point of view! Learn the art of intellectual dirty tricks so that, if necessary, you can out-think the tricksters.

First remember that those who strive to manipulate you always want something from you: your money, your vote, your support, your time, your soul — something! But they also need you to be unaware of what they are about. They always have something (often a lot) to hide. In any case, their goal is not the use of sound evidence and valid reasoning. In every case, they insult our intelligence by assuming that a manipulative trick will work on us, that we are not insightful enough to see what they are doing.

Your goal should be to recognize fallacies for what they are — the dirty tricks of those who want to gain an advantage . Fallacies are therefore stratagems for gaining influence, advantage, and power (over the sheep of society). You will withstand their impact more effectively when you know these fallacies inside and out. When you come to see how counterfeits of good reasoning pervade everyday life (and are the life blood of the mass media) you are better able to resist their influence. When you are inoculated against fallacies, your response to them is transformed. You ask key questions. You probe behind the masks, the fronts, the fostered images, the impressive pomp and ceremony. You take charge of your own mind and emotions. You become (increasingly) your own person.

Let us now turn to some of the most prominent fallacies used in thinking. As you read through these dirty tricks, imagine yourself instructing unscrupulous persons in the art of manipulating the sheep of the world. Imagine yourself in the “business” of seeking influence over others. You want to get their vote, support, money or what have you. Something is at stake that you care about. You face some opposition. You want to “win” the argument, gain the influence. And you don’t care (at some level) what you have to do to achieve your goal. What can you do? Use any one or more of the 44 foul ways to win an argument described in this section. If you don’t mind being unscrupulous, you can manipulate and control the simple-minded. These foul ways work — even with otherwise highly sophisticated persons. You can observe the practices of politicians (and other propagandists) successfully using them everyday. And don’t worry about feeling guilty. Your instinctive skill in self-deception will most likely keep you from noticing that you are doing something unethical. Here is your battery of strategies for overcoming your conscience, 44 foul ways to win an argument.

This is sometimes called, “Pointing to another wrong.” When under attack and having trouble defending themselves, manipulators turn the tables. They accuse their opponent of doing what they are being accused of. “You say that I don’t love you! I think it is you who does not love me!” Manipulators know this is a good way to put their opponents on the defensive. You may want to up the ante by accusing your opponent of doing something worse than what he is accusing you of. “How dare you accuse me of being messy? When was the last time you even took a shower?”

The slippery slope is used when a person implies that if someone does one thing (A), it will inevitably lead to a domino effect of negative things that, in the end will result in something terrible. In other words, “A” is not so bad, but A leads to B and B leads to C and C is horrible! Imagine a mother lecturing her teenage daughter: “OK, maybe there is nothing wrong with a kiss, but remember where kissing leads and where that leads and that. Before you know it you’ll be the mother of an unwanted baby! Your young life will be ruined forever!” Manipulators who use this argument conveniently forget that many people walk carefully on slippery ground and don’t fall down.

Most people are in awe of those with power, celebrity, or status. In addition, there are many sacred symbols (flags, religious images, sacred words, etc.) to which people feel intense identification and loyalty. Though power, celebrity, and status rarely correlate in any way with knowledge and insight, people are mesmerized by them.

Demagogues that successfully manipulate people know that most people are readily tricked in this way. So they wrap themselves in the flag and associate themselves with power, celebrity, or status (in any way they can). This includes looking for scientists and other “knowledgeable” persons to “support” their views.

Cigarette companies once hired scientists who were (in effect) prepared to say that there was no PROOF that cigarettes caused lung cancer — though they knew (or should have known) that the proof was there. Cigarette companies also founded “The American Tobacco Institute,” a body of researchers supposedly seeking to discover the effects of smoking on health. In reality, the researchers were seeking to defend the interests of the tobacco industry under the guise of scientific authority. They deceived millions of people (and caused millions of deaths along the way). Naturally, they could only do this by deceiving themselves into thinking that they were simply being scientifically careful. And, of course, they made a lot of money in the process (which strongly influenced their ability to deceive themselves).

