A list of the most common, and successful, propaganda techniques currently in use. If  you spend any time at all consuming mass media, you will find these techniques familiar.

 
#
1. Guilt By Association: This is used to damage someone's reputation by
associating them with an unattractive person or organization. It
doesn't matter if there is an actual association or not. 
Example:
Kristen said that too many people were moving into the South without
the input of Americans already living there. "This land is for my
grandchildren, not world wide social experiments. She lives a couple
states away from where David Duke has his national office, and some
think many in the region feel the way she does.

#
2. Backstroke: Systematically belittling the goals of the subject of
the article as the goals are being listed. For every step forward for
the subject, the propagandist pulls the reader back. 
Example:
This year the political party's stated goal is to give the rally a warm
atmosphere. We walked into the cave-like coliseum as the preparations
for the rally were taking place. "We're trying to create a family
atmosphere" said one representative of the party as he squinted into
the harsh lights. "There are the children's rides" he said happily
pointing to where union workmen smashed open wooden crates with iron
crowbars.

# 3. Misinformation: This is
a subtle technique, it involves reporting information in such a way
that the final message of the story is not true, it's what the
propagandist wants you to believe. Example: Recently a well known
conservative tried to run advertisements in university newspapers
addressing slave reparations for black Americans. The writer listed
several facts which he felt demonstrated why reparations are not
necessary and not fair. One of these facts was the fact that black
Americans in the United States today earn, on average, around 20 times
more than blacks living in Africa, and therefore, according to the
author, descendents of slaves are actually far better off today than
the people who remained behind.  A second author, writing
about the advertisement, stated only that "the first author said that
blacks were better off being slaves.", but didn't explain the facts the
first author had shared. Imagine if you read the second author's report
and weren't familiar with the first author's position. You would think
the first author was a monster for saying that people were lucky to be
slaves! But that's not what the first author said, he said their
descendants have a lot more money now than the people still living in
the original countries have.  This is misinformation, you're given a
half truth about someone's position, and it is presented in a
misleading fashion. 

# 4. Over
Humanization: It is a perfectly valid technique to tell a story by
focusing on the real people who the story impacts. However, this is
also an easy technique for manipulation when a propagandist tries to
mask an issue by making anyone who has a valid disagreement look evil
due to all the human suffering talked about in the story. Example:
Standing in the dusty desert was Juanita Lopez Camal Esquedo and her 15
hungry children. Half of the children were blind, the other half were
crippled. As the smallest child, little Juanita, looked across the
barbed wire fence into America, she begged her mommy for some food.
Since everyone in Mexico had died of starvation, and food would never
grow there again, there was nowhere else for them to go. And after all,
this was the only family that wanted to come into America anyway. Just
one more family.  Over humanization can be used not only with illegal
immigration, but also with any other potential tear-jerker topic. 

#
5. Name Calling: This is officially the oldest trick in the book. It is
cheap and easy. Often immigration reform activists are called
anti-immigrant, people who are against state sponsored racism are
called "racists" themselves. Name calling clouds and confuses issues,
and when repeated by enough people on one side of an issue, creates a
weight of its own, which isn't really there, but must now be explained
before the victim "may" have an opinion regarding the issue in
question. Example: By saying that the population is growing too
quickly, many people assumed she was a racist.

#
6. He Said, She Said: This is a technique whereby the author can say
something they know isn't true, or isn't fair, but they want to say it
anyway. Example: Project USA is a group which claims to support
reasonable levels of immigration. They've put up billboards with
Department of Statistics information which states that the US
population will double within 50 years. The billboards have pictures of
children of different races with the words "The population of the US
will double within this child's lifetime. Stop it congress". Some
people say this is hate speech.  Note: a statistic (the fact that the
US population will double at current levels of immigration) cannot be
hateful. This is just a numerical fact, like saying water freezes at 32
degrees Fahrenheit. The author knows this is an unfair statement, but
wants to say it anyway. That's why she says "some people say", rather
than "I say". 

