Powers of Persuasion
The following posts are copied from Suggestions:
16887. concerned - 2/4/02 9:35:12 AM
Salon just started to publish nude pictures of children in its SEX folder. You have to be a paid member to see most of it.
This ties in with what I have posted in the past about the 'liberal agenda'.
16892. judithathome - 2/4/02 9:58:02 AM
This ties in with what I have posted in the past about the 'liberal agenda'.
This ties in with you being gullible enough to believe PoJ's posts.
16893. concerned - 2/4/02 10:07:29 AM
Re. 16892 -
Well, are the pictures there or not? I'm not about to subscribe to the erag to find out for myself.
16894. Ms. No - 2/4/02 10:15:56 AM
Concerned,
I'm not about to subscribe to the erag to find out for myself.
Precisely what those who try to whip you into a frenzy over alleged child pornography are counting on.
2. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:19:24 PM
16895. concerned - 2/4/02 10:23:38 AM
Not sure. Maybe a 'history and our future' thread, but similar's been done before.
16896. Ms. No - 2/4/02 10:46:46 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of a look at Propaganda and the tactics used to make folks do/believe what you tell 'em.
16897. judithathome - 2/4/02 11:02:21 AM
That sounds like fun...;-)
16898. judithathome - 2/4/02 11:04:14 AM
Seriously, one example could be those TRUTH ads they ran last night during the SuperBowl showing the connection between drug money and terrorists...they were fairly powerful. Not sure if they result in less drug addiction but it might give pause for thought.
16899. judithathome - 2/4/02 11:04:51 AM
will result..
16902. CalGal - 2/4/02 11:49:56 AM
I thought the propaganda ads on drugs were offensively bad. There had better be one hell of a connection.
16903. Wombat - 2/4/02 11:51:47 AM
Colombia.
16904. CalGal - 2/4/02 11:55:16 AM
I meant the causal relationship.
16905. judithathome - 2/4/02 12:04:50 PM
How is it offensive to link drug money to terrorist activities? What do you think that money does? Provide education for welfare kiddos?
3. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:27:48 PM
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
-pro·pa·gan·dist /-dist/ noun or adjective
- pro·pa·gan·dis·tic /-"gan-'dis-tik/ adjective
- pro·pa·gan·dis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/adverb
4. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 3:32:00 PM
those anti-drug ads during the superbowl were some of the most laughably inept caricatures of real ads i have ever seen.
the message being that any illegal activity connects you 7-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon style to terrorists and assorted other murderers.
crap like this will have the exact opposite effect of what was intended, imo. how can people take the message (however good it may be) seriously when it comes from a source with such blatant illogical leaps?
5. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:35:03 PM
First let's get the ads correctly attributed. The Truth ads are an anti-cigarette campaign which is separate from TheAntiDrug campaign.
Theantidrug used to get pretty high marks in my book because it stressed communication between parents and kids and being involved in activities that are endangered by drug-use.
The Truth ads have always bothered me because of their self-righteous tone. They assume an authority that they don't have and attempt to shame their audience into good behavior.
I found the drug-money-for-terrorist ads offensive because of this attempt to shame or guilt people into the "correct" behavior. The number one reason drugs raise money for criminals is because drugs are illegal. If they were legal the black market would collapse.
There are a few legitimate reasons not to do drugs but I can think of only one that should have any focus directed at it by the government: people whacked out on drugs occasionally injure innocent bystanders. So increase the penalties for such a crime and then legalize drugs and quit all the sanctimonious bellowing about how people who smoke pot are gonna burn in hell because they're directly responsible for the attacks on the WTC.
6. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:35:31 PM
As to the question posed in the thread teaser-
Yes, propaganda is effective, and American political campaigns and Madison Ave are vibrant testimony to its effectiveness. Do people recognize it when they see it? Somtimes, but it is often effective even when the recipient realizes the bias of the speaker, again see Madison Ave, and to a certain degree, American Politics.
