Lesson Report:
**Title & Lesson Synopsis**
**Analyzing State-Run Media Through Moral Psychology: Haidt’s Rider/Elephant and Van Bavel on Identity**
This session introduced students to their first required readings for the course (Haidt and Van Bavel) and directly applied those theories to concrete examples of state-funded media. Students brought in current-events videos from various state-run outlets, catalogued them in a shared database, and analyzed the emotional and identity-based strategies those videos used. The overarching objective was to link theories of moral/emotional cognition and group identity to practical analysis of contemporary propaganda and state communication.
—
## Attendance
– Number of absences explicitly mentioned: **0**
– One student arrived late and was welcomed; no one was explicitly marked absent in the transcript.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activities)
### 1. Opening: Check-In on First Required Readings
– Instructor noted that this was the **first session with required readings** for the course.
– Two readings assigned:
– **Jonathan Haidt** (core metaphor: rider and elephant; moral/emotional reasoning).
– **Jay Van Bavel** (short infographic/text on political identity and belonging).
– Instructor asked:
– Whether the readings were **accessible**.
– Whether students understood **why** these particular texts were assigned for this week.
– Silence was interpreted as implicit understanding; instructor moved on without a lengthy debrief at this stage, planning to return to the readings after the initial activity.
—
### 2. Homework Review: State-Run Media Video Assignment
**Homework from previous class (Monday):**
– Each student was to:
– Find **one video** from a **state-run (state-funded) media source**.
– The video must concern a **current events issue** (examples given: *war in Ukraine, Gaza genocide*, etc.).
– At the start of class, students were told to:
– **Pull up their chosen video**.
– Answer **five structured questions** about it, in a notebook or digital document (to be used later):
1. **What is the news source?** (e.g., RT, Al Jazeera, China Global, DW, etc.)
2. **Country of origin** of the media outlet.
3. **How do you know it is state-funded?**
– Instructor explicitly checked:
– “Do we all know what the term *state-funded* means?â€�
– Clarified: state-funded = receives **financing from a government**.
4. **What emotion did this video provoke in you personally?**
5. **Which emotion do you think the video was *designed* to provoke in its intended audience?**
– Instructor emphasized these may be **the same or different**.
– Students were given ~5 minutes for this quick written reflection.
– Contingency for missed homework:
– At least one student (Alihan) asked where to watch “theâ€� video.
– Instructor clarified:
– There is no single common class video; each student was supposed to find **their own** video.
– If they had not done so, they should now:
– Find a video from a **state-funded media source**.
– Make sure it is about a **current event**.
– Answer the **same five questions**.
**Purpose set up but not fully explained yet:**
– Instructor signaled that the “whyâ€� behind these questions would be unpacked later in connection with the readings, but for now wanted to start at the **simplest descriptive level**.
—
### 3. Whole-Class Sharing: Identifying State-Funded Media Sources
The instructor then transitioned from private reflection to brief oral reports, focusing on **the source**, not yet the content:
Prompt:
– Students were asked to share:
– **Which source** they chose.
– **How** they know it is **state-funded** (without going into topic yet).
**Examples discussed (with reasoning):**
1. **DW – Deutsche Welle (Germany)**
– Student: *Elaim*.
– Evidence of state funding:
– The official channel/page states explicitly that it is **funded by the state**.
– This information appears **prominently**, e.g.,:
– In the **channel description** on YouTube.
– On the official website—*not* buried in obscure documentation.
– Instructor follow-up:
– Asked whether the funding info was front-page or required digging.
– Confirmed that the transparency/visibility of that information makes DW an “easyâ€� example.
2. **Ukrinform / Ukrainian National News Agency (Ukraine)**
– Student: *Imad* (transcript auto-spells “Yuki Forumâ€�).
– Description:
– Official **national news agency of Ukraine**.
– Produces written articles, photo content, and **video reports**.
– Evidence of state funding:
– **Owned by the Ukrainian government** and operates as a **state enterprise**, not a private company.
– Main funding comes from the **state budget**, allocated through government institutions and **approved by parliament**.
– Instructor drew attention to:
– The label at the top of the site (in Ukrainian) indicating it is the **“Ukrainian National News Agencyâ€�**, a strong indicator of state ownership and funding.
