Am I Being Propagandized?

I ask myself this question every single day before I analyze content because we live in an age of information warfare and we should protect our hearts, minds and often times blood pressure.

“And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” — Philippians 4:7

“Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable… think about these things.” — Philippians 4:8

Despite my best efforts, I still get it wrong sometimes and I have to course-correct. Luckily, I am privileged enough to have a very solid support system of brilliant people to bounce ideas off of. I am also a strange person who genuinely enjoys researching things, solving puzzles, and spending an unreasonable amount of time tracing claims back to their origins. Most people do not have the time or the desire to spends hours researching stories and biases of their tellers. But there are some relatively simple things we can all do—and some warning signs we can keep in mind—when looking at information and trying to determine whether it is being used to manipulate us.

Before accepting or amplifying a claim, ask:

1. Are the underlying facts being claimed actually true?

2. Is this person’s interpretation justified by those underlying facts?

3. Where did the original claim come from?

4. Is there evidence of bias, deceptive coordination, or artificial amplification?

Those questions are important because any statement can be technically true while leaving out extremely important context. And without that missing context you are being led to a false conclusion without even knowing it. Or a statement can be completely false without being part of any foreign influence operation.

A narrative can originate with a foreign adversary, or it can arise organically inside the United States while still benefiting that adversary more than it benefits us.

All of the aforementioned things can be true at the same time and most t importantly, people repeat things. That is how social media works so repeating a false or misleading claim does not mean someone is evil, compromised, biased, foreign-funded, or knowingly participating in propaganda. Most people see something that confirms what they already believe, assume it is true, and repost it. But if you care about the truth, your intention is not to mislead people, and you have any size following, I believe you have some responsibility to check before you amplify something.

That is just my opinion. Feel free to ignore it. That said below are things I use to try to figure out if information I am consuming is legitimate.

Do not rely on someone else’s description of what happened when you can examine it yourself. Watch the complete video, not just the thirty-second clip selected to make someone look as terrible as possible. Read the transcript, not a post telling you what someone supposedly said. Read the indictment, affidavit, court filing, legislation, executive order, budget, or official report instead of relying entirely on social-media descriptions of it. Screenshots are not the same thing as complete documents and someone confidently retelling what a source says is not the same thing as reading it from the underlying source. And always read past the headline.

Some forms of evidence are stronger because they can be checked independently.

These include:

• campaign-finance disclosures;

• corporate filings;

• nonprofit tax filings and Form 990s;

• archived webpages;

• contemporaneous news reports;

• public financial records;

• voting records;

• official schedules;

• domain-registration history;

• authenticated communications;

• court exhibits.

These records still require interpretation, but they are much harder to manipulate than a vague allegation posted by an anonymous account. When possible, build the factual foundation first independently and then interpret it.

Good reporting should tell you:

• what the journalist independently verified;

• which documents were examined;

• who made the allegations;

• what remains uncertain;

• whether there is corroborating evidence;

• how the accused person or institution responded.

A good reporter should distinguish between what the evidence demonstrates, what a source claims, and what the reporter is inferring from their understanding of the evidence. Names are not everything. Look for bias, leanings and conflicts of interest. Good places get it wrong sometimes and even a bad place can get it right once or twice.

Anonymous sources are sometimes necessary. Whistleblowers, intelligence officials, government employees, and people inside powerful institutions may have legitimate reasons to protect their identities. But anonymity also prevents the reader from independently judging a source’s access, credibility, motives, and bias.

Ask:

• How many sources are there?

• Do they have direct knowledge?

• Is there corroborating evidence?

• Has another outlet independently confirmed the claim?

• Does the article provide enough detail to understand how the source would know?

• What might the source’s motive be?

• Why is the information being released now?

• What is the reporter’s prior record?

• Does the publication have a history of correcting errors?

• Is the article reporting facts or transmitting an accusation?

“Sources say” is not proof.

“Officials believe” is not proof.

“People familiar with the matter” is not a substitute for evidence.

Propaganda is not always completely fabricated. Usually it begins with a true statement that takes you the wrong conclusion.

Watch for:

• a true fact presented without necessary context;

• statistics used to reduce a complex world event to one explanation;

• emotionally loaded language chosen to prevent calm analysis;

• every American mistake being treated as proof that America is irredeemably corrupt;

• foreign governments being given endless historical context and excuses;

• American alliances always being presented as an attempt at global domination;

• criticism of one policy expanding into total national delegitimization;

• persistent asymmetry;

• a predetermined destination that every argument somehow reaches.

Usually the tell is the asymmetry of how America is treated versus everyone else. America’s actions are automatically sinister when our adversaries are given plenty of grace. If American mistakes prove intentional evil and foreign atrocities are blamed on circumstances it is misinformation.

The facts and conclusions may also be wildly disproportionate.

For example:

American politicians handled COVID terribly.

Becomes:

America intentionally developed COVID, released it, and used it to accomplish whatever conspiracy theory has been inserted at the end.

The original criticism is valid. The enormous conspiratorial conclusion is not. The place in between the two claims is the actual manipulation.

This is one of the most important distinctions.

Legitimate criticism has a corrective purpose.

It sounds like:

• This policy failed.

