Lesson Report:
# Title
**Framing Propaganda: Why Debunked Falsehoods Still Persuade**
This session moved the class from basic verification of politically charged media into a more advanced question: how propaganda works even when specific claims are false or when facts are technically true. Using Lakoff’s idea of **framing** and revisiting Van Bavel’s work on **identity and polarization**, the instructor guided students through how states and political actors build narratives using metaphor, hierarchy, and story structure. Students applied these ideas to previously analyzed media cases, especially by identifying heroes, villains, victims, and intended audiences.
—
# Attendance
– **Students explicitly marked absent:** **0**
– **Absences mentioned by name:** None
—
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening transition: from verification to political narrative analysis
– The instructor opened by reviewing the class’s recent work on **verification/OSINT-style analysis**:
– Students had already practiced taking a politically loaded piece of media,
– stripping away the political interpretation,
– and identifying what could actually be confirmed versus what remained uncertain.
– The day’s objective was framed as the **next step**:
– not only asking whether a media item is true or false,
– but asking **how information becomes weaponized**, and
– why propaganda can still function even after debunking.
– The instructor emphasized two key problems for analysts:
– Why do **falsehoods** remain persuasive after they are disproven?
– Why can **truthful information** still function as propaganda depending on how it is framed?
– Readings referenced:
– **Lakoff** / “WACOF” as the more accessible reading to understand for this lesson,
– **Miskamin** as the second reading to be finished by Wednesday.
– Instructor guidance:
– For this class, being familiar with the Lakoff/WACOF reading was enough to follow,
– but by Wednesday students were expected to have completed **both readings**.
—
## 2. Warm-up discussion: Why do debunked falsehoods remain popular?
– The instructor used a prior student case as the entry point:
– **Group 1’s example** about a **CBC/CNN-style reporter allegedly in Milan** claiming that **Ukrainian Olympic participants were being housed separately** because of their behavior.
– The class had already established that the clip was **fabricated/manipulated with AI**.
– The instructor asked students to reflect on:
– **Why do media falsehoods continue to circulate even after public debunking?**
– The question was also written in the chat at a student’s request for clarity.
### Student contributions
– **Uncertain student (“Matt” in transcript)**:
– argued that **bias** plays a major role;
– people favor information that confirms what they already believe;
– when a media item matches a person’s worldview, they trust and share it more easily and may dismiss debunking as biased.
– **Kasymova Chynara Iusubzhonovna** (likely “Shannara/Chynara” in chat):
– echoed the **confirmation bias** point in chat.
– **Uncertain student (name unclear in transcript)**:
– added that false content often spreads because it is **emotionally powerful**;
– mentioned reactions such as **outrage, fear, and hope**.
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich**:
– said he had also intended to raise the **emotional side** of why falsehoods spread.
– **Azimshoev Ofarid Asalbekovich**:
– wrote that false media remain popular because people like stories that **match what they already believe** or find **entertaining**.
– **Furmoly Floran**:
– noted that **repetition** can make things feel true.
– **Ezgo Helen**:
– argued that information is persuasive when it aligns with people’s **identity or values**.
### Instructor synthesis
– The instructor connected student responses back to **Van Bavel**:
– polarization is tied not just to facts, but to **identity**;
– people protect identity emotionally and interpret information through that identity.
– This laid the groundwork for Lakoff:
– falsehoods persist not simply because people lack facts,
– but because they process information inside preexisting **frames**.
—
## 3. Lakoff and the “Enlightenment myth”: facts alone do not persuade
– The instructor shifted to the week’s reading, describing Lakoff as working from **cognitive linguistics**.
– One unnamed student who had read the text identified it as **“Don’t Think of an Elephant”** and summarized it as a work about:
– politics,
– framing,
– and how words shape political understanding.
– The instructor introduced Lakoff’s critique of the **“Enlightenment myth”**:
– the belief that if people are simply given the facts, they will naturally reach the correct conclusion.
– Main lecture point:
– Human beings do not process words like computers.
– There is an interpretive layer between words and meaning.
– That layer is the **frame**.
– The instructor emphasized:
– facts are received through emotionally and culturally loaded interpretive structures;
– the same facts can produce very different meanings depending on the frame used.
—
## 4. Activity: The nation as a person — personification in political language
– The instructor introduced one of the most common political metaphors in international relations:
– **the nation as a person**.
– Examples provided by the instructor:
– “friendly nations”
– “rogue states”
– “a sick economy”
– The instructor explained that these expressions simplify complex institutions into a single actor:
– even though states are made up of many different people and interests,
– political language often treats them as if they were one coherent human being.
– Students were then asked to generate additional examples of language that **personifies states**.