Sadly, a good deal of propaganda is neither recognized nor accounted for by a substantial (and growing) portion of the population, and is blindly consumed whole. Some of the people you can fool all of the time.
7. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:35:38 PM
I agree with Ducky. If the government starts to say "this helps terrorists!" to any behavior they don't like, they won't get far.
8. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:36:21 PM
I guess it was easier than showing all the good done by illegal drugs.
9. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:37:17 PM
I realize that I skipped emphasizing that it looks as if TheAntiDrug campaign is going the way of the TRUTH campaign.
Bad move for exactly the reasons Ducky stated.
10. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 3:37:23 PM
Ms. No:
i'm pretty sure those ads have a direct link to the White House, if i remember my reading correctly.
11. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:41:44 PM
Oh, I was only speaking of the ones I saw during the Superbowl last night, about the drug/terrorism link.
I think the ones where the parent is talking about their kid affectionately and says, "(s)he doesn't use drugs. How do I know? Because I ask, every day." are very good commercials.
12. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:46:03 PM
The AntiDrug ads ARE the TRUTH campaign...at the end of them, they show the TRUTH web address and use the phrase "infectTRUTH". Not inject, which might be logical...or maybe they do say "inject" but if so, it looks remarkably like "infect".
13. mgleason - 2/4/2002 3:47:23 PM
A direct link to the WH? That explains it, then. Any time a president comes up with an idea, no matter how half-baked, there's never anyone to say, 'Dude, you'll look like a dick if you do that.'
14. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:49:49 PM
Of course, I am probably wrong...but I remember thinking it was an odd tact for the Truth people to take...
15. hollyw - 2/4/2002 3:50:47 PM
I thought the new campaign was rather clever of them. I imagine a lot of people would fall for it. They certainly hit in a vulnerable place.
Personally, I think it's a cheap, offensive shot, taking all the lingering fear and panic from 9/11 and spitting it back in the public's face.
But gee, now it's so easy to do our patriotic duty--just don't buy drugs!
16. betty - 2/4/2002 3:51:27 PM
"How is it offensive to link drug money to terrorist activities? What do you think that money does? Provide education for welfare kiddos?"
I have a few answers to these questions...It is offensive to link "drug money" to terrorist activities because not all drug money goes to terrorist activities and plenty of non-drug related money goes to terrorist activities (ask RP). there's also the question of what's terrorist activity and what's not. Are the FARC really terrorists? Or are they people fighting a war? I I also think it's offensive because it exploits the present situation, using highly charged and emotional topics to sell PROPAGANDA.
Does drug money get welfare kids education...well where i lived it did. you pretty much can't send your kids to public school in Philly and I knew a couple of mamas whose baby's daddies sold drugs on the side, in part to send their kids to catholic schools. I'm not naive, I also know that money went in to drug habits or high living but it actually did provide education for "welfare kiddos".
Beyond that, I recommend that everybody take a walk through the "Badlands" of North Philly. It was once a middle class community but has , since the decline of manufacturing, become devastated. If it weren't for illegal employment most of those people would have no employment. Whole communities depend on that drug money to survive. Not just in the badlands, in small rural communities in Southern Ohio where Pot is a major crash crop, in large parts of South America and in Afghanistan.
17. betty - 2/4/2002 3:51:47 PM
Drugs are one of the things that help people in or on the edge of poverty survive...do terrorist get a kick back from that money, Oh yeah, but if the economic policies of the major players aren't designed to help out the very poor and are in fact designed to make the very poorest people's situation more depressing we have to start wondering who the terrorist is.
The US applauded the Taliban when they destroyed the poppy fields in Afghanistan but did they create meaningful employment for those whose livlihood was destroyed. Sure, the FARC gets fat, but without Cocaine production the farmers in the FARC occupied territories would starve to death.
am I saying Drugs are great and everybody should do them, no, but i don't see Truth ads against television or internet discussion sites or the government, all of which can cause addiction and erosion of community.
