Theories, Conspiracies and Propaganda: Recommendations for Media Consumption

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This text explores in the role of science, journalism, (scientific) conspiracy theories, conspiracies, and propaganda in the 20th and 21st century.

Note: The article was written with support by AID service MISTRAL as annotated (see references Px). All replies by MISTRAl were reviewed, revised or summarized by the author, as appropriate.

2. Conspiracy theories

“A theory is, in general, a set of propositions or ideas about something, developed in a variety of ways through any sort of reasoning.” [R1]

“A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientific hypothesis must be based on observations and make a testable and reproducible prediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess. If a hypothesis is repeatedly independently demonstrated by experiment to be true, it becomes a scientific theory. In colloquial usage, the words hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably, but this is incorrect in the context of science.”

“A conspiracy, also known as a plot, ploy, or scheme, is a plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with a political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.” [R2]

“A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation), when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, as it can often be based in prejudice, emotional conviction, insufficient evidence or paranoia.
 A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians.
As such, conspiracy theories are identified as lay theories.”  [R3]

I argue that individuals and institutions with political and financial power are motivated to further increase their power and wealth. It is in their interest to do so avoiding public attention, because citizens in democratic societies will usually object to these actions, because historical experience shows that individuals and institutions with great power and wealth suppress citizens and limit their civil rights and well-being.

Since powerful and rich individuals and institutions, esp governments, can use their power to a large degree in transparency, it is very important that citizens can collect information to monitor actions of concerned individuals and institutions, identify the responsibilities and take action by preventing, counterating or punishing such actions which lead to a further imbalance of power and wealth, ie injustice.

In the area of politics, theories are a collection of ideas, esp. about a conspiracies, which may be a description of reality or phantasy. While their value for society is not immediately clear, they allow the derivation of statements, ie hypotheses, which can be tested in reality. If sufficient evidence is found, a theory may become a scientific theory, in the sense that it follows scientific principles (empirical, parsimonious, …). Theories and derived testable hypothesis play an enormously important role in societies because they allow the targeted collection of information to accept or reject a derived hypotheses and the underlying theory. Without speculation and creative generation of ideas scanning society for potential misuses of power and wealth, no stable democratic society will probably persist because the risk of abuses of power and wealth leading to totalitarian societies will be too great. However, in the interest of a society all these theories and hypotheses must stand the test of scientific, empirical inquiry and should be rejected, modified or accepted in line with scientific principles.

In the spirit of citizen science and informed citizenship in a democracy, each citizen has the obligation to assess any political, economic, or technical events which may harm the stability of society and its political system by dangerous accumulations of wealth and power.

Therefore, I do not agree with the statement above that believes about conspiracies by citizens are necessarily undesirable and wrong. However, journalists and scientists play a very important role of providing the objective evidence and explain the scientific method to guide society towards valid conclusions about society in close collaboration and acknowledging the individual experience of citizens as “sensors” providing information about the developments of a society.

To avoid unsupported, dangerous conspiracy theories, eg aliens controlling the world, citizens should be aware of psychological phenomena which may bias their thinking.

3. Cognitive, psychological, and social biases

The following cognitive psychological and social biases may compromise the generation and validation of political ideas, esp. conspiracy theories [P1].

1. Cognitive Biases

These are systematic errors in thinking that affect how people process information.

  • Confirmation Bias: The tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms preexisting beliefs while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. This reinforces conspiracy theories by making people focus only on supporting “evidence.”
  • Pattern-Seeking Bias (Pareidolia): The human brain is wired to detect patterns, even where none exist. This can lead people to see connections or conspiracies in random events (e.g., seeing hidden messages in unrelated news stories).
  • Illusory Truth Effect: Repeated exposure to a claim increases its perceived truthfulness, regardless of its actual validity. Conspiracy theories often spread through repetition, making them seem more credible over time.
  • Dunning-Kruger Effect: People with low knowledge or expertise in a subject may overestimate their understanding, leading them to dismiss expert opinions and embrace alternative explanations (e.g., conspiracy theories).

2. Psychological Biases

These biases stem from emotional and psychological needs.

