Resisting Manipulation: Lessons From Political Marketing

Have you ever wondered how much control you truly have over the information you consume daily? It may seem that the news you watch, the social media posts you scroll through, and the advertisements you see are coincidental. But what if I told you that much of what we encounter is part of a carefully orchestrated effort to shape how we think, feel, and behave? Welcome to the world of strategic communication and political marketing.

Walking the Thin Line

The line between public relations, marketing, and propaganda is thinner than most realize. Propaganda is not something confined to history books or totalitarian regimes. It is alive and well in our everyday lives, albeit in more subtle forms.

Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of the first to employ psychological insights in the art of persuasion, which famously earned him the title of “father of public relations.” His campaigns, such as linking cigarettes to women’s liberation in the 1920s, or making owning a piano into a status symbol by associating it with having a music room, didn’t just sell products but influenced cultural norms, subtly creating desire. In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays argued that strategic communication is an essential building block of democratic societies, writing “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of”.

Today, the media continues to wield immense power in shaping perceptions. As Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explain in their classic book Manufacturing Consent, the media often serves the interests of powerful elites, dictating what stories are told and how, swaying public opinion, and influencing how we feel about social and political issues. Stories can be exaggerated or downplayed based on corporate interests, political affiliations, and advertising budgets. Language itself plays a crucial role in shaping our views. Carefully crafted media messaging can alter how we perceive a brand, a politician, or even a national event.

So how can we navigate these subtle influences to reclaim control over our own beliefs and attitudes?

Logos, Ethos, and Pathos

Aristotle outlined three modes of persuasion—logos (logic), ethos (character), and pathos (emotion)—which remain foundational in today’s strategic communication efforts. Logical appeals (logos) attempt to convince through reason and facts, often seen in scientific or policy arguments. Credibility-based appeals rely on the speaker’s character (ethos) or expertise to make the message more trustworthy. Emotional appeals (pathos), meanwhile, play on our feelings, from fear and anger to hope and pride.

In political marketing, these appeals are frequently combined. A political leader might present logical arguments for policy (logos) while highlighting their experience and integrity (ethos) and invoking fear or hope in the electorate (pathos). Campaigns during elections often blend data with emotionally charged imagery or language to sway voters. An example would be a campaign that presents data on climate-related natural disasters (logos), while portraying the candidate as a leader in environmental protection (ethos), and invoking concern by suggesting that without action, future generations will face increasingly severe environmental crises (pathos).

Recognizing and Resisting Manipulation

Recognizing manipulation can be easier than you think. Many strategic communication techniques are deceptively simple yet highly effective, as propaganda exploits psychological principles to control public opinion. It taps into cognitive dissonance, the discomfort of holding conflicting ideas, often resolved through simple narratives. For example, political communication frequently simplifies complex issues into a binary "us vs. them," making it easier for the public to adopt a specific viewpoint.

One common technique is the bandwagon effect where people are encouraged to join in because "everyone else is doing it." Political campaigns love to use this by saying things like, "Join the millions of people who support this candidate!" This technique relies on social proof, where people follow the actions or beliefs of a larger group, amplifying its effects.

Another technique called cherry-picking involves presenting selective evidence to make an argument, while contradictory data is conveniently ignored. You may have seen this in advertisements where a company touts the benefits of a product while leaving out any potential risks or downsides.

When engaging with opponents on a rational level is risky and the advantage is unsure, it becomes very tempting to resort to ad hominem attacks – a classic logical fallacy which focuses on discrediting a person rather than their argument. Instead of debating policy, a politician might attack an opponent’s character, distracting the audience from the real issues. Other tactics frequently used in political campaigns and advertising include repetition and general statements, where vague concepts and slogans involving loaded words like hope, joy, change, or greatness are repeated endlessly, embedding themselves in our minds.

On a quest to divide and conquer, persuasion actors may resort to techniques of name calling and dehumanization to portray opponents as less than human, such as, for instance, calling their political opponents “bots”, “trolls”, “zombies” or other derogatory terms denying agency and subjectivity to those who hold alternative views. And in situations of crisis, when speaking frankly can damage the speaker's image and reputation, there is always euphemization, where softer language is used to mask harsh realities—terms like "collateral damage" for civilian casualties or "downsizing" for mass layoffs.

Consumer Behavior Essential Reads

What Other People May Think of You When You Buy Fast Fashion

How We Learned to Buy Our Feelings

Anyway, don't despair — if you know how these techniques work, you have the tools to resist them. Recognizing manipulation is half the battle, and the key to success is maintaining a critical and independent mindset by questioning the narratives you encounter.

Practicing Information Hygiene

So how do we become more resilient to manipulation? In a world where strategic messaging is everywhere, information hygiene is more than just avoiding misinformation—it involves actively questioning the information we consume, verifying its sources, and analyzing the motives behind it.

Start by asking: Who benefits from this message? What are the communication objectives behind it? Be sure to compare different sources of information to avoid being trapped in echo chambers. And always, always check for bias — no matter the source, do your best to distinguish between facts and opinions and always evaluate the evidence provided in support of claims.

It is also vital to pay attention to the language used. Be on the lookout for loaded terms, euphemisms, and vague expressions that attempt to manipulate your emotions. Understand the context behind the message — often, knowing the broader circumstances can reveal hidden motives or alternative perspectives. For example, a study funded by a dairy company promoting the health benefits of milk may contrast with a similar rigorous study funded by an oat milk company claiming the opposite.

First and foremost, don’t let divisive rhetoric lead to further polarization. Even when faced with conflicting viewpoints, it is our everyday quest to recognize the humanity in others — behind every opinion is a person with a unique set of experiences and values, just like us.

Bridging Divides: Logos Over Pathos

In the world of constant information noise, it is way too easy to get swept up by emotional appeals (pathos) and lose sight of rational, logical thinking (logos). While emotion is an important part of human communication, let's be careful not to let it cloud our judgment. Practicing good information hygiene means holding onto logic and reason, even when faced with emotionally charged messages.

Imagine a world where we all engage critically with the information we consume, questioning narratives, seeking out original sources, and comparing different viewpoints. This sounds like a utopic fantasy, but why don't we fantasize about taking back our power to shape our own beliefs and make informed decisions, resisting divisive manipulation, and being more open to respectful dialogue?