Listen only to what I say, and ignore what I do not. Trust me implicitly. I wouldn’t lie to you.
(I know someone will take that seriously and post "well I just stopped reading as soon as I saw that BS. . . but they probably wouldn't have read this post anyways)

I studied language, English specifically, and Psychology. Within both fields, I studied persuasion. I imagine stage magicians understand it better than I, for much of persuasion requires misdirection. One could hold you in rapt attention and tell you no lies, and yet you would be deceived. Sometimes, they even say, “This is the only thing worth debating.” Certainly a message follows, something clearly spoken and moving, specifically designed to provoke an emotional reaction (because persuasion through misdirection rarely attempts to provoke your intellect). Once you’re sucked in, they have you.

If you look on fox.com, for instance, you see provocative headlines that may enrage you, and may be technically true. In the media, such “grabber” styles have headlined whatever media form available for as long as any media forms have existed. This is to get your attention, of course. If they put something boring up there, you wouldn’t bother to read it. The news would go unsold, and shutters close. Really, how many people read text books for fun? This process, however, also formed the basis of propaganda. It’s been widely used throughout history.

I don’t want this to go off topic, so understand this is purely hypothetical and not designed to inspire debate on the merits: Imagine back in the early centuries A.D. there existed an organization that found itself met with apathy. People had jobs to do, after all, and much else on their minds that directly affected them—much like today. So imagine this organization wanted to increase its membership, its revenue, and perhaps enjoy some longevity, and of course the chief executive officers want an abundance of luxury. The best way to do this then would follow three steps:

1. Turn the organization’s message into something that would appear to directly affect the masses.

2. Provoke emotions, especially anger, guilt, those bio-chemicals and receptors we are so easily addicted to.

3. Use shame, authority, and conformity to make the message go ‘viral.’

What would you get?

1. Believe not only in Christ but in the sacraments of the Catholic Church, which is unimpeachable, or go to hell.

2. Christ died for your sins, sacrificing himself for all, what a hero.

3. All who do not have sinned against God, shame on them. Go forth and evangelize.

For the record I am a Christian, and I am not saying that the above hypothetical happened in any calculated way, but look at the result: gold ornamentation everywhere, tithes from across the globe, and millennia of longevity. This same model fits with Wahabbi Islam (the radical sect that believes in the pillar of jihad), though the CEOs drank their own kool-aid.

This trick applies to the media, to motivate countries to war, and to justify all manner of atrocities.

Once you start seeing the turns of phrase designed to provoke anger you should become suspicious of them, and investigate the interest of the writer or publisher. You should always ask yourself, why is this person talking to me, what is his interest?

Once you’ve identified the interest you can understand not only what the message says but what purpose the message was written for.

A team of psychologists performed a study of persuasion on two groups. I forget who or where, but I remember the study. The first group was well informed, and interested in the topic. The second group was (while not entirely disinterested), previously had little experience with the topic and had little information by which to compare to the topic.

The team split each group in two, so one-half of the first and second groups heard a message on the topic from someone in casual clothes who formed his argument through reason and logic. The other half of the first and second group heard the argument from the same man, but he wore a suit, glasses, and spoke with fire and passion, pointing his finger in places and calling condemnation on dissent.

The first group found the reasonable argument more persuasive, and the second group found the second argument more persuasive—both by very far margins.

Now this study was conducted many years ago, but even then most people had some innate basic knowledge that this is just how it works. For centuries media based propaganda pushed us in one direction or another, and believe it or not in the United States the discourse has become more reasonable and more and more money and newer tactics have come out. Perhaps the most common one these days is spokespeople: the idea is you pay someone who looks authoritative (like the man wearing the suit), and you give him a series of credentials (like “President of the Heritage Foundation Think Tank”), and then he makes a rational sounding argument and gives somebody support.

It does not stop at one message. Sure, simply suggesting Spain sank one of our naval ships and to war we must go might be enough for that purpose, but other purposes require a little more reason sprinkled in with the vitriol. This is where the heart of misdirection today lies; give all the facts that support one argument, and no more. In and of itself however, over the long term, that’s not enough—you need something more. . .

Imagine a man who finishes all his schooling without really considering politics. He never took a journalism class or psychology beyond PSY 101, and slept through “American Politics.” He gets his first job where the CEO and Board of Directors openly support the ideologies that provide them a benefit. He’s still not terribly interested but he plays the part. He leaves work and goes to the gym and sees on the television what’s going on and what his employers were talking about, and wham! Obama’s a socialist?! How dare he! That’s bad right?! Before you know it he’s listening to Rush during his morning commute, hearing every fact that supports an argument mixed in with accusations and condemnation of any dissent.
This principle is called inoculation—it can intentionally indoctrinate anyone not previously inoculated to ignore or dismiss opposing arguments. New arguments actually outrage anyone who hears anything different, and that outrage is biologically and quite literally addictive. They suck in more and more and this is how you get a Congress so divided that a disadvantaged side would drag the country off a cliff just to see the other side fail.

You might now ask yourself, well then which side is right and which is wrong? (At least for those of you who don’t already think you know). That is the wrong question to ask.

The better question: How can I inoculate myself and my loved ones against this kind of misinformation?

The easy answer is to do research. Unfortunately that’s not enough—almost all research into politics today is conducted online and everyone and their mother have their own biased perspective and is ready to make it go viral. The hard answer is still to research, but critically. Use critical thinking skills. Don’t accept what anyone says ever.

Do not let my words sink in; do not trust me, because I will lie to you.

Always ask, “what is this writer’s or publisher’s interest”? Why do they want to convince me this? Something’s in it for them. If they’re writing anything full of rhetoric and turns of phrase that mean something without really saying them you can bet they’re trying to misdirect you. If they’re full of anger and spite it’s pretty safe to say their either inoculated with one viewpoint’s dogma or their paid to make you believe it, and paid to shame you into agreeing. If they speak rationally, pointedly, and use lists and graphs then they’re really trying to convince you—either because something’s in it for them, or just maybe that’s how it really is. It’s up to you to figure out which. At the very least control your anger and welcome opportunities for debate. Even in the most biased and disgusting lies you can better understand the truth by a genuine discussion.

More importantly, be considerate. If not you’re just a dick. I quite recently had to learn this lesson again hard—I got into an argument with someone I was (and still am) convinced had an agenda that didn’t involve helping his fellow men, and in my anger I lashed out (he did too, to be fair). He’s probably going to post a series of conspiracy theories and Ron Paul ads below this post—I don’t know why, that’s just been his MO so far. In any case, my anger made me appear irrational—and perhaps I was—and that detracted from the point I tried to make.

Final Caveat: I did write all this in one sitting, and I haven’t read through it, and I won’t have time to edit it before I post, so if you noticed some grammatical errors, perhaps run-ons, or just getting myself sidetracked feel free to point that out because I do hope to rectify them eventually.

Also read http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/233/media-propaganda-techniques-to-be-aware-of because Oppositefear nails many issues on the head.