3. **Voice of America – VOA (United States)**
– Student: *Floran*.
– Source:
– Official YouTube channel of **Voice of America**.
– Evidence of state funding:
– Student reported that VOA is **explicitly funded by the U.S. federal government**.
– To confirm this, student:
– Searched online (Googled) to verify that VOA is a **federally funded** broadcaster.
– Instructor emphasized:
– It is acceptable (and often necessary) to **research ownership/funding** externally (e.g., via Google, official documentation) rather than relying only on the video page.
4. **Khabar / Kyrgyz National News Agency (Kyrgyz Republic)**
– Student: *Danyak*.
– Source:
– A video from **Khabar News**, characterized as the **Kyrgyz National News Agency**.
– Evidence of state funding:
– The term **“national news agencyâ€�** implies it **belongs to the state**.
– Student inferred:
– Use of “nationalâ€� signals official, state-owned status, and therefore state funding.
– Content summary (emotional dimension preview):
– Topic: **Social housing apartments**.
– Story about a **single mother** waiting in line to receive a subsidized apartment.
– Student’s emotional response:
– **Empathy** for the mother.
– Intended emotional effect (student’s interpretation):
– **Propaganda** to portray the **current government** positively:
– Demonstrates that this government is “doing better than the previous one.â€�
– Emphasizes large budget allocations (e.g., “50% of the budgetâ€�) for social housing in multiple regions (oblasts).
– Conveys **care and effectiveness** of the current authorities.
– Instructor’s reaction:
– Noted they had **not previously known** Khabar was state-funded.
– Agreed that the label **“national news agencyâ€�** is a strong clue.
Through these examples, the instructor implicitly taught students **how to verify state funding**:
– Look for:
– Terms like “**national**â€� or “**official**.â€�
– Ownership statements (government agency, state enterprise).
– Budget references (parliament-approved, state budget line).
– Explicit disclosures on websites or channel descriptions.
– External research (Google, reputable summaries of outlet ownership).
—
### 4. Collaborative Spreadsheet: Building a Class Database of State-Run Videos
– Instructor shared a link to an **editable spreadsheet** (Excel/Google Sheets).
– Students were asked to enter data for their chosen video:
**Columns included:**
– Media **source name**.
– **Country of origin**.
– **Topic** of the video (e.g., war, economic policy, social housing, etc.).
– **Emotion felt** by the student while watching.
– **Emotion intended** (as inferred by the student).
– **Student name** (for participation credit).
– Instructions:
– Confirm they could **edit** the spreadsheet.
– Use brief but clear entries for each column.
– Time allocation:
– ~5 minutes, plus an extra minute for those still finishing.
– Instructor remarks:
– Observed that watching the spreadsheet “come to lifeâ€� as students typed was unexpectedly **enjoyable**—a light aside about getting older and finding spreadsheets fun.
– Minor technical issue:
– At some point, a student’s name got deleted; instructor said they could just **re-enter** it if needed.
This activity established a **structured, shared dataset** that the class would continue to use as a basis for analysis during this and future sessions.
—
### 5. Transition to Readings: Why This Exercise Matters
– Instructor explicitly connected the spreadsheet/database to the **day’s core theoretical content**:
– The purpose was not only to catalog “how I feel while watching the news,â€� but to prepare to examine **how emotional and identity-based appeals** function within state media.
– The two readings were reintroduced as the theoretical lens:
– **Haidt**: rider and elephant (moral psychology of reasoning vs emotion).
– **Van Bavel**: group identity, partisanship, and belonging in political beliefs.
—
### 6. Haidt’s Rider and Elephant: Moral Psychology of Reason and Emotion
**Objective:** Clarify and deepen understanding of Haidt’s central metaphor and its implications for political/media judgment.
Prompt:
– Instructor: What do the **rider** and the **elephant** represent in Haidt’s metaphor?
Student contributions (with instructor synthesis):
– One student (Nasbiki / Aigulot, names vary in transcript) recalled:
– Initially mixed terms (intuition/emotion vs cognition), but key idea:
– When we encounter new information:
– Our **initial response** is **intuitive/emotional**, **not** based on a careful fact-based analysis.
– When asked later to explain our view, we search for **reasons** to justify that initial intuitive judgment.