Skilled manipulators, con artists, and politicians often imply that they have “experience” to back them up, even when their experiences are limited, or non-existent. They know it is much harder for someone to deny what they say if they speak with the voice of experience. Of course, they will sometimes come up against an opponent who has more experience than they do. In that case, they attack their opponent’s experience — as not representative, as biased, as limited, as distorted, or as subjective.

Deep down, most people have a lot of fears - fear of death, disease, loss of love, loss of attractiveness, loss of youth, loss of income, loss of security, rejection by others. The unprincipled manipulators know that people tend to react primitively when any of these fears are activated. Thus they represent themselves as having the ability to protect people against these threats (even when they can’t). Distrust authorities who say that certain groups (or people) are inherently dangerous. “Remember, these people are threatening our freedom, our way of life, our homes, our property.” Politicians often use this strategy quite effectively to make sure people line up behind governmental authority and do what the government — that is, what politicians — want.

Manipulators know how to portray themselves (and their situation) in such a way as to make people feel sorry for them or at least gain their sympathy, especially when they don’t want to take responsibility for something they have done.

Consider the student who, when confronted with the fact that she hasn’t done her homework, whines, and says something like, “You don’t understand how hard my life is. I have so much to do. It’s very hard for me to get my homework done. I’m not lucky like some students. Since my parents can’t afford to send me to college, I have to work 30 hours a week to pay my own way. When I come home from work, my roommate plays music until midnight so I can’t study. What am I supposed to do? Give me a break!”

Appeal to pity can also be used to defend someone the manipulator identifies with, as in “Before you criticize the President, recognize that he has the hardest job in the world. He must stay up late at night, worrying about our well being, trying to find a way to act in the welfare of all of us. The fate (and weight) of the free world rests heavy on his shoulders. How about some consideration for the poor man!” Use of this ploy enables the manipulator to divert attention from those innocent people harmed by a presidential decision or policy.

Manipulators, and other masters of counterfeit, subterfuge, and ruse are careful to present themselves as people who share the values and views of their audience , especially the “sacred” beliefs of the audience. Everyone has some prejudices and most people feel hatred toward something or someone. Masters of spin stir up prejudices, hatred and irrational fears. They imply that they agree with the audience. They act as if they share their views. They work to convince the audience that their opponent doesn’t hold sacred the beliefs they hold sacred.

There are many possible variations on this strategy. One has been called the “Just Plain Folks Fallacy” in which the manipulator says or implies something like this:

“It’s good to be back in my home (city/state/country) and with people I can really trust. It’s great to be with people who face things squarely, who use their common sense to get things done, people who don’t believe in highfalutin ways of thinkin and actin.”

This strategy is closely related to the previous one, but emphasizes what seems to have passed the test of time. People are often enslaved by the social customs and norms of their culture, as well as traditional beliefs. What is traditional seems right. “This is the way we have always done things.” Manipulators imply that they hold firm to what their audience is familiar and comfortable with. They imply that their opponent will destroy these traditions and faith. They don’t worry about whether these traditions harm innocent people (like the cruel customs and laws against Blacks before the Civil Rights movement). They create the appearance of being independent in their views while the views they “independently” reach just happen to coincide with those of the crowd. They know that people are usually suspicious of those who go against present social norms and established traditions. They know enough to avoid openly opposing the social customs to which people are unconsciously (and slavishly) bound.

People begin with the deep-seated belief that they (their nation, their religion, their motivation) is especially pure and ethical. We sometimes bungle things, but we are always pure of heart. “We hold the highest ideals of any country. Of course, we make mistakes and sometimes commit follies. But our intentions are always good. Unlike others in the world we are innocent of guile. We are good hearted.” National and international news (designed for national consumption) is always written with this premise in the background. We may blunder, but we always intend to do the right thing. Manipulators take advantage of this questionable premise by speaking and writing with such assumptions in the background. This posture is related to the fallacy of begging the question and leads to question-begging epithets. See “question begging.”