  • Need for Control: In uncertain or chaotic situations, people may turn to conspiracy theories to regain a sense of control or understanding. Believing in a hidden “plan” can feel more comforting than accepting randomness.
  • Proportionality Bias: People often assume that major events must have major causes. This leads to the rejection of simple explanations (e.g., accidents or human error) in favor of grand, intentional conspiracies (e.g., “The government staged this”).
  • Just-World Fallacy: The belief that the world is fundamentally fair can lead people to assume that bad things happen to bad people. When tragedy strikes, some may invent conspiracies to “explain” why victims “deserved” it.
  • Fear and Anxiety: Fear of the unknown or distrust in institutions can make conspiracy theories appealing, as they provide a clear (if false) narrative to blame.

3. Social Biases

These biases are influenced by group dynamics and social identity.

  • In-Group/Out-Group Bias: People tend to trust and favor those in their own social group (in-group) while distrusting outsiders (out-group). Conspiracy theories often frame the in-group as “enlightened” and the out-group (e.g., governments, elites) as malevolent.
  • Authority Bias: Trust in perceived authority figures (e.g., charismatic leaders, influencers) can lead people to adopt their beliefs, even if those beliefs are baseless. This is especially true in echo chambers where authority figures reinforce conspiracy narratives.
  • Social Proof (Bandwagon Effect): People are more likely to adopt beliefs that seem widely held by their peers. If a conspiracy theory gains traction in a community, others may adopt it to fit in or avoid social exclusion.
  • Backfire Effect: When presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, some people double down on those beliefs rather than reconsidering them. This makes debunking conspiracy theories particularly challenging.

4. Media and Information Environment Biases

  • Algorithmic Bias: Social media algorithms often prioritize engaging or sensational content, which can amplify conspiracy theories by repeatedly exposing users to them.
  • Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: People are often exposed only to information that aligns with their existing beliefs, reinforcing conspiracy theories and shielding them from contradictory evidence.
  • Selective Exposure: People actively choose sources that confirm their beliefs, avoiding those that challenge them. This self-reinforcing cycle deepens belief in conspiracies.

5. Cultural and Political Biases

  • Distrust in Institutions: Widespread distrust in governments, media, or scientific institutions can make conspiracy theories more appealing as alternative explanations.
  • Populism and Anti-Elitism: Narratives that pit “the people” against a corrupt elite can foster belief in conspiracies, as they align with a worldview of systemic deception.
  • Nationalism or Tribalism: Strong identification with a nation, ideology, or group can lead to the belief that “enemies” (e.g., other countries, political opponents) are conspiring against them.

4. Known Conspiracies

The following political conspiracies in the 20th and 21st century have sufficient empirical evidence to support them [P2, P3]:

20th Century Political Conspiracies

1. The Reichstag Fire (1933, Germany)

  • What happened: The Nazi regime, led by Hermann Göring, orchestrated or allowed the burning of the Reichstag (German Parliament) and blamed it on communists to justify the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and paved the way for Hitler’s dictatorship.
  • Evidence:
    • Historian Ian Kershaw and others argue that the Nazis likely set the fire themselves or allowed it to happen.
    • The Nuremberg Trials and post-war investigations revealed the regime’s use of false flags to consolidate power.
    • Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist, was executed for the fire, but historians doubt he acted alone.
  • Source: Nuremberg Trial Proceedings.

2. Operation Ajax (1953, Iran)

  • What happened: The CIA and British MI6 orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstate the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), ensuring Western control over Iran’s oil.
  • Evidence:
    • Declassified CIA documents (2013) confirmed the U.S. and UK’s involvement.
    • The New York Times and BBC later published internal memos and accounts from participants.
  • Source: CIA Declassified Documents – Operation Ajax.

3. The Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961, Cuba/USA)

  • What happened: The CIA trained and armed Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro’s communist regime. The operation failed, but it was a covert U.S. government conspiracy to destabilize Cuba.
  • Evidence:
    • Declassified CIA and White House documents confirmed the U.S. government’s direct involvement.
    • The Taylor Commission (1961) investigated the failure and detailed the planning.
  • Source: CIA Historical Review Program – Bay of Pigs.