# 7. Unproven "Facts"
This is when a (usually immature) "writer" is frantically trying to
"prove" a position and they begin to quote "studies", "reports", and
"experts" as "proving" this or that, but they never mention the study's
name, location, where copies can be found, or the conditions specific
to the experiments. Example: Recent studies show that the media is
right 99% of the time. Also, an expert from the University of Happiness
was quoted as saying "People in the media work harder than anyone who
thinks they have a real job". 

# 8.
Lying Sometimes complete lies are told. Example: An author in Arizona
writes a report which states that the reason that a local mayor decided
not to use the police to enforce immigration law was because protests
by a certain ethnic group scared him away from it. In actual fact, as
stated by the mayor himself, the reason the police weren't used was
because no training program had been set up between the police and the
INS.  Any person who was a member of said ethnic group would gain from
a report like this because, if people begin to hear that "that group is
really aggressive and authorities do what they say" then the power of
that group is enhanced, and everyone reading the "news" will begin
thinking they should always let that group have what it wants. The fact
that our police need special permission to enforce some laws and not
others is a topic for another discussion. 

# 9. Telling the Truth, For a While  To
throw people off the track, biased news services will give good
accurate reporting for a while, usually when it no longer matters, then
they will stick it to you the next time your guard is down. The best
way to recognize this technique is to simply remember who the biggest
transgressors are. You must understand that if someone lies or tries to
manipulate a story once, they will do so again. They will never be
non-biased. They will, however, say something fair from time to time.
This is due to the fact that if they were biased every time they spoke,
they would soon run out of credibility. Do not trust them twice. Would
you buy a car from someone who cheated you on a previous purchase just
because they say something you want to hear later? 

# 10. Not Talking at all about Something  Of
course the biggest recent example of this are the Moslem riots in
France. The fact that the rioters were still burning more than one
hundred cars EACH NIGHT was suppressed and avoided, rather we were fed
the line that the riots were over. The media went days and days not
reporting on the riots which were revealing the complete failure of
French social, economic, and immigration policy. However, France, being
a socialist country, is favored by the socialist media, so the
country's failings were not reported. When you're aware of a major
issue underway, but see no coverage on it, then you can be sure the
media is against the ideas which discussing that topic would raise. 

#
11. Subtle Inaccuracies/Dismissive Tone Misstating a topic, often a
serious one, and pretending any objecting or concerned view is silly,
unrealistic, or just not necessary. Illegal immigration is a major
threat to the United States. With the rapid importation of distinct,
and not particularly grateful, ethnic groups who have no interest in
anything American, we create division, conflict, and risk. This is a
risk that will grow to overwhelm our children.  One writer used a
childlike, grandmotherly tone to try to belittle and dismiss this
serious topic. Her style was to write with pleasantries such as "oh, my
you've grown, look at the happy big new population". This is an
intentional disservice to the readers and an attempt to manipulate them
into not recognizing the risk they and their children face of being
supplanted in their own home once and for all by foreigners, who, by
the way, won't care about you once they outnumber you. At best, this is
a foolish policy. At worst, it is self destruction. In any case, it
must be controlled responsibly if we are to remain masters of our own
future.  This author's method is just one way to use a
dismissive tone to trick people into not recognizing the topic's
seriousness. The next time you're reading an article which seems to
speak childishly of a serious issue, you should be aware that in all
probability the author doesn't fail to understand the seriousness of
the issue, rather they may be trying to further an opposing agenda. 

#
12. A One One Punch pretending to represent two sides, but one side
gets a couple of great lines , the other side gets a lame line.
Example: Tax cuts are all the rage these days, but two senators
disagree on how appropriate tax cuts would be right now. Left Senator
Jones says "The rich are the ones getting a cut. Who needs rich people
with more money?". Right Senator Smith doesn't think that's correct. He
thinks only certain individuals should benefit. "The smallest number of
people who enjoy this are the people with the most money" repeated Left
Senator Jones. "I think that money belongs to all the people, and the
best way to give out money the government collects through friendly tax
raises is for the government to do it! It's like all the people getting
a raise!", said Left Senator Jones. Right Senator Smith didn't agree.
He thought the money should reflect the people who had earned the most.
When asked why Right Senator Smith felt this way he said "People have
to earn a living". Left Senator Jones said "It is precisely this
attempt by Senator Smith to keep people from earning a living that I
and my party oppose!". 

