A lot of propaganda is not actually misinformation.
A lot of propaganda is not even half-truths.
A lot of propaganda actually is telling you the truth, but is feeding you a specific conclusion that the author wants you to draw from it.
This makes it a lot more robust, because if you go searching for sources to confirm the information, you’ll find them!
So an important thing in evaluating information is not just “Is this true?” but also:
“Wait, does this lead inevitably to the conclusion this person is presenting? What other conclusions could I draw here? What other reasons for this piece of info could there be? How does this information fit into what I already know?”
“What are the motivations of the person who wrote or created this? Why did they want me to draw that conclusion? Do they themselves believe the conclusion they’re drawing, or are they just trying to convince me? If they do believe it themself, why? If not, why are they trying to convince me? What’s going on for them here?”
“What other pieces of information might I be missing? What am I extrapolating without noticing? What did this person deliberately leave out, or want me to ignore or gloss over? What other contexts and comparisons are applicable here?”
“How does this information with in with not only the specific conclusion that is presented, but with the author’s overarching thesis? When I use it, how well does it fit into my thesis? When I take a step back, does this piece of information actually make any sense as supporting evidence for this person’s thesis?”
Hopefully this is helpful, and can help your skills at evaluating information and arguments become more robust!
Not only does propaganda not have to be false, but the most effective propaganda is true. You don’t even have to editorialize all that much. Simply choosing which stories to feature /promote and which to ignore can lead people down your chosen path
