Media manipulation
This page is under discussion at Votes for deletion.
There is no concept generally recognized as Media distraction.
A search of all major English language newspapers shows this phrase is used very rarely. The most common usage, found in the 21 February 1996 Calgary Herald and the 1 July 1998 St Louis Post-Dispatch is to refer to poor performance in an endeavour when the participants have been distracted by the presence of the media, as in Computer chokes under pressure: Deep Blue blames media distractions in chess match with champ.
A broad search of 1850 scholarly journals dating back to 1985, including many journals relating to the media and communications, found no reference to the phrase "media distraction".
Without any authority or body of knowledge backing the meaning of "media distraction", wikipedians are free to claim it means whatever they like. One wikipedian, -BigFatBuddha, claims that "media distraction" occurs when something startling happens on the television set, causing you to spill your Taco Bell burrito on your shirt.
Another group of wikipedians feel that "media distraction" is a form of censorship which works by preventing people from obtaining a receptive audience.
They quote a variety of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and claim that they are collective used by someone to suppress certain information or points of view by crowding them out of the media, or by inducing some people to stop listening to certain arguments, or simply by drawing their attention elsewhere.
- Distraction by nationalism: (See transfer within the article propaganda). A variant on the traditional ad hominem and bandwagon fallacies appled to entire countries. The method is to discredit arguments coming from other countries by appealing to nationalistic pride or memory of past accomplishments, or appealing to fear or dislike of a specific country, or of foreigners in general. It can be very powerful as it discredits foreign journalists (the ones that are least easily manipulated by domestic political or corporate interests). Example: "You want to know what I really think of the Europeans?" asked the senior State Department Official. "I think they have been wrong on just about every major international issue for the past 20 years." [1]
- Straw man: (See Straw man fallacy). lumping a strong opposition argument together with one or many weak ones, to create a simplistic weak argument that can easily be refuted. Example: Grouping all opposed to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq as "pacifists", so they can be refuted by arguments for war in general. As with most persuasion methods, it can easily be applied in reverse, in this case, to group all those who supported the invasion together and label them as "warmongers" or "lackeys of the United States".
- Distraction by scapegoat: (See scapegoating within the article propaganda). A combination of straw man and ad hominem, in which your weakest opponent (or easiest to discredit) is considered as your only important opponent. Example: If many countries are opposed to our actions, but one of them (say, France) is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly France.
- Distraction by phenomenon: (This phrase was invented within wikipedia and is found nowhere else). A risky but effective strategy summarized by David Mamet's movie Wag the Dog, in which the public can be distracted, for long periods of time, from an important issue, by one which occupies more news time. When the strategy works, you have a war or other media event taking attention away from misbehaving or crooked leaders. When the strategy does not work, the leader's misbehavior remains in the press, and the war is derided as an attempted distraction. US President Clinton's involvement in Bosnia is often cited as an example.
- Marginalization: (See Appeal to authority and Bandwagon within the article propaganda). This one is widespread and subtle: Simply giving credence only to "mainstream" sources of information, which are also the easiest to manipulate by corporate or political interests, since they can be owned or sponsored by them. Information, arguments, and objections that come from other sources are simply considered "fringe" and ignored, or their proponents permanently discredited. Example: "I think there are a lot of people out there who feel the way I do, but haven't wanted to come forward because they're afraid of being identified with a fringe group..." Langley said. "I don't believe in all the things that all the (anti-war) groups stand for, but we all do share one thing in common: I do believe that this war is wrong." [2]
- Googlewashing: A term made up by Andrew Orlowski of The Register [3] in April of 2003 to describe the allegeded practice of changing the meaning of a meme (in this example, Second Superpower) by web-publishing a well-linked article using the term in an inoffensive manner, stripped of its political significance.
- Demonisation of the opposition: (See Obtain disapproval within the article propaganda). A more general case of distraction by nationalism. Opposing views are ascribed to an out-group and thus dismissed out of hand. Example: The consignment of almost all dissent to the "International Jewish conspiracy" by Nazi Germany.