# 13. Volume
This is related to Coordination, it is merely a deluge of the same
story line everywhere, until it becomes dominant, and the media's view
of it becomes the dominant view (Elian Gonzalez, Florida Recount, Poor
Election Night Coverage) If you pick a topic with a strong liberal
attraction, you will often find that all the "news" stories about a
given current event seem to draw a similar conclusion about it. When
you notice this, just ask yourself if it's probable that, in a nation
of nearly 300 million, no one has a legitimate opposing opinion. For
example, does everyone think Republicans want to poison themselves and
all the rest of us? Does everyone want unlimited, uncontrolled, illegal
immigration to displace their children? Does everyone love working from
January till May for free to pay the government taxes? No, they don't. 

#
14. Coordination This occurs when a number of like minded journalists
all report the same angle at about the same time. This really doesn't
require a conspiracy, there are so few "journalists", and they can
easily see what their buddies' takes are on issues, then parrot the
same line. A couple years ago we saw an article in a Southeast paper
that actually addressed the damage being inflicted by uncontrolled
immigration. We were shocked. Unfortunately, there followed soon after
a long rose-colored story about the wonderful immigrants saving our
economy (which was the magnet for their arrival in the first place) at
no expense to us, written by the previously honest author, plus 5 other
additional co-authors (read "thought police"). It did have a tiny list
of "challenges", which was followed by an immediate rebuttal, and
altogether comprised less than five percent of the article, which among
journalists passes for equal time. Magically, a very similar article
appeared at the same time in a nearby regional paper written by three
other authors with almost the same structure, a list of wondrous
immigrants and everything was perfect about them. Did the "Censoring 5"
and "The Three Amigos" just happen to telepathically think the same
thing, write it, and publish it at the same time? We'll let our readers
decide the odds of Spontaneous Identical Publishing (S.I.P.) for
themselves. 

# 15. Fogging an
Issue/Total Nonsense Sometimes certain groups have an interest in
making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible. A
good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article for the purpose
of confusing the majority of readers, who themselves work hard all day.
It doesn't take much for them to see a catchy headline, then begin to
dig into a long rambling article, then throw their hands up and say "I
don't have the extra energy to decipher this!". The reader is correct,
the fault is with the propagandist. Example: The Real Reason Why We
Need Tax Cuts! A lot of people want tax cuts these days. Here's the
real reason they might not be such a good idea. The social
ramifications are themselves reason enough! Given a perplexing view of
the real inter-generational conflict in today's "live and let live"
society, most people make the more responsible choice. This leads us to
the logical question, with school budgets tight, can we afford to argue
over social services? A close examination of IRS records plainly
displays the fiduciary incentive for economic re-examination in a
post-socialist sense.   (this article will then ramble on like this for 3 or 4 pages) 

#
16. 2,3,4 Technique Mentioning only one side of an issue 2, 3, or 4
times in an article, each time pretending you are about to present the
opposing side, but you never do. Then the article suddenly ends and the
reader feels bombarded, outnumbered and alone. In reality the opposing
view is by definition held by many people, the author merely refused to
present the side of the argument he or she disagrees with. Example: The
decision to seal off an additional 4 million acres was a controversial
one. Barbara Oaks of Centerville says "There are great advantages to
sealing the area off". Many in town feel the same way, less traffic
means less pollution, less damage to the area, and less noise. However,
not everyone agrees with her.  The most common complaints
don't address the additional benefits of closing the forest, such as
increased education opportunities for area children. Not many
opportunities like this afford themselves year round, and keeping the
area closed will guarantee the educational hikes around the perimeter
can continue. Many longtime residents feel that closing all 4 million
acres will be a burden. But don't tell that to Steve Longmont. "I hope
they close even more" Steve told our interviewers. "There's no good
reason for heavy travel through the whole forest, and I'd like to see
the place prohibited". Several area polls show a large number of people
in favor of closing the area. Keeping the forest closed is what is best
for the town. 

