In our first post, we defined media narratives as curated stories that shape how we see the world and propaganda as manipulative communication serving hidden agendas. But how are these narratives constructed? Who decides which stories dominate, and why? This second post in our series pulls back the curtain on narrative-building, revealing the deliberate strategies behind the stories we’re told. We’ll explore this through the lens of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Jacques Ellul’s insights on propaganda, and a bold real-world example: the Yes Men’s 2010 BP Bohai media hoax. Buckle up—it’s a masterclass in narrative construction.

The Anatomy of Narrative Construction

A media narrative isn’t an accident; it’s a calculated act of storytelling. At its core, narrative construction involves three steps:

  1. Selection: Choosing which facts, events, or voices to highlight (and which to ignore).
  2. Framing: Presenting those elements in a way that suggests a specific interpretation—think “heroic whistleblower” versus “reckless leaker.”
  3. Amplification: Spreading the narrative through repetition, emotional appeals, or media channels to cement it in the public’s mind.

These steps sound clinical, but they’re wielded with creativity and intent. Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, whom we met last time, might call this the creation of a “simulacrum”—a manufactured reality that feels truer than the truth. Whether it’s a news outlet framing a policy debate or an activist group staging a stunt, narrative-builders know their power lies in controlling the story.

Saul Alinsky’s Playbook for Narrative Control

Saul Alinsky, a legendary community organizer, laid out a blueprint for narrative construction in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. Written to empower activists, his rules are equally instructive for understanding how media narratives are crafted. Three rules stand out:

  • Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Alinsky argued that humor and mockery can discredit opponents and make a narrative stick. A well-placed jab can shift perceptions faster than a dry policy paper.
  • Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” Narratives thrive when they’re engaging—think viral memes or dramatic protests that capture attention and inspire sharing.
  • Rule 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Alinsky emphasized creating a decision dilemma, where the target faces a lose-lose choice: respond to a provocative narrative and risk amplifying it, or stay silent and let it fester. This traps opponents in a strategic bind, ensuring the narrative gains traction.

Alinsky’s rules aren’t just for activists; they’re used by corporations, governments, and media to shape stories. His focus on emotional resonance, engagement, and strategic dilemmas shows how narratives are planned to cut through noise and leave a lasting impression.

Jacques Ellul: Propaganda and Narratives as Inseparable

French philosopher Jacques Ellul, in his 1965 book Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, argued that in modern literate societies, propaganda and narratives are inseparable. Unlike crude posters or slogans, modern propaganda weaves itself into the fabric of media, education, and culture, shaping beliefs through subtle, pervasive stories. Ellul’s concept of “sociological propaganda” describes how narratives—say, the glorification of consumerism or national exceptionalism—emerge organically from societal structures, aligning public attitudes with institutional goals. In Western media, this means the line between a news narrative and propaganda often blurs: a story about economic growth might subtly reinforce corporate interests, even without overt lies. Ellul’s insight reminds us that narrative construction isn’t just tactical; it’s a systemic force we swim in daily.

The Yes Men and the BP Bohai Hoax: A Narrative in Action

Enter the Yes Men, activist-pranksters who weaponize Alinsky’s principles to expose corporate misdeeds. In 2010, amidst the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, they staged a media fiasco targeting BP’s lesser-known Bohai Bay spill in China. Posing as BP executives, they issued a fake press release announcing BP’s commitment to a massive cleanup fund—complete with a forged website and staged press conference. The media, hungry for a redemption story, initially took the bait, amplifying the hoax before realizing it was satire.

This stunt is a textbook case of narrative construction:

  • Selection: The Yes Men chose the Bohai spill, a real but underreported event, to piggyback on the Deepwater Horizon outrage. This gave their fake story plausibility.
  • Framing: They framed BP as suddenly contrite, promising billions for cleanup—a stark contrast to BP’s actual cost-cutting image. The absurdity (aligned with Alinsky’s ridicule rule) made the hoax memorable.
  • Amplification: By mimicking BP’s branding and exploiting media trust in “official” sources, they ensured the story spread before being debunked. Even after the reveal, the narrative lingered: BP’s negligence was back in the spotlight.

The Yes Men also applied Alinsky’s decision dilemma (Rule 9). BP faced a trap: debunking the hoax drew more attention to their Bohai failures, while ignoring it let the narrative of corporate irresponsibility spread. Either way, the Yes Men’s story won. Their goal wasn’t just to prank; it was to craft a hyperreal narrative, as Baudrillard might say, that exposed corporate spin and forced a real conversation about accountability. Their success lay in understanding how media operates—outlets crave dramatic stories and rarely dig deep before publishing.

