Notice how it’s all vague, non-specific language too, to obfuscate the absence of any concrete facts and thus remove the need for justification. They both have the same tactic of using this kind of dystopian language (corruption, prisons, dictatorships, lies, etc.) but describing a world which would not look any different to one in which their claims aren’t true. This means for example they can claim people are being manipulated, but can’t say in what way or by whom in any detail which doesn’t fall back to abstractions (“newspapers lie to you”, “things are not as they seem”…), which sufficiently protects them from being told “you’re wrong”, but doesn’t actually claim anything of substance. In other words, you can’t be wrong when you’re not really saying anything in the first place.
Jamesr83