The linked article is a pretty simple example of propaganda, in fact there are more than one propaganda techniques being used in the link.
How many can you spot?
Note: I'm not an expert on propaganda, just an interested party. I did study Public Relations while earning my degree, and the some of same names kept popping up in PR and propaganda, Edward Bernays being one of them. As the Father, of PR Bernays is one that all of us should study, his techniques effect us all on a daily basis, and his influence on our society is immense.
For those interested in learning more about PR/propaganda there is an excellent BBC documentary that explains the history of how our modern society is controlled by the propagandist... Century of the Self -- is a four part documentary -- take a look over the next few nights and see what you think.
Thank you -- C. Cory Spencer
Update: here's a couple of the propaganda issues I see in the linked article
including its first intercontinental ballistic missile launch Tuesday
Is it really an ICBM, with the ability to fly more than 3,400 miles? hmm... probably not as it is reported to have flown about 500 miles maximum. Generally ICBMs are also considered to be nuclear weapons, which although it is reported that NK has the ability to make nuclear weapons it is not able to make them small enough to be used in a ICBM. That doesn't even take into consideration the issue of guidance. My guess is that NK could hit the Alaska on a day with prevailing winds, but why bother? Wouldn't it be more effective to just use a nuclear suicide ship driven into any U.S. major port?
The country says it wants a nuclear bomb because it saw what happened when Iraq and Libya surrendered their weapons of mass destruction
Did Iraq really surrender it WMDs and if it did why did our government start a war there the second time? Remember that whole selling point to the American people?
While the narrative of the overthrow of a non-WMD equipped Libya is weak, but convenient for today's propaganda account -- remember though NATO's intervention into Libya was actually reported to be 'support' for Libyan 'rebels' attempting to overthrow the Muammar Gaddafi government.
That's two, there are more. Can you spot them yet?
Here's another statement that needs qualifications as it assumes that our intelligence was correct about how soon both Muammar and Saddam could put a nuke together, if they could at all,
"The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the [Muammar] Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programs of their own accord."
Essentially, the above statement reinforces propaganda already passed off as true, but without real evidence ever provided.
There are more, maybe this demonstration will require it's own article?