What We Learn—and What’s Next

The BP Bohai hoax shows that narratives are built with intent, whether by activists like the Yes Men or media giants. Alinsky’s rules and Ellul’s insights reveal the tactics and systemic forces at play: pick your moment, frame it with emotion, create dilemmas, and weave it into society’s fabric. But this isn’t just about pranks. Every day, Western media selects what to cover, frames it to fit editorial or commercial goals, and amplifies it through headlines and algorithms.

Next time, we’ll apply these lessons to a recent news story, dissecting how its narrative was constructed and what it reveals about media agendas. You’ll leave with practical tools to spot these tactics yourself. For now, ask: What narratives are grabbing my attention, and who’s behind them?

Curious for more? Stay tuned for the final part of this series as we unpack a real-world news cycle and keep chasing the truth together.

In today’s media-saturated world, we’re bombarded with stories. Some inform, others persuade, and many subtly shape how we see reality. But how do we distinguish a harmless news report from a crafted narrative or even propaganda? This is the first post in a series dedicated to equipping you with the tools to identify narratives in Western media—starting with clear definitions of what a media narrative is and what propaganda means, with all its nuances. Let’s dive in, grounded in curiosity and a relentless pursuit of truth.

What Is a Media Narrative?

A media narrative is a cohesive story or framework that media outlets use to present events, issues, or ideas. It’s not just the facts but the way those facts are selected, framed, and connected to create meaning. Narratives give structure to the chaos of information, helping audiences make sense of the world—but they also shape perceptions, often unconsciously.

For example, consider coverage of a protest. One outlet might frame it as “citizens demanding justice,” emphasizing personal stories of grievance. Another might call it “unrest threatening public order,” highlighting property damage. Both may report accurate details, but the framing—the narrative—guides how you feel about the event. Narratives aren’t inherently bad; they’re how humans process complexity. The catch? They’re curated, and that curation reflects editorial choices, biases, or agendas.

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, in his work Simulacra and Simulation (1981), warned that media can create “hyperreal” versions of reality—representations that feel more real than the truth itself. When a news story repeatedly emphasizes certain details (say, a politician’s gaffe) while ignoring others (their policy record), it crafts a hyperreal narrative that can overshadow reality. Recognizing this is the first step to questioning what you’re being told.

What Is Propaganda? A Nuanced View

Propaganda is a loaded term, often conjuring images of wartime posters or authoritarian regimes. But its reality is more complex, especially in modern Western media. Formally, propaganda is communication designed to manipulate beliefs, emotions, or behaviors to serve a specific agenda. Unlike education, which seeks to inform, or persuasion, which argues openly, propaganda often conceals its intent, prioritizing impact over truth.

However, propaganda isn’t just bald-faced lies. It thrives in half-truths, out-of-context facts, or what Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom (1944), might describe as the distortion of truth to serve centralized power or ideology. Hayek argued that control over information—whether by governments or institutions—can erode individual freedom by shaping what people accept as true. Similarly, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, in Manufacturing Consent (1988), revealed how media can serve elite interests by filtering information to align with corporate or political agendas. They described a “propaganda model” where news is shaped through ownership, advertising pressures, and reliance on official sources, subtly nudging public consent toward desired narratives. In media, this might look like:

  • Half-Truths: Reporting a politician’s controversial quote without the context that softens or explains it.
  • Out-of-Context Truths: Highlighting a single statistic (e.g., crime rates) to push a narrative while ignoring broader trends.
  • Marrying Truth to a Lie: Pairing a factual statement with a misleading implication, like suggesting a policy caused an economic dip when other factors were at play.

These tactics don’t fit the cartoonish image of propaganda, but they’re effective because they’re subtle. A news outlet might report a true event but frame it to align with a broader agenda—say, amplifying fear to drive clicks or support a political stance. Baudrillard’s concept of the “precession of simulacra” applies here: the narrative becomes the reality, detached from the original truth.

Propaganda’s nuance lies in its spectrum. A sensational headline might lean propagandistic by exaggerating for attention, while a state-backed disinformation campaign manipulates systematically. Both distort, but their intent and scale differ. Understanding this spectrum empowers you to spot propaganda without dismissing all media as untrustworthy.

Why This Matters—and What’s Next

Media narratives and propaganda shape how we vote, what we fear, and who we trust. Left unchecked, they can distort our grasp of reality, as Baudrillard cautioned, or erode our ability to think independently, as Hayek feared. But by learning to identify these forces, you reclaim agency. You start seeing the strings behind the stories.