### Student contributions
– **Yousufzai Khadija** and **Suslov Ivan**:
– were noted by the instructor as ready with answers immediately when the activity ended, though their exact examples were not audible in the transcript.
– **Ezgo Helen**:
– contributed an example in chat, though the exact wording was not clearly captured in the transcript.
– **Amery Ainullah**:
– also contributed a personification example in chat; exact wording not clearly preserved.
– **Harzu Natalia**:
– offered **“rotten West.”**
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna**:
– offered descriptions such as **“unstable”** and **“unwelcoming.”**
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna**:
– contributed **“broken system.”**
– **Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna**:
– offered **“strict father,”** which became important later because it aligns closely with Lakoff’s moral-political framing model.
### Instructor emphasis
– These terms were used to show that political language does not merely describe;
– it also **assigns character, morality, agency, and social role**.
—
## 5. Close reading activity: George W. Bush and the “permission slip” metaphor
– The instructor then introduced a concrete historical example from **George W. Bush** before the Iraq invasion:
– **“The United States does not need a permission slip to defend America.”**
– Students were asked to interpret the metaphor and identify:
– what a “permission slip” implies,
– and what roles this metaphor assigns to the U.S. and the U.N.
### Student contributions
– **Ezgo Helen**:
– observed that the phrase casts the U.S. as an **adult** that does not need to ask permission from other countries or institutions.
– **Mar Lar Seinn** (likely “Sen” in transcript):
– suggested the key term was **approval**.
– **Suslov Ivan**:
– clarified the ordinary meaning of a permission slip:
– something given to **children**, especially in school settings.
– **Furmoly Floran**:
– reinforced that this is a **school-based** context.
– **Harzu Natalia**:
– interpreted the U.N. as a **principal or teacher** and the U.S. as a **kid or teen** in the metaphor.
– **Mar Lar Seinn**:
– added that the U.S. is represented as already mature and knowing what it is doing.
– **Amery Ainullah**:
– summarized the U.S. position as that of an **already adult** actor.
– **Azimshoev Ofarid Asalbekovich**:
– reformulated the idea as:
– the U.S. does not need to ask the “teacher” for permission before protecting itself.
### Instructor analysis
– The instructor unpacked the metaphor as a full **hierarchical frame**:
– the U.N. becomes something like a **hall monitor/principal/teacher**;
– the U.S. presents itself as operating **above** that level.
– Key lesson:
– the phrase is powerful not because it gives evidence,
– but because it invokes an entire **moral and institutional hierarchy** without having to explain it explicitly.
– This served as a central example of how political language **compresses complex international relations into familiar school/family roles**.
—
## 6. Concept-building: What is a hierarchy?
– Because the analysis relied heavily on the term **hierarchy**, the instructor paused to define it.
– Students were asked what a hierarchy is and to give examples from ordinary life.
### Student contributions
– **Uncertain student labeled “L.A.M.” in transcript**:
– defined hierarchy as **ranking power**.
– **Uncertain student**:
– gave the example of **military ranks**.
– **Uncertain student**:
– gave the example **principal → teacher → student**.
– **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna**:
– gave a **family hierarchy** example:
– parents,
– older siblings,
– younger siblings.
### Instructor development
– The instructor then expanded the idea from **power hierarchy** to **moral hierarchy**:
– not just who has more authority,
– but who is framed as more **good**, more **righteous**, more **legitimate**.
– This distinction became important for the next metaphor activity.
—
## 7. Metaphor activity: identifying frames and moral hierarchies in political slogans
– Students were asked to provide examples of metaphors used by politicians, statesmen, or influencers to shape public interpretation.
### Student contributions
– **Mar Lar Seinn**:
– posted an early metaphor example before the activity time ended, though the exact wording was not preserved.
– **Suslov Ivan**:
– contributed **“Do not poke the bear.”**
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna**:
– gave **Donald Trump’s “Build the wall”** in relation to immigration.
– **Amery Ainullah**:
– gave **“Make America Great Again.”**
– **A student in chat, name unclear in transcript**:
– posted **“An iron curtain has descended across the continent”** (Churchill).
– **Ezgo Helen**:
– contributed **“Drain the swamp.”**
– Other short metaphorical phrases also appeared in chat:
– **“a bright future,”**
– **“economic miracle,”**
– **“lay a strong foundation.”**
### Instructor analysis of selected examples
#### a. “Drain the swamp”
– The instructor focused especially on **Trump’s “drain the swamp.”**
– Students were asked to identify the **moral hierarchy** it creates.
– The instructor explained that the phrase casts political corruption as something dirty, stagnant, impure, and needing cleansing.
– The frame implies:
– corrupt elites are morally low/contaminated;
– reformers are morally higher and tasked with purification.