4. Operation CHAOS (1967–1974, USA)

  • What happened: The CIA, under President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, conducted illegal surveillance on U.S. citizens, including anti-war activists, civil rights leaders, and journalists, to suppress dissent.
  • Evidence:
    • The Church Committee (1975) exposed the program, revealing that the CIA had infiltrated and spied on domestic groups.
    • Declassified documents confirmed the extent of the operations.
  • Source: U.S. Senate Church Committee Report.

5. Watergate (1972–1974, USA)

  • What happened: The Nixon administration conspired to cover up its involvement in the break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate complex. The conspiracy included bribery, obstruction of justice, and illegal surveillance.
  • Evidence:
    • Investigations by The Washington Post (Woodward and Bernstein), the Senate Watergate Committee, and the House Judiciary Committee uncovered the conspiracy.
    • The Smoking Gun Tape (1974) proved Nixon’s direct involvement in the cover-up.
    • Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.
  • Source: Watergate Tapes and Transcripts.

6. The October Surprise Conspiracy (1980, USA/Iran)

  • What happened: Allegations suggest that Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of U.S. hostages until after the election, ensuring Carter’s defeat. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan’s inauguration.
  • Evidence:
    • Investigations by Congress (1992) and journalists (e.g., Gary Sick) found circumstantial evidence of backchannel communications.
    • Declassified documents and testimonies from former officials (e.g., Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s chief of staff) support the claims.
  • Source: U.S. House October Surprise Task Force Report.

7. The Iran-Contra Affair (1985–1987, USA/Iran/Nicaragua)

  • What happened: Senior Reagan administration officials (e.g., Oliver North) secretly sold arms to Iran (despite an embargo) and used the proceeds to fund the Contras (a rebel group in Nicaragua), bypassing Congress.
  • Evidence:
    • The Tower Commission (1987), Congressional investigations, and the Independent Counsel (Lawrence Walsh) confirmed the conspiracy.
    • Declassified documents and testimonies revealed the diversion of funds and false denials by the administration.
  • Source: Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters.

21st Century Political Conspiracies

1. The Iraq War and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Lies (2001–2003, USA/Iraq)

  • What happened: The Bush administration (e.g., Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell) falsely claimed that Iraq possessed WMDs to justify the 2003 invasion. No WMDs were found.
  • Evidence:
    • The Dodgy Dossier (2002), a British intelligence report, was later revealed to be plagiarized and exaggerated.
    • Colin Powell’s UN speech (2003) relied on faulty intelligence, some of which was fabricated by Iraqi defectors (e.g., “Curveball”).
    • The Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence (2008) concluded that the administration misrepresented intelligence to the public.
  • Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – Report on Pre-War Intelligence.

2. The NSA Mass Surveillance Program (2001–2013, Global)

  • What happened: The NSA, under the Bush and Obama administrations, conducted global mass surveillance programs (e.g., PRISM, Upstream Collection) to collect phone and internet data of millions, including U.S. citizens, without warrants.
  • Evidence:
    • Edward Snowden’s leaks (2013) revealed the scale of the surveillance.
    • Declassified NSA documents and court rulings (e.g., USA FREEDOM Act, 2015) confirmed the programs.
    • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2020) ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records was illegal.
  • Source: The Guardian – NSA Files.

3. The Cambridge Analytica Scandal (2016–2018, Global)

  • What happened: Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, harvested the personal data of 87 million Facebook users without consent and used it to influence elections, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Brexit.
  • Evidence:
    • Whistleblower Christopher Wylie exposed the scandal in 2018.
    • Investigations by Facebook, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and U.S. Congress confirmed the misuse of data.
    • Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress (2018) about Facebook’s role.
  • Source: UK ICO – Cambridge Analytica Investigation.

4. The Trump-Ukraine Scandal (2019, USA/Ukraine)

  • What happened: Donald Trump and his administration pressured Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe Biden (his political rival) and his son Hunter Biden, while withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine.
  • Evidence:
    • A whistleblower complaint (2019) revealed the pressure campaign.
    • The House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry (2019) uncovered text messages, call transcripts, and testimonies from officials (e.g., Gordon Sondland, Fiona Hill).
    • Trump was impeached by the House (2019) for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress (though acquitted by the Senate).
  • Source: House Intelligence Committee – Impeachment Inquiry Report.