– Another student (Ivan) added:
– Haidt treats **intuition and emotion as part of cognition**, not opposed to it.
– The **rider** represents the **rational, reasoning** part.
– The **elephant** represents the **larger, less controllable, emotional/automatic** part.
– Traditional idea: the rational mind is “supposedâ€� to control the irrational; Haidt shows the relationship is more complex and often reversed.
– Instructor clarification:
– Simplified the metaphor:
– **Rider**:
– The **logical, rational** side of the mind.
– Associated with **explicit reasoning**, arguments, justifications.
– **Elephant**:
– The **emotional, intuitive** side.
– Driven by **feelings, moral intuitions, gut reactions**.
– Key process:
– We **react emotionally first** (elephant moves).
– The **rider** comes **after**, constructing **justifications** for what the elephant already decided.
– Our brains seldom start from neutral facts and reason purely forward to beliefs; instead we start with **what we feel** and then look for reasons to **rationalize** that feeling.
– Thus, the **primary role of the rider** is:
– Not to **discover objective truth** about the world.
– But to **justify and rationalize** our **pre-existing emotional reactions**.
This explains why people can be **highly resistant to counterevidence** in political contexts: the rational part is serving the emotional/intuitive commitments, not vice versa.
—
### 7. Van Bavel on Identity and Belonging in Political Beliefs
**Objective:** Connect emotional cognition to **group identity** and partisan belonging.
Prompt:
– Instructor: What is the **main point** Van Bavel is making in the infographic about politics and identity?
Student contributions (paraphrased/synthesized):
– Students highlighted:
– **Belonging to a community** (party, group, “teamâ€�) is a core driver of political beliefs.
– Example used: **political parties as akin to sports clubs**:
– People feel they are part of a team.
– They feel **“we are always rightâ€�** simply by virtue of belonging.
– Attempting to change someone’s political view **with arguments alone** is often ineffective:
– Because the belief is tied not primarily to facts, but to **identity and belonging**.
– Instructor synthesis:
– Van Bavel shows that:
– People are drawn to political groups because they offer **identity, community, and a sense of belonging**.
– Once part of a group, individuals often **accept information that favors their group** and **discount information that harms it**, regardless of strict factual accuracy.
– It’s **not necessary** that the messages be **false**; the crucial point is that **truth is not the main driver** of belief and alignment.
– One of the **strongest human emotions** is this sense of **belonging**.
– Political messages that effectively appeal to **identity (“weâ€� vs “theyâ€�)** are especially powerful.
– Effective political communications and propaganda:
– Emphasize **who we are** (in-group) versus **who they are** (out-group).
– Offer a **secure sense of belonging and moral rightness** to those who align.
—
### 8. Synthesizing Haidt & Van Bavel: Emotions, Belonging, and State Propaganda
The instructor then connected the readings back to the spreadsheet and the state-run videos:
– **Haidt’s contribution**:
– Our **political commitments and interpretations of news** are governed primarily by the **elephant** (emotion, moral intuition).
– The **rider** then works to defend and justify those commitments.
– **Van Bavel’s contribution**:
– A central emotional driver is **group belonging/identity**.
– Politics is less about **factual propositions** and more about **who we are** and **which group we feel part of**.
– Applied to the class dataset:
– The spreadsheet now represents a **collection of state-run media attempts** to:
– “Give their side of the story,â€�
– Address a **specific audience**,
– **Evoking particular emotions** and **reinforcing particular identities**.
– State-run outlets often produce communication that is **identity-based propaganda**:
– Messages that:
– Appeal directly to the **elephant**.
– Draw strong lines between **“usâ€� and “them.â€�**
– Emphasize a narrative that enhances **in-group pride** and **trust in the state**, or **hostility/fear** toward out-groups.
—
### 9. Preparing for Breakout Rooms: Analyzing Emotional Techniques in the Videos
**Next analytical step:**
– Students were instructed to **revisit their chosen video** and:
– Think concretely about **how** the video builds the **intended emotion** they had identified earlier.
Specific analytical prompt:
– Identify **specific elements** in the video that attempt to provoke the intended emotion:
– **Visuals**:
– e.g., close-ups of **crying children**, suffering civilians, heroic soldiers, triumphant crowds, symbolic flags, etc.