#### b. “Do not poke the bear”
– The instructor then moved to **Ivan’s example** as one the class seemed more familiar with.
### Student contributions on “Do not poke the bear”
– **Harzu Natalia**:
– said this portrays Russia as **wild** and **powerful**.
– **Mar Lar Seinn**:
– added **dangerous**.
– **Amery Ainullah**:
– observed that the person doing the poking is **careless**.
### Instructor synthesis
– The instructor drew out the full frame behind the phrase:
– Russia is represented as a **bear**:
– wild,
– powerful,
– dangerous,
– but also potentially **docile** until provoked.
– The other actor is represented as someone foolish enough to provoke a dangerous animal.
– This creates a narrative that:
– provoking Russia is not just risky,
– but **inherently stupid, careless, and self-destructive**.
– The instructor used this as another example of how metaphor produces moral judgment without overtly stating it.
—
## 8. Return to prior OSINT media: identifying heroes, villains, and victims
– The class then moved back to the student media examples collected during previous verification exercises.
– The instructor introduced a broad narrative principle:
– almost every story contains some version of **heroes and villains**,
– and many also include **victims**.
– Students were asked to revisit their media items and identify:
– Who is the hero?
– Who is the villain?
– Are there victims?
– The instructor explicitly described propaganda as **storytelling**, not just data manipulation.
### Student contributions and case analyses
#### a. Group 1 media: fake Olympic segregation story
– **Suslov Ivan** summarized his group’s example:
– the story presented Ukrainians as being housed separately at the Olympics because of bad behavior.
– Ivan’s interpretation of the frame:
– **Ukrainians** are cast as **barbaric / badly behaved / unwelcome**.
– The supposed request by “other sportspeople” positions others as implicitly justified or orderly.
– Instructor expansion:
– this also fits a broader familiar propaganda frame:
– the **West/Europe as hypocritical**,
– or as self-destructive and unable to manage the consequences of its own political choices.
– Important analytic point from the instructor:
– even if the video itself is false, people may still accept and circulate it because the **frame feels true** to them.
#### b. U.S.–Iran example
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** (appearing as “Elahim/Elaiym” in transcript) offered a current **U.S.–Iran** case.
– She explained that the same event can be framed in opposite ways:
– one frame casts the **U.S. as hero**, liberating Iranian people from a harsh regime;
– another frame casts the **U.S. as evil/aggressor**, while Iranian leadership is treated as victim or defender.
– Instructor response:
– affirmed that the same event can invert hero/villain positions depending on the storyteller;
– referenced the moral force of labels like **“great devil”** for the United States in Iranian discourse.
#### c. China–Taiwan tensions video
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** explained her group’s case on **China–Taiwan tensions**.
– Her analysis:
– **China** is framed as the **villain/aggressor**:
– militarized,
– crossing red lines,
– applying pressure,
– threatening war.
– **Taiwan** is framed as the **victim**:
– vulnerable,
– under pressure,
– threatened.
– A possible **hero** in the media frame is the **United States / Trump**, mentioned as a figure of response or protection.
– The instructor agreed that the **visual and narrative construction** of the media item pushed China into the aggressor role.
—
## 9. Final conceptual move: target audience and why frames “feel true”
– In the final phase of the lesson, the instructor pushed students beyond identifying story roles to thinking about **audience targeting**.
– Main lecture point:
– propaganda often does **not** aim to persuade hostile audiences from scratch;
– instead, it often targets people who are **already predisposed** to accept the narrative.
– Students were asked to consider for their own media items:
1. **Who is the target audience?**
2. **Why would that audience find the frame comforting or believable, regardless of whether the specific facts are true?**
– The instructor used Group 1’s Olympic video again to explain:
– once a frame matches an audience’s worldview,
– factual debunking may not matter much,
– because viewers may feel that **“the overall point is still true.”**
### Note on transcript ending
– The transcript ends during/just after this reflection period.
– No final student responses to this last prompt were captured in the provided transcript.
—
# Student Tracker
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna**
– Contributed a personifying political phrase: **“broken system.”**
– **Amery Ainullah**
– Contributed examples during metaphor/framing activities.
– Emphasized the U.S. as an **“already adult”** actor in the Bush quote analysis.
– Likely provided **“Make America Great Again”** as a slogan example.
– Noted in the “bear” metaphor discussion that the provoking actor is **careless**.
– **Azimshoev Ofarid Asalbekovich**
– Explained that false media remain popular when they align with existing beliefs or are entertaining.
– Later summarized the Bush metaphor as the U.S. not needing to ask a “teacher” before defending itself.
– **Ezgo Helen**
– Linked propaganda acceptance to **identity and values**.
– Analyzed the Bush quote as framing the U.S. as an **adult** not needing permission.
