Modern Day Propaganda Analysis

Language and the usage of words is arguably humanity’s most powerful tool. It allows for mere thoughts to transform into ideas that can be shared with multiple individuals, whether this is through verbal or nonverbal means. Because of their ability to influence the masses, some politicians have used very calculated communication techniques to manipulate public opinion to their benefit, causing many Americans to view them as deceitful and untrustworthy. Over time, these techniques have become harder to detect, blurring the already thin line between fact and fiction. As it happens, what is supposed to be politician’s casual and conversational speech is sometimes compared to a subtle form of modern day propaganda. George Orwell’s 1984, a dystopian

While some statements can be open to the interpretation of facts, there are many that are either true or false. If there was an intention of deceiving others when something was said, then that specific statement automatically qualifies as a lie. For instance, a highly controversial moment near the beginning of the Trump administration includes a dispute over something as simple as the attendance count of the January 2017 inauguration. While there is aerial photographic evidence to indicate otherwise, Press Secretary Sean Spicer insisted that Trump’s crowd size broke a record and became “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe” (Chason). Several news outlets soon began commenting on this misrepresentation of data, citing the number of television viewers, subway rides taken, and photographs of the event. Although the National Park Service is prohibited from releasing official estimates of crowd sizes, other private agencies and individuals are still allowed to do so. Some experts, such as Arizona State University Professor Steve Doig, approximate Obama’s 2009 crowd to be as much as “three times larger,” bringing Trump’s number in attendance to about 600,000 people, again showing the lack of support he has from the public (Farley and Robertson). Even though this example seems very insignificant, the fact that makes it so alarming is that despite having conflicting evidence, politicians still state whatever it takes to stick to their narrative. If they feel inclined to lie about unimportant matters, such as how many people witnessed an event, it is daunting to think about what other falsehoods are being presented as fact. Another thing that made this specific instance so shocking was that this was