– **Audio**:
– Music (somber, triumphant, suspenseful),
– Tone of the narrator,
– Selected quotes or slogans.
– **Narration and framing**:
– What does the **voiceover** say?
– What **language choices** are used (e.g., “brave defendersâ€� vs “terrorists,â€� “our peopleâ€� vs “the enemyâ€�)?
– Instructor suggested they could think of moments such as:
– A camera pan across **distressed faces** while a narrator emphasizes injustice or suffering.
– Students were given ~2 minutes to:
– Note these **specific cues**.
– Prepare to explain them to peers.
—
### 10. Breakout Room Activity: Selecting the Strongest Example of Identity-Based Propaganda
**Breakout instructions:**
– Students were placed into **small groups (breakout rooms)** with the following tasks:
1. **Share a short clip**:
– Each student should share a **30-second to 1-minute** clip from their video.
– The clip should show the moment where the **intended emotion** is **strongest**—the “emotional coreâ€� of the piece.
2. **Group selection task**:
– As a group, they must decide:
– **Which one video** in their group is the **most effective example of identity-based propaganda**.
– Criteria provided:
– Which video speaks **most strongly to the elephant** of the viewer?
– Which draws the **clearest, strongest “us vs themâ€� boundary**?
– Which best illustrates the **integration of Haidt’s and Van Bavel’s ideas**:
– Emotions first, rationalizations later.
– Strong appeal to **group belonging** and identity.
3. **Prepare a rationale**:
– When they return to the main room, each group should be ready to explain:
– **Which video** they chose.
– **Why** it represents the best example of identity-based propaganda (drawing on the readings and concrete video cues).
– Time allocation:
– Initial 5 minutes, with the instructor indicating a willingness to add another 5 minutes if needed.
– Instructor reminded students to:
– Introduce themselves in the groups.
– Ensure everyone knows each other.
– Then proceed quickly to clip sharing and discussion.
*(Note: The transcript cuts off while breakout rooms are ongoing; main-room debrief is not included.)*
—
## Actionable Items
### High Priority (Next Class)
– **Debrief breakout activity**
– Have each group:
– Present the **video they selected** as the strongest example of identity-based propaganda.
– Explain **which emotional cues** and **identity appeals** led to that choice.
– Explicitly connect their reasoning to **Haidt’s rider/elephant** and **Van Bavel’s identity/belonging**.
– **Use the spreadsheet as an analytical tool**
– Revisit the shared database in class to:
– Identify patterns in:
– **Countries of origin**,
– **Topics**,
– **Emotions felt vs intended**.
– Possibly code/categorize entries:
– Positive vs negative emotions,
– In-group favoritism vs out-group hostility,
– Types of identity appealed to (national, religious, ethnic, ideological, etc.).
### Medium Priority
– **Confirm participation completeness**
– Verify that:
– Students who did not initially complete the homework (e.g., Alihan) have now:
– Chosen a video,
– Entered details into the spreadsheet.
– Cross-check for:
– Missing names or incomplete rows in the sheet.
– **Reinforce methods for identifying state-funded media**
– In a short follow-up segment:
– Demonstrate live how to:
– Check an outlet’s **“Aboutâ€�** page or YouTube description.
– Look up **ownership and funding** via Google/Wikipedia/official sites.
– Clarify difference between **state-funded**, **state-owned**, and **state-controlled**, if relevant to course goals.
### Lower Priority / Ongoing
– **Stabilize the shared spreadsheet structure**
– Consider:
– Locking header and name columns or reminding students not to overwrite others’ entries.
– Downloading a backup copy after class for your own records.
– **Future linkages to course content**
– Plan a later session where:
– Students revisit their same video entries after additional readings (e.g., framing, agenda-setting, disinformation).
– They compare their **initial emotional impressions** with **more systematic analytical frameworks** introduced later in the course.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
All references to “homework” in the transcript describe an assignment given in the previous class and completed during this session (e.g., “we ended class on Monday with a brief assignment. That assignment was I wanted you guys to find one piece, one video…â€� and “For homework, you are supposed to find one video… now is the time to get it doneâ€�), and no new out-of-class work or future-oriented homework tasks are assigned in this lesson.