Any way, I am posting my earlier post again.
Propoganda has a particular structure. So counter propoganda also has to follow a particular structure.
A typical and universal model of propoganda is like this:
Facts << Arguments and Assumptions << Grand Narrative (or Worldview)
When we (BRites) fight propoganda against India online, we usually counter facts with facts
. The maximum impact of this is that it creates some doubt in the mind of the reader, no more. So the best we achieve with this is put brake on anti-India propoganda.
#1 What we need to do is help people understand the world in the right way. This means we need to appeal to their emotions. That means we need to educate them about the right Arguments and Assumptions
, and help them challenge the wrong ones.
#2 Further, we need to educate them about the right ethics. This means promoting the right Grand Narrative (or Worldview)
This is the structure of propaganda:
Facts -> Concious mind (Level 1 or L1)
Arguments & Assumptions -> Emotions (Level 2 or L2)
Grand Narrative -> Ethics (Level 3 or L3)
So effective counter propaganda should follow the same structure.
We can use counter propaganda with a two tier structure: foundation and booster.
Now, we need to map our area of operations - the various types of people who live here are how to approach them.
1. Most of the online readers are common people, and the best approach is to appeal to their emotions. IOW, challenge the arguments and assumptions of the writer/author. After challenging the arguments and assumptions, facts can play a crucial role. Supporting facts bolster the arguments, and make them more convincing. This approach will work for most writers, journalists, commentators, politicians, etc. In this case, L2 is foundation and L1 is booster.
2. Subject Experts
: If you are addressing these guys directly, then counter-facts will prove more useful than in the previous case. However, as we know, most of these experts, especially if they are western, usually follow a very pointed agenda.
So to effectively counter them, we need to first expose their agenda (arguments and assumptions), which is the foundation. The booster is to challenge the Grand Narrative - which is the western point of view (Amerocentric). Eurocentric narrative is dead nowadays in politics and current history, however, it is the foundation to the Amerocentric arguments in politics and current history.
3. Rabble rousers
: Think Arundhati Roy. What can you do to counter her 'arguments'. They are meant to provoke, not enlighten. They attack decency at the most basic level. Even responding to such people is to give too much credence to her brand of politics.
Why does the current system support people like her? Because by expressing extreme fringe opinions, she prevents the main narrative from being challenged. Hence, her statement on Maoists being 'Gandhi with Guns' attracted criticism about her understanding of Gandhism. But the point that was nullified in the noise was that Maoists are essentially criminals.
Let me elaborate. Before AR made that statement, the main point of contention in the Indian elite was whether to deal with Maoists as a bunch of criminals or whether to consider their point of view as legitimate. The noise following AR's statement helped bury former view (almost). It was a classic case of misdirection, and is difficult to avoid, especially when your emotions are running high.
The only way to counter such misdirection is to maintain focus on the main issue. You should say 'yes, yes, you may be right, but that is not the main issue, this is ...' - The 'yes, but' argument. After this, we can follow the same pattern as the first model (common people).
What I have written is in abstract. It will become much clearer when I illustrate it with examples. I'll do it later, todin is Mondin and I need to get some wurk done as well.