When the opponent makes reasonable arguments, manipulators ignore those arguments and instead find a way to personally attack the reasoner. Name-calling (even mud slinging) often works (depending on how you do it). The spin artist knows what a particular audience will reject and insinuates that his opponent supports those terrible things. For example, the opponent might be labeled a communist or an atheist. Or it might be said of him that he supports terrorism, or is soft on crime. This strategy is sometimes called “poisoning the well.” It leads to the audience dismissing an opponent in a sweeping way — no matter what the opponent says in his defense. Of course, the spin artist knows the importance of correctly reading the audience to make sure that he doesn’t go too far. He realizes that the more subtle he can be, the more effective his manipulation will be.

One easy way to prove a point is to assume it in the first place. Consider this example:

“Well, what form of government do you want, a government by liberal do-gooders ready to spend your hard-earned dollars or a government led by business minds that understand how to live within a tight budget and generate jobs that put people to work?”

One variation on this fallacy has been called “question-begging epithets,” the use of words or phrases that prejudge an issue by the way the issue is put. For example, “Shall we defend freedom and democracy or cave in to terrorism and tyranny?” By putting the question in this way we avoid having to talk about uncomfortable questions like: “But are we really advancing human freedom? Are we really spreading democracy (or just extending our power, our control, our dominance, our access to foreign markets)?” Pay close attention to the words people use when articulating the “facts” with respect to an issue. They will often choose words that presuppose the correctness of their position on an issue.

Your opponent wants you to agree to X, and you realize you can’t argue against X without losing credit in the eyes of the audience. Fine, agree to X, but only under the following conditions... “Yes, we do want a democracy, but only when we can have a TRUE DEMOCRACY and that means this and that and that will have to be changed before we consider it.” By making a maneuver of this kind, you divert the audience so that they do not discover that, in fact, you have no intention whatsoever of allowing X to take place. This is similar to dirty trick #32, raising “nothing but objections.”

A true dilemma occurs when we are forced to choose between two equally unsatisfactory alternatives. A false dilemma occurs when we are persuaded that we have only two, equally unsatisfactory choices, when we really have more than two possibilities available to us. Consider the following claim: “Either we are going to lose the war on terrorism or we will have to give up some of our traditional freedoms and rights.”

People are often ready to accept a false dilemma because few feel comfortable with complexity and nuanced distinctions. They like sweeping absolutes. They want clear and simple choices. So, those skilled in manipulating people, face them with false dilemmas (one alternative of which is the one the manipulator wants them to choose, the other alternative clearly unacceptable). They present arguments in black or white form. For example, “You are either for us or against us. You either support democracy and freedom or terrorism and tyranny.” They realize that only a small minority of people will respond to such a false dilemma with the observation: “But these are not our only choices. In between the extremes of A and Z are options B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K ...”

An analogy or metaphor is a comparison that is not literally true. Consider, “don’t you think it is about time for us to SLAP DOWN those judges who are SOFT on crime!” Here the two phrases in CAPS are used metaphorically. They are not literally intended. They are metaphors attractive to many people whose information about the criminal justice system principally comes from “cops and robbers” television shows and sensationalized stories in the mass media.

To win arguments, then, manipulators use comparisons that make them look good and their opponent look bad: “You are treating me like my father used to treat me! He was so unfair, and so are you.” Or, “The way you are treating me is like kicking a horse when he is down. Can’t you see I have had a hard day?!” The analogies and metaphors that work depend in part on the prejudices and beliefs of the audience. This means understanding the world view of the audience, as well as the root metaphors underlying them. For example, if manipulators are trying to influence someone with a religious world view, they are more likely to be successful using religious metaphors and analogies. Of course, the skilled manipulator knows that when talking to a fundamentalist Christian, it is a mistake to choose metaphors from the Koran.