5. The Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election (2016, USA/Russia)

  • What happened: The Russian government, under Vladimir Putin, conducted a multi-faceted campaign to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including hacking Democratic Party emails, spreading disinformation, and using social media to sway voters.
  • Evidence:
    • The Mueller Report (2019) confirmed that Russian military intelligence (GRU) hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails, which were then leaked by WikiLeaks.
    • U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA) unanimously concluded that Russia interfered to help Trump.
    • Indictments were issued against 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies for election interference.
  • Source: Mueller Report – Volume I: Russian Interference.

6. The Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi (2018, Saudi Arabia/Turkey)

  • What happened: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Saudi officials planned and executed the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
  • Evidence:
    • Turkish intelligence released audio recordings of Khashoggi’s killing.
    • The UN Special Rapporteur’s report (2019) concluded that the killing was a premeditated execution and that MBS was likely involved.
    • The U.S. intelligence community (2021) confirmed that MBS approved the operation.
  • Source: UN Report – Khashoggi Investigation.

7. The Belarus Election Fraud and Crackdown (2020, Belarus)

  • What happened: Alexander Lukashenko’s regime falsified the 2020 presidential election results and violently suppressed protests to maintain power. Opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya was forced into exile.
  • Evidence:
    • OSCE election observers refused to validate the election due to widespread irregularities.
    • Leaked police documents and video evidence showed torture and abuse of protesters.
    • EU and U.S. sanctions were imposed on Lukashenko’s regime for election fraud and human rights abuses.
  • Source: OSCE – Belarus Election Report.

5. Identifying Propaganda

The following methods can be used to create, identify and analyse propaganda in news article to manufacture consent in a society [P4]:

5.1 Methods, which make propaganda effective

  1. Exploits cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias)
  2. Exploits strong emotions (e.g, fear, compassion, anger, patriotism, humour) to bypass rational thinking.
  3. Repeats messages until they feel familiar and true (illusory truth effect).
  4. Creates echo chambers where people only hear one side.
  5. Uses authority figures (e.g., politicians, celebrities) to lend credibility.

5.2 Methods, which make propaganda less effective

  1. Check the Source:
  2. Look for Corroboration:
    • Are other reputable outlets reporting the same story?
    • Are there primary sources (e.g., official documents, direct quotes, raw data)?
  3. Analyze the Language:
    • Is the tone emotional or sensationalist?
    • Are there loaded words or logical fallacies?
  4. Seek Diverse Perspectives:
    • Read international sources (e.g., BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera) to compare framing.
    • Look for opposing viewpoints—are they included or suppressed?
  5. Fact-Check Claims:
  6. Investigate the Author:
    • Does the writer have ties to political groups or lobbyists?
    • Have they written propaganda before?
  7. Watch for Patterns:
    • Does the outlet consistently push one agenda?
    • Are there repeated falsehoods or omissions?

5.3 Aspects of Propaganda

1. Language and Framing

Propaganda often relies on loaded language, emotional triggers, and biased framing to influence perception.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Emotionally Charged Language:
    • Use of pejorative terms (e.g., “radical,” “extremist,” “traitor,” “unpatriotic”) to describe opponents.
    • Hyperbolic or sensationalist words (e.g., “crisis,” “epidemic,” “threat to democracy”) without proportional evidence.
    • Euphemisms to soften harmful actions (e.g., “collateral damage” instead of “civilian deaths,” “enhanced interrogation” instead of “torture”).
  • Binary or Us-vs-Them Framing:
    • Presenting issues as black-and-white (e.g., “You’re either with us or against us”).
    • Demonizing a group, country, or ideology (e.g., “The enemy is evil and must be stopped at all costs”).
  • Repetition of Slogans or Talking Points:
    • Repeating pre-packaged phrases (e.g., “fake news,” “deep state,” “woke agenda”) without analysis or evidence.
    • Clichés that oversimplify complex issues (e.g., “This is about freedom vs. tyranny”).
  • Passive Voice or Vague Attributions:
    • Avoiding direct responsibility (e.g., “Mistakes were made” instead of “The government lied”).
    • Using unspecified sources (e.g., “Experts say…” or “It is believed that…” without naming the experts).