In the coming posts, we’ll explore practical tools to dissect Western media narratives—how to spot framing, question sources, and uncover hidden agendas. We’ll draw on real-world examples, from election coverage to social issue reporting, to make these skills tangible. For now, ask yourself: What stories am I being told, and who’s telling them?

Curious to dig deeper? Next time, we’ll break down how narratives are built, using a recent news story as a case study. Stay tuned, and let’s keep chasing the truth together.

Jacques Ellul’s Definition of Propaganda Compared to Common Understanding

Jacques Ellul, in his seminal work Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1962), presents a nuanced and expansive definition of propaganda that diverges significantly from its common understanding. Commonly, propaganda is perceived as deliberate, often deceptive messaging by governments or organizations to manipulate public opinion for political ends, such as wartime posters or authoritarian regime broadcasts. Ellul, however, redefines propaganda as a sociological phenomenon inherent to modern, literate, industrial societies, encompassing not only overt political campaigns but also subtle, pervasive influences embedded in media, culture, and technology. This essay contrasts the popular perception of propaganda as obvious, old-style war propaganda with its modern, subtler form, clarifying how propaganda works today by marrying truth to a lie, providing truth out of context, or being misleading in ways that mask the propagandist’s true intent.

The Common Perception: Old-Style Obvious War Propaganda

Most people envision propaganda as the blatant, heavy-handed messaging seen during wartime or under authoritarian regimes. This “old-style” propaganda includes iconic examples like World War I and II posters—think “Uncle Sam Wants You” or “Loose Lips Sink Ships”—or Nazi broadcasts demonizing enemies. These efforts were characterized by:

  • Clear Intent: The goal was unmistakable, whether to boost morale, recruit soldiers, or vilify opponents.
  • Emotional Appeals: Fear, patriotism, or anger were leveraged to provoke immediate reactions.
  • Obvious Bias: Exaggerations, stereotypes, or outright lies made the manipulation evident to a critical observer.

This type of propaganda was easy to spot due to its overt nature and reliance on simplistic, often deceitful narratives. The common perception thus frames propaganda as a tool of specific historical moments—wars or dictatorships—rather than an ongoing, everyday phenomenon.

Modern Propaganda: A Carefully Curated Truth

In contrast, modern propaganda operates with far greater subtlety, blending truth and deception in ways that obscure its manipulative intent. Rather than relying on obvious lies, today’s propaganda is a “carefully curated truth” that passes without immediate recognition of the propagandist’s agenda. Jacques Ellul emphasizes that effective propaganda must resonate with reality, using facts as its foundation while shaping them to serve a specific purpose. Here’s how it works:

  • Marrying Truth to a Lie: Facts are paired with distortions to create a compelling, yet misleading, narrative. For example, a political ad might highlight a candidate’s charitable donations (truth) while implying they single-handedly solved a social issue (lie), glossing over broader context.
  • Truth Out of Context: Information is presented accurately but stripped of critical details. A news report might cover a protest by focusing solely on isolated acts of violence, ignoring the peaceful majority or underlying grievances, thus skewing public perception.
  • Strategic Framing: Emotional appeals and selective emphasis guide interpretation. An advertisement might use scientific data—like “9 out of 10 dentists recommend”—without clarifying the sample size or methodology, nudging consumers toward a biased conclusion.

Unlike old-style propaganda, modern forms avoid outright falsehoods because they risk exposure in an information-rich world. Instead, they exploit trust in factual reporting, slipping past scrutiny by appearing credible. As Ellul notes, “Propaganda must be based on facts… but facts are not enough; they must be interpreted” (1962, p. 52). This curation ensures propaganda aligns with pre-existing beliefs, making it harder to challenge.

Examples of Modern Propaganda

  • Media: A news outlet reports a politician’s speech verbatim but highlights only inflammatory snippets, shaping audience outrage while claiming objectivity.
  • Advertising: A skincare brand touts a product’s “clinically proven” benefits, omitting that the study was small, biased, or inconclusive.
  • Social Media: Viral posts share real statistics—like crime rates—but frame them to stoke fear or division, leaving out mitigating factors.

These tactics illustrate how modern propaganda thrives on partial truths, emotional resonance, and strategic omissions, distinguishing it from the blunt lies of wartime posters.

