Propaganda: Double Standards

I discovered "double standards" when I was about 10 years old. I used to watch Hockey Night in Canada with my father, who was French Canadian and a devoted if not maniacal fan of the Montreal Canadiens. Since I was learning about the game, and my father was obviously upset about some of the penalties, we discussed what exactly had the ref missed, or what had he seen that had never actually happened? I tried to understand at first, but occasionally I would notice that a Montreal player had done exactly the same thing in my mind as previously done by a Detroit Red Wing player, but my father was not calling out a lynch mob. He would explain that it was not the same, but as the season wore on and I noticed an extreme statistical skewing to his observations on the ref's sanity, I was faced with only two explanations. Either the Montreal Canadiens were appointed by the creator to be the teachers of sportsmanship to the entire NHL, or my father had two sets of rules, one applying to the Canadien's, the other to apply to all others.

I did actually like and admire my father, although typical of teenagers, later on I did get somewhat embarrassed at my father's behaviour during hockey games. Recently, a high school friend (and quite sports fan himself) put it in perspective for me. He said "Your father was a great Canadiens' fan". I was surprised by his comment, as my mother never invited people over on hockey night for fear of their safety. But he reminded me that one day we were giving him a ride home from University, about a ten hour trip. It was during the Stanley Cup finals, Montreal was in it, and despite my father's attempts to break the land speed record we were still five hours from home when the game was about to begin. He pulled into a motel and got us a room with a TV for the night in time for the face off.

Back to the original point - lessons about double standards. Applying different rules to each side, without realizing it. Propaganda takes advantage of people's tendencies to accept double standards. It's very common for propagandists to advance ideas that would be untenable if people did not have the mental agility to maintain a double standard through thick and thin.

A seemingly simple test to see if you are applying a double standard to anything - and you probably do if you're normal - is the test called "Putting the shoe on the other foot". Then see how much rationalizing you need to do to uphold the same decision once the teams are switched.

This is really only for people who see themselves as attempting to be fair and even-handed. Not so much for people who are totally committed to one side against the other, like my Father was in hockey. I can respect people who try to even handed, or I can people who are one sided and know it, but I think if you try to have it both ways, it becomes a delusion.

Here is an example of the shoe on the other foot test. Some people call those who kill US troops in Iraq "terrorists". If Iraq had invaded the USA, and some Americans killed Iraqi troops, what would they be called? If you apply the same standard, obviously they would be called terrorists. If you don't apply the same standard, then what are your justifications for this attitude? Eventually the justifications, which are mostly attacks on the character and morality of Iraqis, reduce down to one argument - that Americans are the 'good guys' no matter what the situation. So I will accept that some people try to support their side, and some try to be even handed. But when people genuinely believe (not just posturing) that they are "fair and balanced" while maintaining a double standard, they are deluded.