Straw man
Restating an opponent's position in a weaker, more extreme, or more absurd form, and then refuting that version instead of the one they hold.
It is easier to knock down a scarecrow than a person. The device builds the scarecrow from the opponent's materials, a phrase taken further than they took it, an implication they denied, the most extreme member of their side, and then defeats it in public. The audience, who has heard only the speaker's version, watches the opponent's position collapse, and the opponent's protest that "I never said that" arrives after the verdict.
Philosophers distinguish the classic straw man, which distorts the opponent's argument, from the "weak man," which picks the opponent's worst argument and treats it as their best, and the "hollow man," which invents an opponent who does not exist. Propaganda uses all three. Exploits Confirmation Bias and Availability Heuristic.
Historical examples
The Lees' study of Father Coughlin's broadcasts found that his accounts of the New Deal and its authors rarely matched anything those authors had proposed; policies were restated in extreme form and then denounced. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis classed such distortion under card stacking; the straw man is card stacking applied to an opponent's words.
Lee, Alfred McClung, and Elizabeth Briant Lee. The Fine Art of Propaganda. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939.
Talisse and Aikin's "Two Forms of the Straw Man" separated the misrepresentation form, in which the opponent's actual argument is distorted, from the selection form, in which a weak argument for a position is chosen and treated as representative. The second, they argued, is the more common in public debate and the harder to detect, because the weak argument was really made by someone.
Talisse, Robert, and Scott F. Aikin. "Two Forms of the Straw Man." Argumentation 20, no. 3 (2006): 345–352; Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. "Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men." Argumentation 25, no. 1 (2011): 87–105.
In advertising and commerce
Advertising against dietary guidance has long restated the guidance as an absurdity, "they want you to eat cardboard," "the food police," and refuted the absurdity. The actual recommendations, moderate and specific, are never quoted. Nestle's Food Politics traces the industry's use of the device against successive federal guidelines.
Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.
Find an attack on a position. Then find the position stated by someone who holds it. Are they the same? What did the attacker change?
In the wild
Short examples of the technique at work, each with what to notice. The same examples are questions in the quiz, where the answer is not given away.
"My opponent wants to open the borders to anyone who shows up. I want a country with laws." The opponent proposed a visa reform.
What to notice. A specific proposal is restated as an extreme one and the extreme one is refuted.
"The safety campaigners think nobody should ever drive a car." They asked for a lower speed limit on one road.
What to notice. A modest position is replaced with an absurd one that no campaigner holds.
"One of their supporters said the whole industry should be shut down. That's what this movement really wants."
What to notice. The weak-man form: the most extreme voice on a side is presented as the side's real position.
Sources
- Talisse, Robert, and Scott F. Aikin. "Two Forms of the Straw Man." Argumentation 20, no. 3 (2006): 345–352. doi:10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8
- Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. "Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men." Argumentation 25, no. 1 (2011): 87–105. doi:10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y
- Lee, Alfred McClung, and Elizabeth Briant Lee. The Fine Art of Propaganda. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939.
- Nestle, Marion. Food Politics. Rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0520275966