Propaganda’s Inseparability from Modern Society

Ellul argues that propaganda is not just a tool of specific actors but a sociological phenomenon inherent to literate, industrial societies. Several factors make it pervasive today:

  • Information Overload: With mass media and digital platforms, people face too much data to process critically, relying on simplified narratives that propaganda provides.
  • Literacy and Technology: Educated populations trust written or broadcast information, while advanced tools—like targeted ads or algorithms—amplify propaganda’s reach.
  • Complexity of Life: Industrial societies create uncertainty, driving individuals to accept curated truths that offer clarity, even if manipulated.

Unlike the common view, which ties propaganda to deliberate campaigns, Ellul sees it as a structural feature of modernity, thriving in democracies as much as authoritarian states. “Propaganda is a necessity for the functioning of a technological society,” he writes (1962, p. 87), highlighting its role in managing mass attitudes.

Conclusion

The popular image of propaganda as obvious, old-style war messaging—think posters and wartime broadcasts—captures only a fraction of its reality. Jacques Ellul’s broader definition reveals propaganda as a subtle, pervasive force in modern society, where truth is curated, contextualized, or paired with deception to serve hidden agendas. By contrasting the overt manipulations of the past with today’s sophisticated blending of fact and misdirection, we see that propaganda’s power lies in its disguise: a “carefully curated truth” that slips past without examination. Understanding this shift invites us to question not just blatant lies, but the subtler influences shaping our world daily.

 

Works Cited: Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. Translated by Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner, Vintage Books, 1973.

 

Harvard University released a comprehensive 300+ page report on April 29, 2025, titled the “Final Report of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias,” shedding light on systemic antisemitism and anti-Israel bias on campus. The investigation, initiated by President Alan Garber in January 2024, was spurred by a surge in bias incidents following the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. According to a Reuters article, the task force conducted around 50 listening sessions with approximately 500 students and employees, revealing “searing personal accounts” of discrimination . The report underscores a deeply rooted issue at one of America’s most prestigious institutions, prompting both internal reflection and external scrutiny.

The findings paint a troubling picture of campus life for Jewish and Israeli students, who faced hostility from peers, faculty, and administrators. The report details instances where Jewish students were asked to denounce Israel to be considered “one of the good ones,” while others were told their very presence was offensive. In academic settings, some were discouraged from sharing family stories involving Holocaust survivors if those stories mentioned Israel, with organizers deeming such narratives “not tasteful” and “inherently one-sided.” An NPR article notes that Harvard plans to address these issues by reviewing its academic offerings to ensure faculty promote intellectual openness and refrain from endorsing political positions that pressure students. These revelations highlight a culture of exclusion that has left many Jewish and Israeli students feeling ostracized and unsafe.

Harvard’s history provides critical context for understanding these modern challenges. In the 1920s, under President Abbott Lawrence Lowell, the university implemented admissions policies, including legacy preferences, explicitly designed to limit Jewish enrollment and preserve its white, Protestant demographic. A 2023 article from The Harvard Crimson explains that while legacy admissions were not officially codified, they were part of a broader effort to exclude Jewish students, with similar practices documented at peer institutions like Dartmouth and Yale during the same period. These historical policies, which persisted in various forms into the 1950s, reflect a legacy of discrimination that continues to cast a shadow over Harvard’s efforts to address contemporary antisemitism.

In response to the report, Harvard has committed to several reforms, though some argue they fall short of expectations. The university plans to review its admissions processes to evaluate applicants based on their ability to engage constructively with diverse perspectives, introducing a new application question about handling disagreements. Additionally, Harvard will implement mandatory antisemitism training for students and staff and expand academic offerings in Hebrew, Judaic, Arab, and Islamic studies. However, an NPR article notes that these measures do not fully align with the Trump administration’s demands, which include ending all admissions preferences based on race or national origin and adopting strict merit-based policies by August 2025 . President Garber has also promised to accelerate efforts to promote viewpoint diversity, though specifics remain unclear.

The report’s release coincides with broader challenges for Harvard, including a legal battle with the Trump administration over federal funding and allegations of international misconduct. The administration has frozen $2.2 billion in grants, citing Harvard’s alleged failure to address antisemitism, prompting the university to sue in response. Concurrently, a separate controversy has emerged: Harvard has been accused of violating U.S. sanctions by training officials from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a Chinese paramilitary group implicated in the oppression of Uyghurs, as late as October 2023. An NPR article highlights that these issues have intensified scrutiny on Harvard, positioning it as a focal point in the national debate over campus culture and academic integrity.  Together, these developments underscore the complex and multifaceted challenges Harvard faces in addressing its past and present shortcomings.