2. Source and Authorship

Propaganda often lacks transparency about who is behind the message or relies on unreliable or biased sources.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Anonymous or Unverified Sources:
    • Heavy reliance on “unnamed officials,” “sources close to the matter,” or “intelligence reports” without corroboration.
    • Single-source stories with no independent verification.
  • Lack of Diverse Perspectives:
    • Only quoting one side of an issue (e.g., government officials without opposition voices).
    • Excluding experts or witnesses who contradict the narrative.
  • Author or Outlet Bias:
    • The news outlet has a history of partisan bias (e.g., state-controlled media like RT, CGTN, or Fox News/MSNBC in their most extreme forms).
    • The author has ties to political groups, lobbyists, or think tanks with a vested interest in the story.
    • No byline or pseudonymous authors (common in state-sponsored propaganda).
  • Astroturfing:
    • Fake “grassroots” movements (e.g., paid trolls, bots, or fake social media accounts) amplifying the narrative.
    • Letters to the editor or op-eds that appear independent but are coordinated by PR firms or governments.

3. Omissions and Distortions

Propaganda often leaves out critical context or cherry-picks facts to mislead.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Selective Reporting:
    • Focusing on one aspect of a story while ignoring others (e.g., covering a protest’s violence but not its cause).
    • Cherry-picking data (e.g., citing one study that supports a claim while ignoring 10 that contradict it).
  • Lack of Historical or Global Context:
    • Presenting events as isolated incidents without background (e.g., covering a conflict without mentioning prior provocations).
    • Ignoring international law or human rights standards when they contradict the narrative.
  • False Balance or False Equivalence:
    • Giving equal weight to fringe or debunked claims alongside established facts (e.g., “Some say the Earth is flat, while others say it’s round”).
    • Bothsidesism: Treating unequal sides as equally valid (e.g., “Both parties are equally corrupt” when one has far more scandals).
  • Censorship by Omission:
    • Not reporting on major events that contradict the narrative (e.g., state media ignoring protests or scandals).
    • Downplaying or burying inconvenient facts (e.g., a small mention of a war crime in a long article about a leader’s achievements).

4. Visual and Structural Manipulation

Propaganda often uses images, headlines, and layout to manipulate perception.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Misleading Headlines:
    • Clickbait that exaggerates or distorts the story (e.g., “Shocking Truth Revealed!” when the article is speculative).
    • Headlines that don’t match the content (e.g., a sensational headline with a mundane story).
  • Manipulated or Out-of-Context Images/Videos:
    • Cropped or edited photos to change their meaning (e.g., removing context from a protest photo).
    • Old or unrelated footage passed off as new (e.g., using video from a 2010 protest to illustrate a 2023 event).
    • Deepfakes or AI-generated content (e.g., fake videos of politicians saying things they never did).
  • Placement and Emphasis:
    • Burying important information in the middle or end of an article.
    • Highlighting supportive quotes in bold or large font while minimizing dissenting voices.

5. Logical Fallacies and Misinformation

Propaganda often relies on flawed reasoning to persuade.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Straw Man Arguments:
    • Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack (e.g., “They want open borders!” when the actual proposal is limited immigration reform).
  • False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc):
    • Assuming correlation equals causation (e.g., “After the new law, crime rose, so the law caused the crime wave”).
  • Appeal to Authority:
    • Citing non-experts or biased figures as authoritative sources (e.g., a politician with no medical background dismissing climate science).
  • Ad Hominem Attacks:
    • Attacking the person instead of their argument (e.g., “Don’t listen to them—they’re a socialist!”).
  • Red Herrings:
    • Distracting from the main issue with irrelevant information (e.g., “Why focus on police brutality when crime is rising?”).
  • Slippery Slope:
    • Claiming that one small change will lead to extreme consequences (e.g., “If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will marry animals!”).