– Participated in metaphor generation, including **“drain the swamp.”**
– **Furmoly Floran**
– Observed that **repetition** can make claims feel true.
– Helped clarify that a **permission slip** is a school-based concept.
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich**
– Supported the class discussion about the **emotional appeal** of false information.
– **Harzu Natalia**
– Contributed the phrase **“rotten West.”**
– Interpreted the Bush metaphor as casting the **U.N. as principal/teacher**.
– In the “bear” discussion, described Russia as **wild and powerful**.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna**
– Supplied **“Build the wall”** as an example of political framing.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna**
– Presented her group’s analysis of the **China–Taiwan tensions** media item.
– Identified China as villain, Taiwan as victim, and possibly the U.S./Trump as hero.
– **Kasymova Chynara Iusubzhonovna**
– Reinforced the role of **confirmation bias** in why debunked falsehoods still spread.
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna** *(probable match; transcript rendering unclear)*
– Briefly contributed **“wars”** as a common story theme during the narrative discussion.
– **Mar Lar Seinn** *(likely “Sen” in transcript)*
– Contributed to the Bush discussion by identifying the idea of **approval**.
– Suggested that the U.S. is framed as already mature/independent.
– In the “bear” discussion, described the metaphor as signaling **danger**.
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna**
– Offered a U.S.–Iran case showing how hero/villain roles change depending on the frame.
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna**
– Contributed personifying descriptors such as **“unstable”** and **“unwelcoming.”**
– **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna**
– Provided a clear example of **family hierarchy**: parents, older siblings, younger siblings.
– **Suslov Ivan**
– Explained that **permission slips** are associated with children in school.
– Contributed the metaphor **“Do not poke the bear.”**
– Presented and analyzed his group’s earlier media example about Ukrainians at the Olympics.
– **Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna**
– Contributed the phrase **“strict father,”** directly relevant to Lakoff’s framing framework.
– **Yousufzai Khadija**
– Was active in the chat during the state-personification exercise.
– **Uncertain student (“Matt” in transcript; roster match not confident)**
– Gave one of the main opening responses on **confirmation bias** and selective sharing of worldview-confirming media.
– **Uncertain student (“L.A.M.” in transcript; roster match not confident)**
– Defined hierarchy as **ranking power**.
—
# Actionable Items
## High Priority
– **Students should complete both assigned readings by Wednesday**:
– Lakoff / “WACOF”
– Miskamin
– **Students should return to their media examples** and be ready next class to discuss:
– target audience,
– heroes/villains/victims,
– and why the frame remains persuasive even if the facts are debunked.
## Medium Priority
– **Instructor may want to resume the final reflection next class**, since the transcript ends before student answers were captured.
– **Group 1’s Olympic/Ukrainian example** may be worth revisiting for the follow-up question the instructor raised:
– Did the fabricated clip continue circulating after it was debunked?
## Low Priority / Administrative
– **A few student names in the transcript are unclear** due to transcription quality (“Matt,” “L.A.M.”, “Sen”/“Seinn,” “Shannara”/“Chynara”).
– If needed for records, these could be cross-checked against the Zoom participant list or attendance log.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Complete the WACOF and Miskamin readings for Wednesday
You should finish both assigned readings, WACOF and Miskamin, before Wednesday so that you can participate fully in the next stage of the course’s discussion of propaganda, framing, and political narrative. In this lesson, you worked on moving beyond simple fact-checking and began asking how political actors turn information into persuasive stories by using frames, metaphors, and roles such as hero, villain, and victim. These readings will help you prepare to continue that analysis in class.
Instructions:
1. Complete the WACOF reading in full if you have not already done so.
2. Complete the Miskamin reading in full before Wednesday.
3. As you read WACOF, pay particular attention to the idea of framing, which the lesson defined as the layer of meaning between words and our interpretation of them.
4. Notice how the reading helps explain why people may continue to believe or share information even after it has been publicly debunked.
5. As you read, keep in mind the examples discussed in class, including:
– the false video about Ukrainian athletes being housed separately,
– Bush’s statement that the United States does not need a “permission slip,”
– metaphors such as “do not poke the bear” and “drain the swamp.”
6. While reading, identify examples of how language creates political meaning rather than simply presenting neutral facts.
7. Pay special attention to how readings connect to the class discussion of:
– identity,
– emotional appeal,
– repetition,
– personification of states,
– heroes, villains, and victims in political stories.
8. Take brief notes for yourself on the main arguments of each reading so that you can refer to them in Wednesday’s class discussion.
9. Be prepared to use the readings to analyze how propaganda works even when specific claims are false, especially when the larger frame still feels believable or comforting to a target audience.
10. Come to class on Wednesday ready to discuss both texts and apply their ideas to media examples in the same way you did in class today.