• These officials lied.

• This alliance needs reform.

• This war is not in our national interest.

• This institution exceeded its constitutional authority.

• Here is the evidence.

• Here is what should change.

• Here is a better course of action.

Demoralization does not have a corrective purpose.

It sounds like:

• Nothing is real.

• Everyone is controlled.

• America has always been evil.

• Every alliance is fake.

• No institution can ever be repaired.

• Every politician lies.

• Everyone is paid off by AIPAC.

• Every event is controlled by the same invisible group.

• There are never any realistic policy prescriptions.

• There is no hope.

• America is corrupt, has always been corrupt, and always will be corrupt.

Criticism identifies a problem so it can be corrected instead of convincing you that the problem has no solutions ever. If the information leaves you angry, suspicious, helpless, alienated, and incapable of believing in any institution, person, alliance, or collective action then you are probably being subjected to propaganda. That said, sometimes our leaders deserve harsh criticism. As is everything, the question boils down to intentions. Is the information trying to reform the country or convince you that the country is fundamentally beyond redemption.

Government agencies have legitimate investigative powers, intelligence capabilities, subpoena authority, technical expertise, and access to information the public does not have but they also have long histories of abuse, institutional self-protection, political bias, overreach, secrecy, and error.

Both of those statements are true at the same time so it’s important to keep your skepticism on.

Government evidence is strongest when it provides:

• seized domains;

• bank transfers;

• infrastructure records;

• intercepted or recovered internal instructions;

• indictments describing identifiable conduct;

• sanctions tied to named people and entities;

• technical indicators independently confirmed by cybersecurity firms;

• documented payments;

• communications between identifiable actors;

• evidence that can be examined and meaningfully challenged.

Government evidence is weakest when it provides only:

• a label;

• an unsupported assertion;

• an ideological judgment;

• an instruction to trust officials;

• a conclusion that cannot be tested;

• a vague claim that unnamed experts have reached a consensus.

Do not reject evidence merely because it comes from the government but also just because the government said it doesn’t mean it is true by default. Nuance is key.

People who are skilled at presenting information know how to lead an audience toward a conclusion without proving it.

Here are some of the most common techniques.

Either you accept this entire narrative or you support endless war.

Either you believe this institution completely or you are a conspiracy theorist.

Either you agree with the speaker or you support the enemy.

Reality usually contains more than two options.

A terrible person supports this policy, so the policy must also be terrible.

A foreign government benefits from this argument, so every person making the argument must be working for that government.

Association can be relevant, but it is not proof.

Five articles appear to confirm the same claim, but all five ultimately cite the same unverified report.

That is not five sources.

That is one source repeated five times.

A short clip is removed from a longer statement in a way that changes or reverses its meaning.

The clip may be authentic. The interpretation may still be false.

“People are saying” becomes “reports indicate.”

“Reports indicate” becomes “experts agree.”

“Experts agree” becomes “it is well established.”

At no point was the original claim actually proven.

Evidence that two people met becomes proof that they coordinated.

Evidence of communication becomes proof of control.

Evidence of funding becomes proof that every statement was dictated.

Evidence of influence becomes proof of total ownership.

The conclusion exceeds what the evidence can support.

Because someone could benefit from an event, they must have caused it.

Motive matters. Benefit matters.

Neither proves causation.

The absence of evidence is presented as proof of how sophisticated the cover-up must be.

Every denial confirms guilt.

Every contradiction proves coordination.

Every missing document proves it was destroyed.

An argument that cannot possibly be disproven is not an evidence-based argument.

A constant stream of shocking claims prevents you from carefully examining any single one.

Before one allegation can be checked, five more appear.

The audience remains permanently outraged but never reaches clarity.

Only people inside the movement are considered trustworthy.

Every outside source is controlled.

Every critic is corrupt.

Every fact-check is censorship.

Every contradiction is enemy propaganda.

Once a community convinces you that no outside evidence can ever be trusted, whoever controls that community controls your understanding of reality.

Look at the record of every source, including sources that are adversarial to your worldview but do not treat every publication as equally credible. Bias, timing and intentions always matter. Do not reject evidence because someone you do not like is the one presenting it. Always evaluate the underlying evidence, not the person making it. The truth does not become false because the wrong person says it and a lie does not become true because someone on your side says it. We test everything. Only God is infallible. Everything else is capable of being corrupted and thus demands proper scrutiny, intention pointed at honestly getting to the truth of the matter. Trust but always verify.

In my opinion, once you understand that information is constantly being used to manipulate you, you have a responsibility to take the extra step of checking your own beliefs.

Biblical discernment is the discipline of testing what we hear, see, and believe against the character of God and the truth as revealed in Scripture instead of accepting anything that is persuasive, popular, emotionally satisfying, or sold to us by someone we happen to trust. The Bible tells us to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), and to take every thought captive in obedience to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). Discernment doesn’t mean you are cynical, suspicious, or accusing everyone they are lying. It just means we are humble enough to recognize that we can be deceived, so we take as much time as we can allow to examine the evidence, and then we have the courage to correct ourselves when the truth does not support what we initially believed. The question is always, “Is it true, is it just, does it bear good fruit, and does it align with the character of Christ?”