6. Coordination and Amplification

Propaganda campaigns are often coordinated across multiple platforms.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Synchronized Messaging:
    • Multiple outlets, social media accounts, or politicians repeating the same talking points within a short timeframe.
    • Hashtag campaigns that appear organic but are orchestrated by bots or paid influencers.
  • Amplification by State Actors or Bots:
    • Russian, Chinese, or other state-linked troll farms (e.g., the Internet Research Agency) amplifying divisive content.
    • Fake accounts posing as locals or journalists to spread propaganda.
  • Cross-Platform Echo Chambers:
    • The same narrative appearing on Fox News, Breitbart, and right-wing Twitter, or MSNBC, CNN, and left-wing Facebook groups, with no critical pushback.

7. Appeals to Fear, Prejudice, or Patriotism

Propaganda often exploits emotions to override critical thinking.

Signs to Watch For:

  • Fearmongering:
    • Exaggerating threats (e.g., “This policy will destroy our way of life!”).
    • Predicting doom without evidence (e.g., “If we don’t act now, we’ll all be dead!”).
  • Appeals to Nationalism or Patriotism:
    • Flag-waving and symbolism to shut down debate (e.g., “Real Americans support the troops—and the war!”).
    • Demonizing foreign countries (e.g., “Country X is a threat to our values”).
  • Scapegoating:
    • Blaming a minority group for societal problems (e.g., “Immigrants are stealing our jobs”).
    • Dehumanizing language (e.g., calling refugees “invaders” or “vermin”).
  • Appeals to Tradition or Nostalgia:
    • Romanticizing the past to resist change (e.g., “We need to return to the good old days”).
    • Implying that change is unnatural or dangerous.

8. Lack of Accountability or Corrections

Propaganda outlets rarely admit mistakes or correct misinformation.

Signs to Watch For:

  • No Retractions or Apologies:
    • Even when fact-checked and debunked, the outlet doesn’t issue corrections.
    • Doubling down on false claims (e.g., “The fact-checkers are biased!”).
  • Attacking Critics:
    • Dismissing fact-checkers as “fake news” or “enemies of the people.”
    • Smearing whistleblowers or journalists who challenge the narrative.
  • Gaslighting:
    • Denying reality (e.g., “We never said that!” when there’s a recorded clip of them saying it).
    • Rewriting history (e.g., “The war was a success” despite overwhelming evidence of failure).

    6. The use of AI services to identify propaganda

    In the age of AI services, these tools can also be used to identify false information or misguiding framing (eg, sentiment analysis). The following prompt can be used to assess an article, which is provided as online document (linked) or attachment (uploaded) to an AI service:

    “Evaluate the attached or linked article on the following rating scale regarding its scientific and journalistic quality.
    The scale is:

    • -10 (extreme negative bias)
    • 0 (following the scientific and journalistic standards of objectivity, accuracy, precision, factfulness, and documentation of sources
    • +10 (extreme pro-Palestinian bias)

    Present any information in the text, which does not comply with scientific and journalistic standards in a table with the following columns:

    • Original quote
    • Reason for violation of scientific and journalistic standards
    • Revision following scientific and journalistic standards”

    It is useful to perform a sensitivity analysis of the sentiment analysis using different AI services, for example:

    Examples:

    • Igl, W. (2025-10-30). Sentiment Analysis of Reporting in German Media on the Gaza Crisis.
      https://biosphere.wilmarigl.de/en/?p=5216
    • Igl, W. (2025-10-03). Sentiment analysis of Article in “Der Spiegel” with ChatGPT attests article a strong pro-Israeli bias, https://biosphere.wilmarigl.de/en/?p=4256
    • Igl, W. (2025-10-30). Sentiment Analysis before and after revision of article on murdered Palestinian child in the taz newspaper, https://biosphere.wilmarigl.de/en/?p=5218

    References

    [R1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
    [R2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
    [R3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
    [R4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

    Prompts

    The following prompts for chat.mistral.com were use in making this blog:

    [P1] What are biases which may contribute to citizens developing false or dangerous beliefs regarding conspiracy theories?
    [P2] What conspiracies in the 20th and 21st century have sufficient empirical evidence to support them?
    [P3] Which political conspiracies in the 20th and 21st century have sufficient empirical evidence to support them?
    [P4] What are signs that news articles are part of a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent in a society?

    de_DE_formalGerman
    de_DE_formalGerman en_USEnglish