I worry about "hip" anti-drug commercial targeting young people because I worry about all hip commercials...they don't encourage critical thinking, they encourage obedience.
18. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:52:13 PM
There is a terrible irony in the "drug money funds terrorsim" when it comes from a government that for various reasons at various times either funded terrorists or turned a blind eye to their actions including drug trading. This is not to say that those were objectives that the government has set out to accomplish, but merely that they were considered to be acceptable compromises.
19. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:53:16 PM
Well, I'm not sympathetic about the communities that would shrivel up and die if they didn't have drug jobs to support them.
Honestly, some reasoning makes me long to change my opinion entirely.
Good propaganda: the Post Office commercial.
20. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:55:02 PM
I can't wait until I see the next anti DeBeers ad- "Diamonds- is two months salary too much to give to African terrorists?"
21. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 3:56:11 PM
Judith,
One of the slogans is "Truth, the anti-drug." but I don't know that the two campaigns are actually associated.
TheTruth.com
TheAntiDrug.com
22. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:56:25 PM
hahahaha!
Actually, the whole diamond supply manipulation is far pretty nasty.
23. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:56:51 PM
scratch that far, and the hahahaha! was to Jones.
24. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:57:23 PM
They aren't...I was about to post my mistake but got sidetracked by the other posts...thanks for the links.
25. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:57:59 PM
Cal-
How's your sympathy for those communities that would dry up if there were'nt other nasty places where they could buy their drugs? Hollywood etc?
26. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:58:00 PM
#24 to MsNo.
27. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 3:58:14 PM
first link for the ButterScotch Bar:
Propaganda 101
28. CalGal - 2/4/2002 3:59:33 PM
Are both of those sites run by the government? If so, why don't they have the.gov domain?
I don't like any of the anti-smoking campaigns, particularly because it strikes me as nasty to spend taxpayer money on programs clearly geared towards the upper middle class and their children, when the people who smoke are predominantly low-income and are saving us money by dying early.
29. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 3:59:42 PM
Sorry Cal, I seem to be sniping at you today. Don't mean to. I know that your comment was aimed at those who participate in the drug trade and not those who are hostage around them.
30. judithathome - 2/4/2002 3:59:57 PM
From Ducky's link:
ONDCP accepting student resumes for unpaid internship program until February 15.
31. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:00:41 PM
How's your sympathy for those communities that would dry up if there were'nt other nasty places where they could buy their drugs?
You seriously aren't suggesting that Hollywood would disappear if it weren't for illegal drugs?
Please.
32. judithathome - 2/4/2002 4:01:48 PM
aren't suggesting that Hollywood would disappear if it weren't for illegal drugs?
Probably a lot fewer bad movies would get made, though.
33. betty - 2/4/2002 4:02:32 PM
CalGal,
I'm sure you're not sympathetic...you seem to lack anything that might be misconstrued as compassion for the situation of others.
No one will ever suggest you're a bleeding heart although i suspect you have been accused of having none.
Jones,
not to mention having actually sold drugs itself.
34. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 4:02:45 PM
You seriously aren't suggesting that Hollywood would disappear if it weren't for illegal drugs?
no, just the good movies! hahaha
35. rubberducky - 2/4/2002 4:03:46 PM
X with J@H, hehe
36. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:04:29 PM
I know that your comment was aimed at those who participate in the drug trade and not those who are hostage around them.
Well, yes, it was (at the people who participate).
But I'm sure there are plenty of "innocent" communities who rely on drug trade as a key part of their economy, and I certainly wouldn't advocate for or against a position based on the fact that they'd suffer. One can feel sympathetic, but it won't help to distort one's thinking based on an ill-advised desire to help.
37. betty - 2/4/2002 4:08:51 PM
CalGal,
my issue is if nobody is bringing in opportunity for those displaced by the loses in manufacturing then they will get involved witht he black market because it's open to them.
and in regards to your comment about poor people doing us all a favor by dieing i hope you poke out your own eye today you horrible fucking bitch.
38. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:11:37 PM
Betty,
If you can't read other people's opinions without getting unpleasant, then you really have no basis for complaining about me.
But in any event, you misread.
39. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:14:26 PM
I thought one of the elements of propaganda is, if one looks even glancingly below the surface, the "fact" is clearly flawed reasoning. The question is, will people buy it anyway?
I think a lot of people will buy the "terrorism" ads. Maybe I underestimate.
40. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:14:37 PM
Betty,
You have made some valid and intelligent points here. Please keep the personal invective out of it.
41. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 4:17:00 PM
The point I maladroitly was trying to make with Cal was that it is not fair to saddle the neighborhoods with open drug trade with the responsibility for the evils of the drug trade. A good portion of the buyers in those markets are from elsewhere, they create problems in their own communities, but are less observable to the police and are less targeted by them. That's one of the reasons that crank has scared the hell out of law enforcement in the last few years. It's tough law enforcement work to attack a drug trade that relies on a few ordinary supplies with legal everyday uses, and easily obtainable supplies for its manufacture; in comparison to opium or cocaine based trade where the growing of the raw material would be difficult or impossible due to climate and available acreage in most of the US.
42. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:18:10 PM
I think a lot of people will buy the "terrorism" ads.
I think you're probably right.
But remember, DARE was extremely effective propaganda, too. It was so effective that it could hurt your teaching career to dispute it. The only problem was that it didn't affect the right audience. "Just say no" sold itself to adults. It just didn't do very well with kids.
43. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 4:20:15 PM
A line which is frequently touted by some half crazed conspiracy theorists comes to mind- It isn't homeboys on the corner who have Cigarette boats and turboprops importing cocaine and heroin, it's somebody with money from somewhere else that makes the drug trade possible in those neighborhoods. Or as an elderly gentleman once asked me- "why can't those white boys buy that shit in their neighborhood?
44. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:20:25 PM
The point I maladroitly was trying to make with Cal was that it is not fair to saddle the neighborhoods with open drug trade with the responsibility for the evils of the drug trade.
Yes, this I agree with. For example, if cops are swarming an area to monitor for drug dealing and the like, they may also see a lot of young teens goofing around, doing what teens do. Well, if you swarmed around suburban neighborhoods you might see a bunch of young teens doing much the same things--but if there's no cops around to investigate, nothing happens.
But cops need something to occupy their time, and of course then some percentage of the teens are actually involved in drug use, so all teens in that area get a much higher level of scrutiny.
45. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:22:00 PM
Or as an elderly gentleman once asked me- "why can't those white boys buy that shit in their neighborhood?
Is it the purchasing or the activity around the money that causes the most crime? I thought it was the latter.
46. mgleason - 2/4/2002 4:22:08 PM
The Philip Morris report which touted the cost-effectiveness of premature deaths by smokers caused a firestorm precisely by being truthful. People like propaganda.
47. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:22:21 PM
But you know, we should separate the drug policy questions from the propaganda.
48. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:27:37 PM
"Just say no" was bland. Why say no? What's in it for me? Being a good girl? What if I don't give a shit? Saving my brain cells? What if I'm not interested in them anyway?
In contrast, the terrorism ads pack quite an emotional punch. Everybody gives a shit about terrorism, everybody wants to "stop terrorism".
I think the ads are a low, low blow.
49. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 4:29:22 PM
In certain counties of my state, drug manufacture (especially moonshine and marijuana)provides income to people in areas where the economy is devastated and there are few jobs to be had. In fact, it's said that much of Franklin County's economy is based on M&M.
50. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:29:37 PM
Maria,
You're right. And some propaganda is highly entertaining. Think of all the cartoons that promoted WWII.
51. CalGal - 2/4/2002 4:30:21 PM
Holly--it may have been bland, but it was incredibly effective at selling parents and in convincing schools to adopt their program.
