Recently, Reddit user amc_visions asked about beliefs people have that they later realized were propaganda, and there were a ton of great replies that genuinely made me question everything I’ve ever learned. Here are a few that might blow your mind…and make you believe corporations are responsible for at least half of the world’s evils.
1.
Picture this: You’re getting ready to propose to the love of your life. You’ve got the perfect ring. Close your eyes and see it in your mind; then tell me, what does it look like? I’d bet you $100 it has at least one diamond.
This wasn’t the case 100 years ago. Sure, some very wealthy people may have given their lovers diamonds, but it wasn’t widespread. That all changed when De Beers came along and essentially created a diamond cartel after the discovery of massive diamond mines in South Africa, which was then a British colony. They gained a massive supply, then controlled it so the price wouldn’t fall, all while increasing demand. How did they do that? Through a coordinated effort to convince the world that diamonds were necessary to prove your love, especially via engagement rings.
They did this in a few ways: 1) They had movie stars start wearing and gushing about diamond rings. 2) Fashion designers would speak about the “trend toward diamonds” on the radio. 3) Lecturers would visit high schools to stress the importance of the diamond. (I know, WTF, right? Can you imagine a school assembly to talk about diamonds?) And most importantly, 4) they created the famous slogan De Beers still uses today: A diamond is forever. It worked. Diamond sales skyrocketed, and today, a diamond is still seen as integral to a proposal. We also still believe diamonds are rare, indestructible, and that lab-made diamonds are somehow less romantic.
2.
If you’re Gen X or a boomer, you might remember the infamous McDonald’s coffee lawsuit from 1994, where a woman sued the fast-food joint over spilled coffee. Hell, I’m a younger millennial (born in 1995) and I even remember hearing about this years after the fact. I remember thinking it was ridiculous that a woman could sue over spilling coffee on herself when she spilled it. Why might I believe that? Could it be…propaganda?
Let’s look at the facts: 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was sitting as a passenger in a parked car (not driving, like some believe) when she took off the lid of her coffee to put in cream and sugar. The coffee tipped over, and the whole thing spilled onto her lap. Her third-degree burns — covering 16% of her body — were so severe that she had to get skin grafts, as some of the skin was burned away to muscle and fat. She was in the hospital for eight days, and her full recovery took years, though she dealt with chronic pain for the rest of her life.
You probably heard Liebeck got $3 million and was out for blood. Here’s the truth: Liebeck only asked McDonald’s for $15,000 to $20,000, which, considering her medical bills and lost income, was more than fair. She also wanted them to make the coffee less hot so others wouldn’t suffer. McDonald’s countered with $800, which is why the case went to court. The $3 million you hear about was a combination of $160,000 awarded to Liebeck for compensatory damages (reduced from $200k as they found Liebeck partially to blame) and $2.7 million in punitive damages. However, the judge reduced it by 80%, and Liebeck and McDonald’s settled for an undisclosed amount that was reportedly under $500k.
Does this still feel excessive? Consider this: 700 people previously reported burns from McDonald’s coffee, which was served at somewhere between 180–190 degrees, 30–40 degrees hotter than coffee from other chains. Coffee at this temperature can cause third-degree burns in three to seven seconds. Some of these people were children, and some received third-degree burns. McDonald’s had already paid out settlements and was clearly aware of the issue, yet they did not change their policy or add any kind of warning (except the regular “contents hot”). They decided it was the cost of doing business, and made so much money selling coffee that they decided these 700 cases were negligible. Don’t forget, a jury of regular people decided on this $2.7 million after seeing photos of Liebeck’s injuries, which were reportedly gruesome.
So why did this myth of a “frivolous lawsuit” persist? McDonald’s ran a coordinated smear campaign through press releases and statements to the media, who conveniently left out some of the truths of the case and helped paint it as frivolous, even mocking Liebeck. Lawmakers took advantage of public perception and perpetuated the myth because they wanted to push their own agenda of limiting consumer rights and advocating tort reform.
3.
I grew up occasionally hearing “the dingo ate my baby!” in a cartoonish Australian accent. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve said it myself without even knowing the real story behind it. Those who do know the story vaguely might still believe the comment is silly, as obviously, a dingo couldn’t have eaten a woman’s baby. Except…it did. Here’s the story behind the quote: In 1980, Lindy Chamberlain was camping with her family when she heard her 9-week-old daughter, Azaria, cry. She then saw a dingo exiting the tent, and ran inside to find Azaria gone.
Bloody clothes were located nearby, but no trace of her body was found. The coroner concluded that a dingo had, in fact, eaten Azaria. But it didn’t matter: Gossip and speculation had already taken hold of the story around the world. This only worsened when another inquest cast the original findings into doubt and led to Chamberlain being tried for murder (and her husband as an accessory). The trial became a media circus and continued to make a joke out of the case; T-shirts were sold outside the courthouse.
Evidence against the Chamberlains was shaky, yet the couple was found guilty, and Lindy was sentenced to life in prison. A few years later, new evidence led to Lindy being released from prison and the convictions overturned, but Lindy and her husband would not fully find justice until 2012, when a fourth inquest finally stated decisively that a dingo had killed Azaria. Still, the phrase (popularized by the 1988 film A Cry in the Dark starring Meryl Streep*) endured, as has the belief that Lindy had something to do with Azaria’s death.
4.
Did your mom ever tell you to eat carrots to improve your night vision? ‘Cause that’s totally false! In fact, the idea was actively invented by the British government to spread misinformation that would hide the existence of their radar systems during World War II.
Okay, fine, technically it can improve vision if you have a deficiency in Vitamin A, which you can get from carrots. But the idea that it would improve night vision in a healthy person comes from when the Nazis were bombing Britain in the early ’40s. The British government instituted blackouts so Nazi planes would have difficulty hitting where they wanted to. Meanwhile, they had created a new radar technology that could detect the planes early so that British pilots could shoot them down, even in the darkness. When this technology found success, the government reportedly told the media that their pilots ate carrots that improved their night vision. At least, that’s one version of the story.
It’s possible the British did not aim to trick the Nazis, but they still perpetuated this myth in propaganda posters referencing the blackouts. This was also part of a larger effort to have people grow their own food in a time of serious shortages, but the fact remains that the British specifically referenced vision and specifically focused on carrots. The vision myth persists today.
5.
Some more historical propaganda? Napoleon wasn’t “cartoonishly short”; he was of average height for his time (a bit over 5’5″). The idea that he was short came most likely from British cartoonist James Gillray, who drew him that way, and other cartoonists who followed…doing so mostly, it seems, because Napoleon hated it. Napoleon would later say Gillray “did more than all the armies of Europe to bring me down.”
6.
Remember the food pyramid from when you were growing up? It was introduced by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) in 1992 and lasted until 2005, so if you’re a millennial, you’re probably familiar with it. In case you’re not, the pyramid showed different categories of food, with the foods you should eat the most of on the bottom (like carbohydrates) and the foods you should eat the least of (like fat) on top. Looking back at it now, the suggestions are kind of wild. A whole category for milk and dairy products? Six to ELEVEN servings of carbs? And what’s so bad about naturally occurring fats? Turns out this was heavily influenced by food lobbyists.
The then-director of the USDA even admitted this, stating that the pyramid and wording were changed “to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods” and “to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.” Those six to eleven servings of carbs? This was “to make the wheat growers happy.” And, “The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline, which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify ‘bad’ fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.”
The pyramid was replaced in 2005 (with another problematic “pyramid,” which was replaced in 2011), but the beliefs from the original pyramid persist…and may have contributed to obesity in the US.
7.
Similarly, if you’re a millennial, you probably remember the “got milk” campaign from your childhood. This — along with the idea that milk is necessary for strong bones — was propaganda to sell more milk due to falling milk consumption rates. Food lobbyists have literally given millions to Congress to try to push the importance of milk, which the USDA still recommends three servings of a day. This is completely unnecessary, as many Americans are lactose intolerant, and you can get the same nutrients you get from milk from other foods.
In fact, the source of the myths about milk has its roots in war efforts and rationing, just like carrots. This helped grow a billion-dollar dairy industry that is still fighting to sustain itself today in the era of alternative milks.
8.
One more food one: MSG is not bad for you. The myth has its roots in the ’60s, when a doctor claimed Chinese food had caused him pain and other adverse reactions, and others quickly jumped in to corroborate. Research seemed to confirm people’s poor reactions to MSG, but the research was flawed and involved people who knew they were consuming MSG; further research has shown no negative reactions when people didn’t know they were consuming it. This myth likely subsisted because of xenophobic attitudes toward Asian people and the idea that Asian foods were dirty. The FDA states that MSG is “generally recognized as safe.” A very small fraction of people may have a reaction to glutamate, which occurs naturally in many foods and is only one component of MSG.
9.
Ever gotten a ticket for jaywalking? Well, I’ve got someone for you to blame: the auto industry. As cars became widespread, the streets stopped being public spaces shared by pedestrians, vendors, and those “driving” in horse-drawn vehicles. There were very few crosswalks. And then the car came along, resulting in a bunch of pedestrian deaths: usually older adults and children. The public was enraged, especially as cars were seen as luxuries and not practical necessities. The media painted cars as horrible and violent and blamed drivers for the deaths. The people of Cincinnati helped introduce a measure to limit cars to 25 miles per hour, causing auto dealers to push back with their own propaganda.
Their pro-car advertisements and mobilization of car owners worked. Inspired by their success, the auto industry pushed to redefine the way we see streets, introducing laws against jaywalking. However, this wasn’t enough — many people just ignored the laws. To change this, the auto industry launched an extensive campaign against pedestrians. One auto group provided free article write-ups to newspapers if they sent them details of an accident; these write-ups blamed pedestrians. AAA instituted school traffic safety operations to reinforce the responsibility of pedestrians. Lobbyists pushed police to loudly shame jaywalkers, and hired clowns to jaywalk to make jaywalkers seem dumb. Even the word was propaganda: “Jay” referred to what was essentially a hillbilly who didn’t understand how to act in a city. Today, it’s still the official term.
10.
The auto industry is responsible for more than just jaywalking fines. They are also a huge reason that cities have become less walkable. As previously stated, streets used to be for everyone. People could socialize and play, and yes, walk to their destinations easily. But as car use grew, so did pedestrian deaths, putting pressure on the auto industry to change. The auto industry, unsurprisingly, had a vested interest in having fewer regulations on cars, not more. I’ve already discussed the shift of streets from belonging to pedestrians to belonging to cars. Another way this was done was through the fundamental redesign of cities.
They lobbied the government to put money into roads and to let cars in streetcar lanes. This slowed down the then-popular public transit option and made it less reliable. Members of the auto industry then bought streetcar companies when they began to operate at a loss and eventually discontinued their use. Then, at the 1939 World’s Fair, General Motors sponsored an exhibit called Futurama, which presented a vision of the modern city, centered entirely around cars — this was pure propaganda.
This vision was ultimately implemented when President Eisenhower created interstate highways to connect cities, leading to large-scale changes in what cities looked like and contributing to the growth of suburbs (don’t even get me started on white flight and what these highways did to BIPOC communities). This change fed into itself: As more people relied on cars, infrastructure and traffic laws changed to support drivers, leading more to rely on cars, etc. And here we are today, with most places in the US requiring cars to get around — even in major cities.
11.
Climate change is a serious concern, and we all have to do our part to reduce our carbon footprint. Right? Sure, massive corporations and billionaires will continue to use private jets, but if enough people just bike to work, we can save the planet! (Can you sense my sarcasm?) Let’s fact-check this. In the early 2000s, BP hired an advertising firm to shift the blame for climate change from oil companies to consumers. They literally invented the idea of the personal carbon footprint, publishing a “carbon footprint calendar” so people could calculate their own impact.
This worked. Today, we still struggle to pass legislation to fight climate change, and studies have suggested that the idea of the personal carbon footprint has actually been counterintuitive to getting laws passed. We need massive new regulations on oil companies and other polluters if we actually want to halt climate change.
12.
Oil companies — along with other plastic makers — have also convinced us that recycling plastic would help save the planet. It’s expensive to actually recycle and reuse plastic — more expensive than producing the plastic in the first place (so companies would much rather make more than use old plastics). This message serves to make people comfortable buying plastic because it’s “recyclable,” despite a ton of plastic not actually getting recycled. Some oil and gas companies have invested in “advanced recycling,” despite experts stating the best thing would be to reduce further plastic production. And this “recycling” could actually also have an adverse effect on the environment.
The plastic industry has known since the 1970s that sorting and recycling plastic was “infeasible” and couldn’t “yet be justified economically” due to its cost — and that most plastic (over 90%*) would never actually be recycled. Yet the industry spent millions plugging the message of recycling (and the advantages of plastic) through ads and public campaigns. You’ve seen sorting machines in grocery stores and benches made of recycled plastic, right? Those are just more propaganda meant to push the idea that most plastic is getting recycled. Even blue bins came about due to the plastics industry, along with those recyclable symbols that started popping up on plastic bottles, which made people think they were recyclable when they weren’t actually going to be recycled.
13.
Similarly, personal responsibility when it comes to garbage was also an idea pushed by the packaging industry and other industries that create waste, like the plastic industry. After a Vermont law banned disposable glass bottles due to issues with glass shards as litter, industry officials started a campaign called Keep America Beautiful, which essentially shifted the blame of trash onto humans for littering. They created PSAs, commercials, and advertisements; distributed pamphlets and brochures; and pushed schools and the government to help promote their message.
14.
The entire idea that women should shave was invented by the razor industry. In the early 1900s, razor manufacturers started promoting their products to women and claiming that body hair on women (particularly on their armpits and legs) was unseemly. Why? To sell more razors, of course! They promoted the idea through advertisements and the media. They’d done something similar with men, pushing the idea that clean-shaven men were, well, cleaner. After Gillette created the safety razor, the company (along with other razor brands) wanted people to keep buying their blades, so they encouraged them to shave at home.
15.
Similarly, many of the things we consider staples of the American breakfast were a direct result of the rise of advertising, and advertisers simply “decided” that something was an All-American breakfast because they wanted to sell it. This includes orange juice, breakfast cereal, and bacon and eggs. Most of this happened in the 1900s. For example, an orange surplus led to an advertising campaign promoting drinking orange juice.
Cereal in particular rose in popularity due to purported health benefits from cereal producers, such as the Kellogg and Post families, and the brands claiming that cereal was all you needed for breakfast. They also emphasized how easy it was to prepare, which appealed to housewives entering the workforce during the World Wars. And then cereal companies came up with a genius idea: advertising to children. This was massively successful, leading to cereal box activities, prizes, and mascots.
16.
Numerous studies have shown that violent video games don’t make kids violent. The correlations that exist can be explained by other factors, like gender (remember “correlation does not equal causation”?). Some studies have even suggested that video games reduce the chance of violence, due to providing an outlet for aggression. Yet, of course, conservatives continue to blame video games for mass shootings.
17.
Also, the Second Amendment was not even about individual gun ownership. The full text reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The NRA, which lobbies the government with millions every year, conveniently often ignores the first part of the phrase. Legal precedent has interpreted the law in the context of the state militia. Yet many still believe the right to have an assault weapon is ingrained in the Constitution.
18.
And finally, you’ve probably heard the familiar argument that the US can’t offer universal healthcare because of how expensive it is. The truth? Studies (even from conservative groups) found Medicare for All would actually save money: up to literally trillions of dollars in the next decade. Our current healthcare system is massively expensive due to administrative costs that come from individual insurance companies with their own billing procedures, separately negotiating rates with each provider. This would no longer be necessary if a singular public plan regulated rates. So why don’t we have such a system? Because for-profit private health insurance companies make massive amounts of money off of Americans and have no interest in losing that money.
And yes, the government can afford it, especially considering its already footing the bill for about 2/3 of our massively expensive current system, between tax subsidies, programs like Medicare, and insurance for government employees, etc. Would taxes go up? Yes, but your healthcare costs would be way down. Also, a Yale study found that universal healthcare would save 68,000 lives a year (and another found that 335k fewer Americans would’ve died in the pandemic if we had universal healthcare).
Low-income families in particular would benefit from cheaper healthcare, especially considering many in the US don’t have healthcare at all, and disproportionately face health problems. But hey, as long as those insurance execs keep their yachts, we’re all good here, right?
What did you learn that you later discovered was propaganda? Let us know in the comments or via this anonymous form!
