Published 7 October 2026. A guide to recognising manipulation, with historical context and a documented modern case.
A frightened society can become a society looking for someone to blame. When a tragedy, a war or an economic crisis leaves people desperate for answers, a simple story can feel more reassuring than a complicated truth: there is an enemy, the enemy explains everything, and only one leader or movement can save us.
That is why propaganda belongs among the questions this site examines. The danger is not merely that people believe a false headline. It is that repeated messages can narrow the space for doubt, turn neighbours into threats and make cruelty seem like a necessary defence.
What do we mean by propaganda?
Here, propaganda means organised communication designed to shape attitudes and behaviour in the service of a cause or power. It may contain outright lies, but it can also use accurate facts selectively, omit inconvenient context or attach a misleading interpretation to a genuine photograph. Calling something propaganda should begin an examination of how it works, rather than end a debate.
Misinformation and disinformation are related but distinct. In ordinary usage, misinformation is false or misleading information shared without necessarily intending deception; disinformation involves deliberate deception. Intent can be difficult to establish, so it should not be assumed from an incorrect post alone. UNESCO’s media-literacy curriculum distinguishes fabricated material, misleading content, false context and manipulated content, and stresses that hateful content and false content are not identical.
Persuasion is a normal part of politics, campaigning and public debate. The useful question is whether a message lets us examine evidence and alternatives, or attempts to make scrutiny itself feel disloyal.
Scapegoating: making one group explain everything
Scapegoating replaces a difficult explanation with a convenient target. Housing shortages, insecurity and strained services have multiple causes. A manipulative account can select one group and treat its existence as the explanation for every problem.
Watch for the jump from a specific allegation to collective guilt. Evidence that one person committed a crime does not establish that everyone sharing that person’s religion, nationality or ancestry is dangerous. Criticising a government, policy or organisation is different from assigning blame to an entire population.
Dehumanising language intensifies that jump. Describing people as an infestation or a contaminant changes the emotional meaning of harming them. It encourages an audience to see a supposed problem to remove rather than human beings whose actions must be judged individually.
The historical warning
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum documents how the Nazi regime coordinated propaganda through a ministry established in 1933 under Joseph Goebbels. Film, radio, newspapers and education carried its messages. Antisemitic campaigns helped create acceptance of persecution and indifference to Jewish suffering; portraying the regime as restoring order helped normalise its measures.
This history is a warning about mechanisms and consequences. It does not justify treating every contemporary argument, politician or hostile remark as equivalent to Nazi rule. Responsible comparison identifies what is similar, what is different and what the evidence actually supports.
A modern case: the false story after Southport
After three children were murdered in Southport on 29 July 2024, false claims circulated that the suspect was an asylum seeker who had arrived by boat, accompanied by an invented name. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee’s account records that police had said he was born in Cardiff, and subsequently confirmed that the circulating identity was false. Disorder occurred outside Southport Mosque on 30 July.
The same report cautions that the precise extent to which misinformation drove the disorder was difficult to establish. It would be wrong to reduce every participant’s motives, or every event, to one post. The documented lesson remains serious: an unverified story assigned a shocking crime to a wider group before the facts were established.
For readers today, the question is what happens in the first hours of the next tragedy. Absence of confirmed information is a reason to wait, not permission to invent an identity or infer collective guilt.
Why the online environment matters
The Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s report on harmful algorithms found that misleading and hateful messages after Southport were amplified by recommendation systems. It criticised advertising models that reward engaging content without sufficient regard to its authenticity or safety, while also recognising the value of social media in giving people a public voice.
A popular post is evidence that a message attracted attention, not that it is true. Ten accounts repeating one unsupported assertion are not ten independent witnesses. A screenshot of a screenshot can conceal where a claim began, while an authentic video from another place or year can make a false caption seem convincing.
AI-generated images and audio add another reason to seek original context. Visual polish cannot establish authenticity. Equally, declaring inconvenient evidence to be AI-generated without grounds can itself become a way to evade scrutiny.
Recognise the invitation to stop thinking
Several warning signs deserve a pause: an unnamed source claiming secret knowledge; pressure to share before checking; an insistence that only enemies ask questions; a choice between total loyalty and betrayal; or a claim protected from every possible contradiction by declaring all contrary evidence part of the conspiracy.
None of these signs alone proves a claim false. Urgent warnings can be justified, and institutions can make mistakes. Their value is as prompts to examine evidence rather than as a substitute for doing so.
An invented example: “This proves they are destroying our country. Share it before it disappears.” Before reacting, ask who “they” are, what the material actually proves, whether it is complete, and why sharing must happen before verification. The message supplies a conclusion and a deadline while leaving the evidence unclear.
Six questions before you share
1. What is the exact claim? Separate what happened from what the writer says it means. A photograph and its caption make different claims.
2. Where did it originate? Look for the original statement, document, recording or dataset. A familiar account may be repeating somebody else’s mistake.
3. Is the context intact? Check the date, location, full quotation and surrounding footage. Ask whether an old incident is being presented as new.
4. Is there independent confirmation? Compare sources that actually investigated the claim. Several sites copying the same item do not add independent support.
5. What is missing? Look for relevant comparisons, uncertainty and evidence that challenges the story. Apply this especially when the message agrees with your own views.
6. What would change my mind? If no possible evidence could alter the conclusion, the conversation has moved away from an evidence-based claim. It is reasonable to say that you do not yet know.
What we can teach our children
We can practise these habits without making children fearful of everything they see. Ask a young person to explain why a video seems convincing, then explore its source together. Correct a mistaken claim without humiliating the person who shared it. Show that admitting uncertainty and correcting ourselves are strengths.
Adults should model the same discipline. We cannot ask the next generation to resist manipulation while rewarding our own side for using it. Protecting people from hatred and protecting open debate both depend on making room for evidence, disagreement and human dignity.
What to read next
Continue with Racism, Fascism and the World Our Children Will Inherit, or examine an ancient story of political legitimacy in The Prophecy of Neferty: Story and Critique. For a broader reading path, visit Start Here.
Sources and scope
The linked sources are a museum’s historical account, UNESCO educational guidance and two parliamentary inquiries. Committee findings and recommendations are attributed to those committees; they do not establish a precise causal explanation for every person’s behaviour. The practical questions and interpretations above are this article’s synthesis. The Southport case concerns events in 2024 examined in subsequent reports, rather than a new incident in October 2026.