The manipulator wants to lead the audience to accept his conclusions. He wants the audience to reject the conclusions or interpretations of his opponent. If he remembers the Latin phrase “non-sequitur” which means, literally, “It does not follow,” he can accuse his opponent of being illogical and call into question his opponent’s reasoning. As soon as his opponent asserts a conclusion, the manipulator can say:

“Wait a minute. That does not follow! Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. First you said “X” and now you are saying “Y.” How did you get from X to Y? How can you justify such a leap? What you say is not logical. You haven’t proven Y, only X.”

The manipulator knows that once serious charges are made against a person, it may be difficult if not impossible for the accused to clear away the suspicion that there must have been something to the charge. Lingering suspicions may destroy a person’s chance to maintain his honor in the public eye. Rumors take on a life of their own. This is therefore one of the foulest of the 44 foul ways to win an argument.

During the McCarthy era many families, friendships, and careers were destroyed, because of the power of rumor and the “where there is smoke, there is fire” mentality. Senator McCarthy and his Committee on Un-American Activities would drag people before a public tribunal and imply that if they truly loved the country they would cooperate with the committee by giving them the names of persons with left-leaning views. When their request was refused, a vast television audience would draw the conclusion that the “uncooperative” citizens were communists and therefore, “Un-American.” Most people who elected to challenge the Committee On Un-American Activities lost their jobs; their families were ostracized; and their children mocked and bullied at school. Most were blackballed and could no longer find employment in their profession.

Of course, this making of perverse charges can often be done off the record, in private conversations. Once the rumor is launched, there is no need to do more. People love to spread stories: “Of course, I don’t believe it, but did you know that there has been some talk of Jack beating his wife and children? Ugly, isn’t it?”

When this trick is used by governmental officials, it is usually called spreading “disinformation” (false charges that the government knows will be believed). For example, planting stories about “atrocities” of one country (which never in fact occurred) is very effective for validating an aggressive attack by another country. Hitler used this strategy effectively. The US government has often spread disinformation — for example, to justify sending Marines into Central or South American Countries to depose one government and put a more “friendly” government into power. The fact that these stories will be discredited years later is of no consequence, of course, to the fabricators of such stories. Disinformation often works. The discrediting of it is usually too late to matter. Years later, people don’t seem to care.

Since most people think in simplistic ways, manipulators and politicians can often get them to reject someone simply by mentioning something about the person that seems inappropriate or that goes against social conventions. For example, “Kevin has already admittedly smoked marijuana. That tells us a lot about him!” Or, “look at that teenage girl wearing that skimpy top. I guess we know what she is after.”

Manipulators know the importance of making their opponents look bad. Whatever the views of the opponent, a skilled spin master can make the opponent appear to take another, far less believable, view. The trick of misrepresenting someone’s views to gain an advantage is sometimes called creating a “strawman.” A “straw” man is literally not real, though it may look like it is. A strawman argument, then, is a false or misleading representation of someone’s reasoning.

Suppose someone wanted to reform our criminal justice system (so that fewer innocent people were wrongfully convicted and thrown into prison). His opponent may well retort with the following strawman argument: “So I guess what you want is to free all criminals and leave us even more threatened than we are now!” Of course, no one said or wants that, so he is arguing against a “straw” man. By misrepresenting a person’s position and presenting it in a form that people will reject, he successfully uses the “strawman” strategy. Of course, in addition to misrepresenting the opponent’s argument, he can also claim that the opponent is misrepresenting his. In this case, the spinmaster can then claim that it is the opponent that is attacking a “straw man.” In any case, the manipulator wants to ensure that the best representation of his reasoning is compared with the worse possible representation of his opponent’s reasoning. Manipulators make their opponent look bad at the same time they make their own case look good.

Imagine that an environmentalist makes the following argument:

“Each of us must do our part to reduce the amount of pollution we are creating on the planet. The automobile industry, for example, needs to find alternative forms of fuel, cleaner forms of fuel. We need to move away from gasoline as our primary automobile fuel source. Otherwise, our planet will needlessly continue to suffer.”