 

In Canada, being quietly conservative often feels like navigating a tightrope in a society heavily influenced by left-leaning ideas, particularly those promoted by the mainstream media (MSM). The Liberal Party, a dominant political force since World War II, has shaped a cultural narrative that aligns with progressive values, as evidenced by their 2021 platform focusing on affordable childcare and aggressive climate action. This MSM alignment with liberal orthodoxy creates immense pressure for conservatives to conform, especially in public-facing roles like teaching or corporate environments. For many conservatives, staying silent becomes a survival tactic in a landscape where their beliefs are often viewed as out of step with the dominant ideology, forcing them to weigh the cost of speaking out against the need to maintain social harmony.

The risk to social and professional standing for voicing conservative opinions in Canada is both real and pervasive. A 2020 study found that 25% of Canadians feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions at work, with this figure rising to 31% for ethnic minorities, reflecting a broader culture of suppression. For conservatives, expressing non-liberal views—such as skepticism about rapid cultural shifts or government overreach—can lead to ostracism, career setbacks, or even job loss. In workplaces and social circles, conservatives often face the threat of being labeled as backward or intolerant, a stigma that can damage relationships and professional opportunities. This fear of repercussions creates a chilling effect, compelling many to remain silent to protect their livelihoods and social standing.

Left-leaning thinking dominates Canada’s social space, particularly in urban centers, educational institutions, and media outlets, creating an environment where conservative perspectives are frequently marginalized. The Liberal Party’s long-standing influence, especially under leaders like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, entrenched a “Just Society” vision that prioritizes equality and government intervention, a legacy that continues to shape public discourse. This dominance is reinforced by cultural narratives that often frame conservative views as outdated or unacceptable, leaving little room for dissent. Educational institutions, as noted in studies, have become breeding grounds for socialist ideas, further entrenching left-leaning ideologies among younger generations. Such an environment stifles open debate, enforcing conformity and limiting the diversity of thought necessary for a balanced society.

This ideological imbalance harms Canadians by restricting the range of ideas needed to address complex societal challenges. When conservative perspectives—often rooted in fiscal restraint, cultural preservation, or skepticism of rapid change—are silenced, policies lack the nuance required to serve a diverse population. Abacus Data’s 2025 report highlights a growing segment of Canadians who are economically progressive but culturally conservative, yet their voices are often overlooked. This suppression risks alienating rural and traditional communities, particularly in regions like Alberta, where conservative values have historically been strong, deepening national divides and fostering resentment. Without a diversity of perspectives, Canada misses out on innovative solutions and balanced governance, which are critical for long-term stability.

Ultimately, the suppression of conservative voices in Canada creates a more divided and less resilient society, undermining the nation’s ability to tackle pressing issues. When a significant portion of the population feels unable to express their views, trust in institutions erodes, and political polarization intensifies, potentially fueling populist movements. This lack of open discourse prevents Canada from addressing challenges—like housing affordability or immigration policy—with the pragmatism required for sustainable solutions. For Canadians as a whole, fostering an environment where all perspectives can be voiced without fear is essential to building a cohesive society. A nation that silences half its voices risks losing the very diversity and strength it claims to champion.

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 397 other subscribers

Categories

January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

  • Unknown's avatar
  • Widdershins's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • windupmyskirt's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • silverapplequeen's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • hbyd's avatar
Kaine's Korner

Religion. Politics. Life.

Connect ALL the Dots

Solve ALL the Problems

Myrela

Art, health, civilizations, photography, nature, books, recipes, etc.

Women Are Human

Independent source for the top stories in worldwide gender identity news

Widdershins Worlds

LESBIAN SF & FANTASY WRITER, & ADVENTURER

silverapplequeen

herstory. poetry. recipes. rants.

Paul S. Graham

Communications, politics, peace and justice

Debbie Hayton

Transgender Teacher and Journalist

shakemyheadhollow

Conceptual spaces: politics, philosophy, art, literature, religion, cultural history

Our Better Natures

Loving, Growing, Being

Lyra

A topnotch WordPress.com site

I Won't Take It

Life After an Emotionally Abusive Relationship

Unpolished XX

No product, no face paint. I am enough.

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle

femlab

the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

trionascully.com

Not Afraid Of Virginia Woolf

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Teach The Change

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby

SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL

A blog in support of Helen Steel

thenationalsentinel.wordpress.com/

Where media credibility has been reborn.

BigBooButch

Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian

RadFemSpiraling

Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy

Emma

Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Easilyriled's Blog

cranky. joyful. radical. funny. feminist.

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress

HANDS ACROSS THE AISLE

Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution

fmnst

Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.

violetwisp

short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism