The Architecture of Persuasion
Times have changed over the last 100 years. There was a time when the news we received was relatively accurate; however, there was still some interpretation that would be needed. Back in the early days of journalism, reporters made an honest attempt to provide the best testimonies available within the limits of their era. That is not to say that there wasn’t any propaganda operating alongside journalistic ethics, but the origin of propaganda then came primarily from the state 1.
So why is it difficult in the contemporary world to determine what the probabilistic truths are when we are given information about local and international events? As far as mainstream journals go, they are answerable to their shareholders and advertisers, which may influence how they frame a story 2.
Framing
Framing is a powerful tool of persuasion that warrants further examination. It is the process of selecting certain aspects of reality and presenting them in a way that promotes a particular interpretation, evaluation, or course of action 3. In other words, to frame is to structure information so that the audience’s attention, emotions, and understanding are guided toward one meaning while other interpretations are minimised or excluded.
Example of Framing
- Neutral report: “Protesters gathered outside the embassy today.”
- Framed report A: “Pro-Palestinian activists clashed with police outside the embassy.”
- Framed report B: “Citizens demanding an end to civilian deaths rallied peacefully outside the embassy.”
Each uses the same event but activates different schemas or heuristics — those mental shortcuts that shape how audiences interpret meaning — consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) developed by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo in the early 1980s 4. Framing exploits the peripheral processing route, which, according to the ELM, leads to quick decisions based on emotions, unlike its counterpart, the central processing route, where critical thinking lies.
There is a philosophical implication: how do we gain knowledge? Some philosophers believe that knowledge is either gained by experience or through testimonial knowledge 5, so framing would fall into the latter category — testimonial rather than experiential.
Institutions of Persuasion
Over the decades, this art of narrative construction has evolved into a professional and academic discipline. A network of institutions now studies, teaches, and applies the principles of persuasion under the banners of “communications,” “strategic influence,” or “information management.” Some of these institutions emerged from journalism and media studies; others grew out of military or policy research. Together, they shape how much of the world understands truth, trust, and authority 6.
As journalism matured, persuasion itself became formalised. What began as intuition and state-sponsored propaganda evolved into an organised field of study. From the early experiments of Edward Bernays, who merged psychology with public relations 7, to the sociological insights of Erving Goffman 8 and the communication theories that followed, the techniques of influence were refined, codified, and taught. Today, entire schools and research centres are devoted to understanding and operationalising these dynamics — not only to inform, but to guide public opinion, manage perception, and sustain ideological coherence across societies.
Meta-Persuasion and the Social Media Arena
The rise of social media has redefined how persuasion operates. Platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok have become open stages where users act as their own editors, publishers, and propagandists. Unlike the institutional media of the past, these digital ecosystems reward emotion over evidence 9. Algorithms are designed to amplify engagement, not accuracy, meaning that content which provokes anger, fear, or amusement travels farther than content that merely informs.
Within this environment, persuasion has become meta-persuasive — it no longer requires structured arguments or supporting data. Instead, it relies on memes, short captions, and emotionally charged imagery that compress complex issues into simple moral binaries. A single graphic or phrase can replace pages of analysis, inviting instant agreement or outrage. This process bypasses the central route of critical thought described in the ELM and activates the peripheral route — reaction without reflection.
Most users are not conscious propagandists. They share, repost, and comment out of genuine emotion — solidarity, humour, anger, or fear. Yet in doing so, they participate in a collective persuasion network where meaning is shaped by repetition and visual shorthand rather than reasoning. The result is a vast feedback system of unverified testimony that feels authentic precisely because it is personal.
In this sense, the social-media landscape functions as a crowdsourced extension of the institutions of persuasion. It decentralises influence, allowing individuals to become both consumers and producers of spin — each meme a micro-frame, each reaction an act of narrative reinforcement 10.
From Institutions to Personalities
If institutions built the architecture of persuasion, personalities learned to live inside it. In the twenty-first century, the tools of influence once reserved for governments, broadcasters, and think tanks have migrated into the hands of individual communicators. Charismatic figures now command audiences larger than national networks, using the same psychological principles — framing, emotional priming, repetition, and identity appeal — that were once the domain of organised propaganda.
Through platforms like YouTube, X, and alternative media outlets, persuasion has become personal: the message and the messenger are one. Figures such as Alex Jones in the United States or Ezra Levant in Canada exemplify this transformation. They blur the boundary between journalism and performance, trading institutional credibility for emotional authenticity and ideological loyalty. In this new environment, persuasion is no longer engineered solely in boardrooms and research centres; it is streamed live, monetised, and endlessly amplified.
Personality-Driven Persuasion: Alex Jones and Ezra Levant
Alex Jones (United States)
Jones rose to prominence through his platform Infowars, cultivating an audience through fear-based persuasion and apocalyptic rhetoric 11. His strategy relies on emotional saturation — overwhelming the audience with threat narratives, claims of hidden plots, and appeals to personal vigilance. By framing himself as the lone guardian of suppressed truth, he establishes cognitive closure: complex global events become moral dramas of good versus evil. The power of Jones’s persuasion lies not in evidence but in certainty. Within his ecosystem, doubt itself becomes proof of conspiracy.
Ezra Levant (Canada)
Levant’s Rebel News employs similar rhetorical techniques under a different national tone. Where Jones trades in conspiracy, Levant trades in indignation. His method is outrage framing: selecting issues that trigger moral or patriotic anger and presenting them as evidence of cultural betrayal 12. The emotional register is nationalism rather than apocalypse, but the mechanism is the same — mobilising identity against authority. Levant’s success demonstrates how American-style populist rhetoric has adapted to Canadian sensibilities, turning media commentary into a vehicle for ideological solidarity.
The Common Mechanism. Both men exemplify persuasion through performative authenticity. By appearing unscripted, passionate, and persecuted, they generate trust through emotion rather than verification. Their influence shows how easily testimonial knowledge — the kind once entrusted to professional journalists — can be reshaped into belief systems sustained by repetition, loyalty, and shared grievance. In this sense, Jones and Levant are not outliers but products of the environment that institutions of persuasion helped to build: a world where truth competes for attention, and attention defines reality.
The Uncertainty of Testimonial Truth
What began as the craft of journalism and evolved into a science of persuasion has now become an open contest of narratives. In this environment, knowledge itself becomes probabilistic: we no longer weigh facts alone, but the credibility of the source, the emotional resonance of the presentation, and the social validation that follows. Testimonial knowledge — once grounded in trust between journalist and public — has fragmented into thousands of competing testimonies, each claiming authenticity 13. The algorithms that drive digital media further distort this process, privileging intensity over evidence and emotion over coherence.
Within such a system, certainty becomes a luxury. Every story is framed, every frame is contested, and even the act of seeking truth is mediated through institutions and personalities with vested perspectives. What remains to the careful observer is not the pursuit of absolute truth but the estimation of probability — what version of events seems most consistent with the evidence and least dependent on emotional manipulation.
Israel and Palestine: The Collision of Narratives
Few conflicts reveal the mechanics of modern persuasion more clearly than Israel and Palestine. Each side presents its own version of reality: Hamas issues allegations of Israeli aggression; Israel counters with denials or reciprocal accusations. International outlets amplify or suppress details depending on editorial stance, national alignment, or audience expectation. Western networks often frame the conflict through the lens of security and terrorism, while Arab and Global South media frame it through occupation and resistance 14. The same event — an airstrike, a ceasefire, a protest — can emerge as two entirely different stories depending on who tells it and to whom.
In this collision of narratives, the challenge is no longer access to information, but navigating the architectures of persuasion that determine how information becomes belief.
Conclusion: The Evolution of Influence
The study of persuasion has never been static. From Bernays’ early manipulation of symbols and desire, to the institutional refinement of messaging, to the algorithmic curation of attention, the methods have evolved while the goal has remained largely unchanged: to shape behaviour through perception 15. Whether the purpose is to sell a product, promote a policy, or influence belief, persuasion has always been less about helping people make better decisions than about ensuring they conform to the decisions already made for them.
Today, that process continues with increasing sophistication. Research into the psychology of influence, data analytics, and emotional priming is ongoing — not at the margins, but at the core of political, corporate, and technological systems. Artificial intelligence has become the newest and most powerful instrument in this continuum. It analyses sentiment, predicts behaviour, and generates tailored content that speaks directly to the emotional and cognitive biases of individuals. Where earlier institutions sought to persuade the public as a collective, AI allows persuasion to operate at the level of the person — one algorithmic nudge at a time 16.
In this environment, the architecture of persuasion is self-sustaining. It no longer needs a single propagandist or a central authority; the system itself learns what works and adapts. The result is a world where influence is ambient — woven into the interfaces we use, the stories we read, and the choices we think are our own.
The task for the thoughtful observer, then, is not to reject persuasion but to recognise it: to see how knowledge is shaped, how certainty is manufactured, and how consent is engineered. Understanding this does not free us entirely from influence, but it allows us to navigate it consciously, with eyes open to the mechanisms that turn communication into control.
About the author
J. André Faust explores the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. His work on The Connected Mind uses a layered-systems approach to trace feedback loops across institutions, media, and culture — always with the goal of revising beliefs in light of better evidence.
References
- Bernays, E. (1928). Propaganda. Liveright Publishing.
- McChesney, R. W. (2013). Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy. The New Press.
- Entman, R. M. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag.
- Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford University Press. (See also Reid, T. (1764). An Inquiry into the Human Mind.)
- Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy (Harvard University). Research archives. Accessed 2025.
- Bernays, E. (1947). “The Engineering of Consent.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 250(1), 113–120.
- Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.
- Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.
- NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. (2024). Annual Report on Information Operations. Riga.
- LaFrance, A. (2019). “The Prophet of Paranoia.” The Atlantic.
- Taras, D. (2020). “Rebel News and the Politics of Outrage.” Canadian Journal of Media Studies.
- Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford University Press.
- BBC Monitoring. (2024). “Media Coverage Comparative Analysis: Israel–Gaza Conflict.”
- O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2017). Marketing the Third Reich: Persuasion and Propaganda in Nazi Germany. Routledge.
- Tufekci, Z. (2022). “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Persuasion.” MIT Technology Review.
