Dr. Thomas Swan studied cognition and culture at Queen's University Belfast. He enjoys exploring the interplay between politics and culture.
What Is Name Calling Propaganda?
Name calling propaganda occurs when complementary or pejorative words are used by governments, individuals, or the media to describe another person or group. The purpose is to subliminally manipulate or influence public opinion in order to generate conformity with the opinions of those producing the propaganda.
For example, names such as terrorist or insurgent carry negative connotations, leading to their prolific use in describing groups that are opposed to Western governments. Conversely, when a government wishes to praise or support a group, titles such as freedom fighter or rebel are used instead. When these names are used prolifically in media broadcasts, they could be called name calling propaganda if they're likely to influence public sentiment in the desired manner.
Name calling propaganda is often used by governments and their media allies to describe foreign groups. Indeed, international news stories typically come from government press releases or media organizations with the connections, permits, and funding to operate abroad. With little chance of verification by the viewing public, international news is commonly distorted in this way to garner support for government policy. As a general rule, the further a news story is from its audience, the greater the level of propaganda.
The more a group is described in a particular way by the media (e.g. Syrian rebels) the more likely it is that media organizations have received instructions to do so. Thus, the popularity of a name often demonstrates government interference in the dissemination of information to the public.
Name Calling Propaganda Examples
It's been observed that the Western media use the following list of names to differentiate foreign groups according to US government approval of (or opposition to) the group's activities.
- Terrorists: This title is reserved for the pinnacle of evil. It is used when a government wants public approval for an armed assault on another nation. It generates fear and hatred by placing the group in the same category as the culprits responsible for the September 11th attacks. For this reason, it's more easily applied to Islamic groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas. It was famously used by G.W. Bush as part of his justification for the Iraq War, despite belated confirmation that Saddam Hussein had no links to terrorism.
- Insurgents: Slightly less condemnation is required for groups placed in this category. They may not be planning to incinerate Western civilization, but they are certainly thinking about it as they sit around a bonfire fuelled by American flags.
- Guerrillas: Use of this pejorative has reduced since the fall of communism in Russia. When used, it suggests dirty savages with bandannas and AK47s. It's an attempt to revive the anti-communist sentiment that is still pervasive in the Western world; but is directed at many unsavory groups regardless of their political objectives.
- Militants: This designation is becoming increasingly popular due to the liberalization of the West. It implies a group that desires military conflict, regardless of their true motives. Such war-mongering, anti-pacifists are exposed to negative sentiment from all who oppose war.
- Soldiers: This is a neutral description for individuals who serve a cause by participating in armed conflict.
- Rebels: This name was used in the popular Star Wars films to describe a righteous force fighting a powerful and evil empire. It's therefore used whenever a propagandist wants to garner support for a group that is attempting to thwart a powerful and supposedly tyrannical regime. It's recently been ascribed to groups fighting the regimes of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi in Syria and Libya; presumably because of US opposition to these regimes.
- Freedom Fighters: This unctuous title is generally reserved for smaller groups of rebels. The questionable actions of rebel groups become more common and effective as the group becomes larger. Smaller groups have greater underdog status and are limited in the magnitude of their barbarism. This allows for a greater distortion of their status, and a greater will to justify their murderous rampages as the actions of people fighting for freedom. The most obvious example of this name calling propaganda occurred when the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a terrorist group opposed to Iran (see video below), was taken off the US terrorism list and subsequently referred to as freedom fighters.
- Activists: This term is commonly applied to domestic groups such as environmentalists, or those seeking social change. Thus, it is sometimes used to invoke this same image for some foreign groups, whether they're armed with weapons or not.
- Protesters: Coming into common usage during the Arab Spring, this term depicts the pinnacle of innocence. It seeks to confuse the difference between Western and foreign definitions of a protest. When an individual in a crowd of protesters shoots a police officer with a rifle, and the police return fire, the media only report the state retaliation. Westerners are left to believe that their kind of peaceful protest would have received the same retaliation. Eventually, when enough protesters pick up AK47s, and the media can no longer categorize them that way, they become freedom fighters or rebels.
Venezuela: A More Recent Case
As the US government pushes for regime change in Venezuela, and their subservient media toes the line, I recently stumbled upon a tweet from comedian, Lee Camp, detailing the name-calling propaganda being applied. The goal is clearly to legitimize the opposition while doing the opposite for the Venezuelan President's supporters.