Manipulators know one looks bad when appearing to be inconsistent, saying one thing and doing another, or sometimes supporting X and sometimes attacking it. When caught in a contradiction, the manipulator has two choices. He can either deny that there is any contradiction at all (“I didn’t really say that!”) or he can admit the contradiction and defend it as a justifiable change (“The world is changing and we must change with it”). The fact is that human life and society are shot through with contradictions and inconsistencies. Those who have the most integrity are those who admit to contradictions and inconsistencies and work to minimize them. Manipulators work hard to cover them up.

Most people are not sophisticated. To manipulate them into accepting your side, systematically use “good” words to characterize it, while you systematically use “negative” words to characterize your opponent. You believe in democracy, freedom, stability, compromise, fairness, strength, peace, protection, security, civilization, human rights, sovereignty, reformation, being open, defending the innocent, honor, God’s comfort, normalcy, pride, independence, a mission, facing hardship, ...Your opponent believes in tyranny, suppression, conflict, terrorism, aggression, violence, subversion, barbarism, fanaticism, the spread of chaos, attacking the innocent, extremism, dictatorship, plots, cunning, cruelty, destruction.

A variation on this strategy consists in sanitizing your motives, by explaining your reasons to be “righteous.” “I am not motivated by profit or greed. I do not want to enhance my power and influence. I don’t want to control and dominate. Certainly not. I want to spread the cause of freedom, to share the good life, the blessings of democracy (bla, bla, bla).” You obscure your real motives (that are often selfish and based on considerations of money and power) while playing up motives that sound good and make you appear high-minded. This strategy is sometimes called “finding the good reason” and includes the practice of giving “lip service” to high-minded principles (asserting them loudly, while ignoring them in practice).

Spin artists who face questions from an audience learn how to predict most of the hard questions they will face and how to evade them, with skill and grace. One way to evade a hard question is to answer it with a joke that deflects the question. Another is to give a truistic answer (“How long will the troops have to remain in country X?” Answer: “As long as it is necessary and not one day longer.”) A third is to give an answer so long and detailed that you manage by the length of your answer to slide from one question (a hard one) to another question (an easy one). Manipulators do not directly answer questions when direct answers would get them into trouble or force them to accept a responsibility they want to avoid facing. They learn to use vagueness, jokes, diversions, and truisms to their advantage.

“It’s good to be talking to an audience of people with good old fashion common sense and real insights into our social problems.” “An intelligent person such as you will not be taken in by...” People are always receptive to flattery. Sometimes, however, one has to be subtle or the audience may suspect you of manipulating them. Most politicians are highly proficient in the art of flattery. Their objective is to win over their audience. They want to lower the defenses of their audience, to minimize any tendency they might have to think critically about what is said.

Manipulators often hide behind words, refusing to commit themselves or give direct answers. This allows them to retreat if necessary. If caught leaving out important information, they can then come up with some excuse for not being forthcoming in the first place. Or, if closely questioned, they can qualify their position so that no one can prove them wrong. In other words, when pressed, they hedge. To be an effective manipulator, you must be an effective weasel. You must weasel out of your mistakes, cover up your errors, and guard what you say whenever possible.

In order to avoid considering evidence that might cause them to change their position, manipulators often ignore evidence. Usually they ignore the evidence in order to avoid having to consider it in their own minds, because it threatens their belief system or vested interests. Imagine a close-minded Christian questioning whether it is possible for an atheist to live an ethical life (lacking the guidance of the bible). If such a person were confronted with examples of atheists who have lived self-sacrificing, compassionate, lives, he would be uncomfortable in his view. He would probably find a way to put the subject out of his mind to avoid the implications of the evidence.

Manipulators know that if you can’t win a point, you should divert your audience from it and focus on another point (a point not relevant to the original issue). Those skilled in this practice know how to do it so that their audience doesn’t notice the shift.

When a manipulator cannot successfully dodge consideration of evidence that does not support his case, he often attacks that evidence. You can see this in the U.S. government’s refusal to accept the fact that Iraq did not have a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (before it waged war against Iraq). The government had no hard evidence to support its position that Iraq had the weapons, so it tried to manufacture the evidence through flagrant stretches of the imagination. No evidence could convince the government it was wrong (because it wasn’t willing to consider the fact that it might be wrong). These dodges could also be covered under the fallacy of double standard.