# 17. Preemptive Strike
This is when the writer "attacks" the reader viciously at the very
outset of the article with the "acceptable" view of the topic. The
writer tries to "beat it into" the reader. Example: Just a couple days
ago the possible presidential run of a politician who is very
pro-enforcement of immigration law was featured in an article by an
East Coast paper. The article began by saying the candidate doesn't
expect to win because of this or that, and in fact doesn't think he'll
win at all, he just wants people to talk about immigration.  Nowhere in
the article did the candidate say he didn't expect to win, or that he
only wanted people to talk about immigration. In fact, the article
pointed out that he had already visited Iowa 4 times in 6 months, not
at all like someone who doesn't even want to win.  At the end of the
article were instructions on how to defeat this candidate. The opening
attack on his seriousness as a candidate, and the closing advice on how
to defeat him are classic examples of Preemptive Strike. 

#
18. Framing the Debate Setting an argument around two "alternatives"
which you would prefer, rather than the true alternatives. Example: The
debate over how much funding to give to the project continued. Some are
arguing for a reduced amount, while others want to see a much higher
contribution level. The needs for both a lower budget and a higher
budget have been laid out and defended in the debate brochure, which
all members of the decision making body have been reading over for the
last three days. (Note: the correct decision was to stop the project
completely, it accomplishes nothing and the people running it are
stealing the money, but you weren't offered the choice of stopping it.) 

#
19. Token Equal Time Sometimes a weak, tiny understatement is added to
a propaganda piece, apparently so the writer can pretend they had been
fair. This technique is quite common, it consists of an article written
with entirely one point of view, then at the end a meager statement
from the opposing view is printed, it is immediately refuted, then the
article either ends or continues on with the preferred point of view. 

#
20. "Interpreting" A Statement Have you ever seen a writer say that
someone said something, then what the person said followed, but it
didn't look anything like what the writer claimed was meant? Example:
The official said that they didn't hold anyone from the previous
administration responsible for the loss. "I think we should just focus
on the future" said the official. (note: he didn't say he didn't hold
anyone from the previous administration responsible, he said we should
focus on the future. See the difference?) 

#
21. Withholding Information Is it the same as lying? Some in the media
might not want to answer that question. Recently a candidate for mayor
of Los Angeles was portrayed as a "jubilant son of an immigrant" in an
article. What the article didn't mention was that he also once said
"Prop 187 is the last gasp of white America in California", he belongs
to, or once belonged to, a racist separatist organization which plans
to takeover the American south west for Mexico to rule, and at a recent
ceremony honoring early black leaders he called one of the early union
members a n***** in front of 400 black leaders. 100 people walked out
of the meeting room, though it was reported as 25% in order to diminish
the effect. None of this was included in the article about the
"jubilant son of an immigrant"   More recently there is
the example of multiple murders on private land in Wisconsin by a Hmong
immigrant. In actual fact, of the six people murdered all but one were
unarmed, one was a woman, shell casings were found all around the area,
meaning the murderer chased his unarmed victims all around to try and
kill them. The story as reported called all the victims "hunters" to
conjure up the image of tough armed men in a fair fight, even though
the victims weren't "hunting" at all but were warning the killer to
stay off of their private land, hence he murdered them. The upsetting
details only came out long after the story was initially reported.  Are
the authors of these articles lying to the public by not presenting all
of the information about the stories, or are the authors so incompetent
and clueless that they aren't even aware of these major points even
though they are supposed to be writing about these important stories?
The authors are either liars or morons. 

#
22. Distracting or Absurd Metrics With this technique, the writer
attempts to drag the reader into a debate about what the reader is even
seeing. This is usually used when the propagandist is falling behind
and must hurry to destroy correct understanding of events. Example:
During the French riots many writers began arguing about the number of
cars burned and whether the number still "indicated" riot levels. In
other words, let's argue about what a riot is, and when you have enough
destroyed cars, we'll talk. Meanwhile, you're discussing burnt cars and
not the ongoing riots.