In recent years, the public have become wise to hackneyed names like terrorist and freedom fighter. In some cases, these names have been replaced by less extreme alternatives (e.g. militant or rebel). In other cases, infrequently used synonyms such as extremist or fundamentalist are becoming more common. In time, they may become the preferred pejoratives.
Unfortunately, society tends to lag several years behind when it comes to developing skepticism for the latest names. Eventually, though, we'll become tired of the current wordage. Perhaps, in decades to come, we'll be naming our groups mercenaries, belligerents, and antagonists. These words have yet to be deemed suitable for mass-consumption, presumably because the current terms are still effective at generating conformity.
Name calling propaganda that misrepresents foreign combatants will endure for as long as the public is largely oblivious to the technique. We cannot expect those who use it to grow a conscience. Instead, individuals must learn to be skeptical, and perhaps even cynical of those with the power to disseminate information on a massive scale. This can only be achieved by educating people to think critically and objectively, such that credulity for propaganda is minimized.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
© 2013 Thomas Swan
Deniz Tekiner on October 31, 2019:
Good article. The propaganda term for many of these words is Newspeak, from Orwell's 1984. My all-time favorite US one is "credibility gap" which emerged during the LBJ years. I like it for its irony -- a Newspeak euphemism made up as a substitute for the word "lie."
Eleanore Ferranti Whitaker from Old Bridge, New Jersey on September 05, 2017:
The greatest danger in societies of the world today is "bias." Bias is bought and paid for in the billions to disclose data and information that is intended to influence others. How influenced others become depends entirely on personal vulnerability to fear.
The truth of human existence is as FDR stated in his first inaugural address: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Today, there is a price tag on fear. It began when Big Insurance became immersed entirely in fearmongering games. Can't own a house, car, pet or be sick or need dental care unless you fear having to pay out of pocket. It never got much better from that point.
It isn't only the immature who fear the darkness. It is also adults who can't get out of bed without neurotic fears of doom and gloom or some impending, mostly imagined disaster.
Fear destroys the human survival instinct. Fear also creates labels for what once was considered "normal" human instincts and behaviors.
So the media has churned out and manufatured more "names" to ensure profit. Fear for profit. Profit for the few. Propaganda that drives mentalities to become paranoid neurotics.
slcockerham from Tallahassee, Florida on July 02, 2015:
Great and very informative article. Although, while I realize there were no links showing Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 terrorists, wasn't it well known that he paid the families of suicide bombers against Israel. This is a link with him and terrorists, isn't it?
Thomas Swan (author) from New Zealand on May 01, 2013:
Agreed. I didn't want to go too far into conspiracy theories, but the links between government and media are certainly there. Most countries have some form of state-funded media, and America has media that caters for political leanings (e.g. Fox). Other than that, a great deal of funding goes into the media, and vice versa through campaign donations. Then there are permits to operate abroad, and so on. Pretty much all of the international news comes through Reuters and the AP, the former owned by the Rothschild's banking family. You can imagine the political connections they have. Yep, skepticism is needed, though many people don't have the intellectual training to be skeptical. More education in science and history is needed.
SilentReed from Philippines on April 30, 2013:
Mainstream media is own by big corporations that have reciprocal relationship with governments. More people are becoming aware of the distortion or slant placed on the news and are turning to the alternative media for information. However, these "independent" sources may also have their own agenda. Take in both views and then form your own. A measure of skepticism won't hurt.:)
Thomas Swan (author) from New Zealand on April 25, 2013:
You're right Educateurself, people are beginning to realize that mainstream TV news restricts the type of content they report on, and surreptitiously inserts opinion via choice of words, voice tone, and paid contributors.
Thomas Swan (author) from New Zealand on April 25, 2013:
Thanks narchuleta. Yes, I was beginning to wonder why most of the news I was annoyed with was international news, then it dawned on me. Cheers for noticing that bit.
Educateurself on April 24, 2013:
Now the mature and many many peoples leaving the watching of news because there is no information or knowledge just propaganda as you mentioned above. The western media and middle east, african countries media is in control of jews. Seriously I have never watch or heard a word against Israel.
Nadia Archuleta from Denver, Colorado on April 24, 2013:
Very well-written Hub. You bring up excellent points about the connotations associated with certain terms. It also makes sense that, the farther from the source a place is, the less reliable the news.