Manipulators know that a good way to distract most people (if it looks like they are losing the argument) is to insist loudly on some minor point. Because most people think superficially, few will notice that the point is minor, especially if they are emotionally attached to it.

Thus, for example, people often miss big issues when the media focus loudly on small ones (as if they were big ones). The problem of malnutrition and starvation in the world is given little coverage in the media, except on special occasions (like during a drought or after a Hurricane). At the same time, the fact that a small country is refusing to do what our government wants it to do is treated as an issue of great significance (as if our government had a right to impose its will on other governments).

We often say that noble ends do not justify foul means, but do we believe it? When engaging in unethical practices (like assassinations, forced detentions, and torture) government spokespersons often use the “It’s a hard cruel world” argument in defense.

When individuals or countries gain a lot of power, they soon come to believe that they should be able to do pretty much what they want to do. They do this by convincing themselves that their ends are always noble and just, that the only negative things they do in the world are forced on them by evil others who do not share their noble values.

Manipulators, then, often win arguments by insisting that they are being forced to use the means they deeply wish they could avoid, but, alas, it is a hard cruel world.

For example, “We don’t want war. We are forced into it.” “We don’t want unemployment, but free enterprise demands it.” “If we give resources to people who haven’t worked for them, they will become lazy and we will end up in a totalitarian communist state.” “We don’t want the CIA to engage in assassination, torture, disinformation, or dirty tricks of any kind, but, unfortunately, we are forced to use these tactics to defend freedom and democracy in the world.”

Manipulators, con artists, spin masters, and politicians will use any generalizations that support their case and that their audience will accept, regardless of whether they have sufficient evidence to support those generalizations. They make positive generalizations that people will readily support, generalizations, for example, about “our” or “their” devotion to God, country, patriotism, family, and free enterprise. Remember that their generalizations are deliberately chosen to coincide with the thinking of their audience. Of course, these manipulators keep their generalizations vague so that they can weasel out of them if necessary.

There is inconsistency in the best of us. Everyone sometimes fails to practice what he preaches. Everyone sometimes falls into a double standard. Manipulators exploit any inconsistencies they can find in their opponents’ arguments. They are quick to make the charge of hypocrisy, even when they are guilty of flagrant, deep, and multiple forms of hypocrisy themselves, hypocrisy that bothers them not at all.

Manipulators look for ways to make their opponent, or his position, look ridiculous (and therefore funny). People like a good laugh and they especially like laughing at views that seem threatening to them. A good joke is almost always well received, for it relieves the audience of the responsibility to think seriously about what is making them uncomfortable. Manipulators measure their audience to make sure that their joke does not sound like sour grapes.

Since most people are uncomfortable making sense of deep or subtle arguments, manipulators oversimplify the issue to their advantage. “I don’t care what the statistics tell us about the so-called “abuse” of prisoners, the real issue is whether or not we are going to be tough on crime. Save your sympathy for the victims of crime, not for the criminals.” The fact being ignored is that the abuse of prisoners is itself a crime. Unfortunately, people with a certain (over-simple) mind-set do not care about criminal behavior that victimizes “criminals.” After all (they think to themselves) the world divides into good guys and bad guys and sometimes the good guys have to do bad things to bad guys. They think the bad guys deserve bad treatment. By oversimplifying the issue, they don’t have to deal with what is wrong in our treatment of prisoners.

Your opponent is giving good reasons to accept an argument, but the fact is your mind is made up and nothing will change it (of course you don’t want to admit that your mind is closed). Skilled manipulators respond with objection after objection after objection. As their opponents answer one objection, they move on to another. The unspoken mindset of the manipulator is “No matter what my opponent says (in giving me reasons), I will keep thinking of objections (the fact is that nothing whatsoever will convince me of the validity of his view).”

The worst deeds and atrocities can disappear from historical accounts (or be made to appear minor) while fantasies and fabrications can be made to look like hard facts. This is what happens in what is sometimes called “patriotic history.” The writing of a distorted form of history is justified by love of country and often defended by the charge of negativity (“You always want to focus on what is wrong with us! What about what is right about us?!”). The fact is that human memory is continually working to re-describe events of the past in such a way as to exonerate itself and condemn its detractors. Historical writing often follows suit, especially in the writing of textbooks for schools. So, in telling a story about the past, manipulators feel free to distort the past in whatever ways they believe they can get away with. As always, the skilled manipulator is ready with (self-justifying) excuses.

The manipulator attacks his opponent’s motivation, but insists that his motives are pure. He covers his true motives (i.e. whatever is in his vested interest) by expressing high ideals (freedom, democracy, justice, the American way, which he in fact ignores). When manipulators are seeking their advantage, and their opponent calls them on it, manipulators either deny the charge (usually indignantly) or counter attack by saying that everyone has a right to protect his interests. If pressed further, they may use a “you–do-it-too” defense.

When a manipulator senses he is losing the argument, he does not give in. He shifts the ground to something else! Sometimes he does this by going back and forth between different meanings of the same word. So if a person says of another that she isn’t educated because she isn’t insightful and has very little knowledge, the manipulator may just shift the ground, saying something like, “Of course she’s educated! Look how many years of school she completed. If that’s not being educated I don’t know what is!”

The burden of proof refers to which party in a dispute has the responsibility to prove what he asserts. For example, in a criminal court, the prosecutor has the responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove innocence. Manipulators never want to take on the burden of proof for what they assert. They therefore develop skill in shifting the burden of proof to their opponents. “Wait a minute before I have to prove that the invasion of Iraq was justified, you need to prove that it wasn’t.” In point of fact any country that invades another needs to have powerful evidence to justify that act. No country has the obligation to prove that it ought not to be invaded. By international law, the burden of proof is on the other side, the side that initiates violence.

Suppose a manipulator questions your patriotism. You ask him what evidence exists to show you are not. He tries shifting the burden of proof: “Wait a minute, what have you done to show your loyalty to the country. Don’t you have socialist views? Aren’t you against free enterprise? Didn’t you protest the Viet Nam War?” All of these are fallacious attempts to shift the burden of proof.

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (May 7, 2004) on the prominence of the “spin game” in the media, Daniel Henniger says: “The media world we inhabit is without exception a world of ‘spin.’ Most people having given up on getting a set of unadorned facts, align themselves with whichever spin outlet seems comfortable.” The fact is that it is highly doubtful that “most” people see through the media reliance on spin, since they are so commonly victims of its power. But no skilled manipulator (spin master) will underestimate the power of spin in manipulating consumers of the “news.” The manipulator must continually foster the spin that obscures viewpoints he opposes, while at the same time positively representing his own viewpoint (the one he wants the audience to accept).

As a critical consumer one must become aware of the virtual omnipresence of spin and selectivity of coverage in the media, in order to juxtapose opposing spins and decide for oneself which facts are most significant and which interpretations most plausible. The critical consumer expects the media to put spin on all articles of news in keeping with the prejudices of the audience they “serve.” He must consider alternative ways of looking at the issues in the news media, alternative ways of thinking about what is being presented, what is most significant about it, and how it is best represented.

It is hard to prove people wrong when they can’t be pinned down. So instead of focusing on particulars, manipulators talk in the most vague terms they can get away with. This fallacy is popular with politicians. For example, “Forget what the spineless liberals say. It’s time to be tough: tough on criminals, tough on terrorists, and tough on those who belittle our country.” They make sure they don’t use specifics that might cause people to question what they are doing (for example, who exactly you are going to be tough on, and what exactly do you intend to do with these people when you get “tough” with them. Is torture OK? What about humiliation? What about unlimited detention without any charge registered against them? What about placing them in tiny cells without a toilet for days at a time? What about assassination?)

When people use this strategy against you, ask them to give you specific examples of what they mean. Ask for definitions of key terms. Then insist that they show how their definitions are applied in the specific cases. In other words, don’t allow them to get away with vague generalities.

Let’s face it - we often do what we accuse our opponents of doing. But of course we don’t want to admit it because that would hurt our cause. Double talk can be a powerful mode of attack or defense. In double talk (sometimes called doublespeak) we use a positive word or phrase when we do something and a negative word when our opponents do precisely the same thing.

For example, before World War II, the U.S. government called the department that wages war the “War Department.” After the war, they decided to call it the “Defense Department.” This change has come about because the government does not want to admit that it starts wars. Rather it wants to manipulate people into thinking that it only defends the country against aggressive others. In short, politically, the word “defense” sells better than the word “war.”

When a citizen of a government we are in conflict with secretly gives us information about that enemy, we label it a “brave” and “courageous” act. When someone in our country tells our secrets to that same enemy, we indict that person as a “traitor.” 13 We are clever; you are cunning. We support freedom fighters; you support terrorists. We set up holding centers; you set up concentration camps. We strategically withdraw; you retreat. We are religious; you are fanatic. We are determined; you are pig-headed.

There are literally thousands of words that fall into good-when-I-do-it-bad-when-you-do doublets. Most people are not skilled in detecting doublespeak.

Most people lie about small things but would be afraid to lie about big things. But manipulators know that if you insist on a lie long enough, many people will believe you — especially if you have the resources of mass media to air your lie.

All skilled manipulators are focused on what you can get people to believe , not on what is true or false. They know that the human mind does not naturally seek the truth; it seeks comfort, security, personal confirmation and vested interest.

In fact, people often don’t want to know the truth, especially truths that are painful, that expose their contradictions and inconsistencies, that reveal what they don’t what to know about themselves or their country.

There are many manipulators highly skilled in telling “big” lies and thus in making those lies seem true. For example, if one studies the history of the CIA, one can document any number of unethical deeds that have been covered up by lies (see any volume of Covert Action Quarterly for documentation of the misdeeds and dirty tricks of the CIA in every region of the world). 14 Virtually all of these unethical acts were officially denied at the time of their commission.

Manipulators know that most people are not linguistically sophisticated. Most people do not reflect on the relation between the way we use language and concrete particulars in the world. They do not deliberately strip off language from specific events and deeds and consider a range of interpretations for making sense of what is happening in the world. Most see their view of the world as accurately reflecting what is going on in the world, even when that view is highly distorted. Abstractions are not abstractions in their minds, but realities. Consider the following examples:

Note that in all of these examples, an abstract idea is given a life of its own when coupled with an action verb. How, for example, can a flag march? It’s not possible. But people are swayed by this colorful, though highly misleading, use of language.

In this strategy, manipulators divert from the issue by focusing on what is irrelevant (but emotionally loaded). Suppose that a manipulator can’t refute the reasoning of his opponent. He doesn’t bother trying. Instead, he throws in an emotionally charged issue that will distract the audience from the reasoning of his opponent. Consider this example. The manipulator’s opponent has said that the oceans of the world are rapidly dying due largely to human activity, specifically industry waste. Instead of arguing against the position taken by his opponent, the manipulator throws in a “red herring.” He says, “What we really need to concern ourselves with is all of the government regulations facing industry today, and all of the jobs that will be lost if bureaucratic regulations continue to grow. We need a country where the people have jobs and their children have opportunities to grow and reach their potential!” How is this retort relevant to the oceans dying?? It’s not. It’s a red herring thrown in to avoid the issue altogether.

People are impressed by numbers, especially precise numbers. So whenever they can, manipulators quote statistics in their favor, even if the source is questionable. Their audience is usually impressed. By the way, did you know that 78% of the students who read this guide raise their grade point average by 1.33 grade levels within two semesters? It’s even higher at your school!

Most audiences use double standards. One standard for us. Another standard for them. We can’t abide countries developing nuclear weapons (except for us and all our friends). We condemn aggression (except when we are the aggressors). We can’t tolerate torture and human rights violations by our enemies (although, alas, sometimes we are forced to do these things ourselves).