I agree that the terrorism ads pack an emotional punch. Part of me doesn't mind if it actually works at convincing teens to quit, as unlikely as it seems. Part of me worries, though, because if it is effective then we have a whole slew of "evil by association" slurs that will start to pop up.
Maria--good point about Philip Morris.
52. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:35:13 PM
This site shows some propaganda posters from WWII.
Powers of Persuasion
53. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:36:50 PM
I love those WWII posters.
54. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:42:37 PM
Aren't they gorgeous? There was a lot of beautiful propaganda art. Have you ever seen any of the Disney cartoons where Donald goes to fight "the Japs"?
55. mgleason - 2/4/2002 4:45:20 PM
Those are great. The best propaganda gives us a clear vision of ourselves as we wish we were, all in sharp relief with no pesky grays to worry about.
56. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:50:32 PM
This site has a lot of info on leaflet propaganda during WWII and examples of such as well as counter propaganda that the Germans sent.
WWII Leaflet Propaganda
Most recently U.S. Psy-Ops bombarded Afghanistan with leaflet propaganda on food packages. I've no idea how much good it did, but it certainly sounds like an intelligent idea.
57. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:50:37 PM
No, but I get a big kick out of those cheesy musicals they made around then, especially what's'her-name in the swimming pool...didn't she make propaganda films too?
I'm waiting for something like that now, but no, we get Arnold in Collateral Damage.
Off the immediate subject, it bothered me somewhat to see U2 at the Superbowl singing "Where the Streets Have No Name" with a backdrop of the names of those who died on 9/11, and then Bono flashing the American flag lining of his coat...to the screaming, gyrating fans.
58. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:51:22 PM
To Ms. No, #54
59. hollyw - 2/4/2002 4:52:33 PM
The best propaganda gives us a clear vision of ourselves as we wish we were, all in sharp relief with no pesky grays to worry about.
Maria, I once again find myself bowing down to your way with words!
60. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:53:17 PM
oooh, couldn't pass this one up: 
61. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 4:56:08 PM
Sound familiar?
"Posters often attempted to influence viewers by making them feel that even small failures to support the war effort were providing direct aid to our enemies"
Just substitute "on drugs" for "effort". 
62. betty - 2/4/2002 4:56:13 PM
"the people who smoke are predominantly low-income and are saving us money by dying early"
Uhmmm...I misread?
I re-read your stupid ass comment, the entire thing, and what you wrote is that people dying saves money. And you wrote it in the self congratulatory and smug tone that makes me seriously question your authenticity.
Ms. No,
I seriously have a problem with snide anti-poor comments that I would, yes, consider abusive. I don't care how "depersonalized" they are, they are personal because I am poor. I don't have the luxury of abject affluence to shield me from reality. It's my family who labors and smokes cigarettes because they're jus ignorant red necks who would save us all some money by dropping dead. CalGal's less than clever back hand comments are often anti-poor and if it continues with the OK/silence of other middle class secret objectivist I will start posting relevant anti-rich/middle class posts, something I have avoided doing in the name of dialogue despite the fact that they are my personal opinions. If you want to delete my posts and kick me off the site you can. I really don't give two shits but i want it to be really clear that the anti-poor comments are classist, fucked up and personal.
I don't think the vast majority of people would stand for CalGal making racist comments but classism...that's OK.
63. mgleason - 2/4/2002 4:59:23 PM
Thanks, Holly!
Take a look at this site:
Ministry of Propaganda. It's got some of the leaflets we dropped in Afghanistan.
64. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:00:09 PM
Holly,
I wasn't bothered by the half-time show, but I often have a problem with celebrities who hawk ideologies. Why I expect ideology to be more elevated than any other commodity I don't know. I'm just sentimental, I suppose. ;->
65. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:00:16 PM
Betty, take it to another thread--social for cost of smoking, Suggestions for whining about me. Unless you want to serve as an example of how lots of people prefer propaganda to truth, of course.
66. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:01:49 PM
Holly,
I had trouble with the halftime show, too--although at least I did feel like U2's heart was in the right place. This isn't really a group who adopts ideologies based on fashion.
67. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 5:08:40 PM
Betty
It is true that despite the various claims about smokers costing the government more for health benefits, etc., smokers are actually less costly to the government than are non-smokers (on average, of course). Although smokers may have more ailments, the most expensive health costs that the Government pays are the last week of life. That last week of life in the hospital is likely to be the most expensive of your life, regardless of what actually kills you. Where smokers save money is that we kick off earlier, saving money on Social Security benefits.
Try telling it to the folks who think smokers should be taxed to hell and back for costing more money, though. Actually, I should pay reduced Social Security taxes since I'm not as likely to live as long (assuming I don't give up the evil weed).
So the anti-smoking propaganda that we can tax and shame vice out of existance ignore the fact that those of us living riskier lives are doing the government a favor.
68. betty - 2/4/2002 5:09:21 PM
Holly,
in reference to #57, her name was Ester Williams and though I tried I couldn't find a decent site on her. Seems she's relegated to the world of barely remembered. there is a swimming pool named after her though.
69. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 5:11:23 PM
Of course drug users, illegal gun carriers, speed demons, red-light-runners, sky-divers and the like are often the cheapest to the govenment since death is often immediate requiring neither hospitalization nor pensions.
70. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:13:52 PM
Actually, I should pay reduced Social Security taxes since I'm not as likely to live as long (assuming I don't give up the evil weed).
Exactly. And most smokers are lower income. So we are instituting an extremely regressive tax and spending much of the taxpayer money we collect from lower income smokers on commercials that are clearly aimed at dissuading suburban youth from smoking, even though they are extremely unlikely to stop smoking. But hey, the propaganda pleases those wealthy suburban voters.
Of course, this would mean that my original post was in sympathy with the lower income smokers, which means that betty would have to take that huff and stuff it right back up her ass.
So that can't be what I meant.
71. hollyw - 2/4/2002 5:14:06 PM
Ester Williams, that's it, thank you.
I love U2, and always will. I don't hold it against them. It just seemed slightly crass.
At the same time, I was glad to see another 9/11 tribute. Go figure.
72. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:14:40 PM
they are extremely unlikely to stop smoking
That's "start" smoking, obviously.
73. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:15:31 PM
Esther Williams is still alive, I believe, and was just in the news a couple years ago for something popular she was doing. Can't remember what.
I don't remember her being particularly prominent in propaganda campaigns, though.
74. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 5:16:54 PM
Unlikely to start smoking unless they want to be perceived as "cool" by that bad crowd they run with and coincidentally tweak their parents at the same time.
75. mgleason - 2/4/2002 5:17:36 PM
Talk about propaganda: The Official Esther Williams Website.
76. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:18:13 PM
Bubba,
Happens less and less, since most "bad crowds" don't smoke anymore. Girls may do it for a couple years to lose weight.
But in any event, the majority of smokers are low income.
77. CalGal - 2/4/2002 5:18:47 PM
Ah! Swimwear, that was it.
78. betty - 2/4/2002 5:20:31 PM
bubba,
I'm taking this to social issues
79. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:23:15 PM
I haven't been able to get any of these to play, but I also haven't really spent much time in the attempt. At any rate, this page has clips of a bunch of the Warner Bros. propaganda cartoons.
Goopy Geer's Rare Cartoon's Page
80. betty - 2/4/2002 5:28:43 PM
CalGal,
I've read a number of places that those starting smoking are college aged girls, not lower class people. That the "Majority lower class" is because lower class people are less likely to stop.
and yoru post didn't read like you were supporting poor people, perhaps because I come with preconceptions about you and a deep sensitivity to the issue having lost very close people to me because of smoking. If I misread you (i'm not completely sure that i did, but it's hard to tell with that sarcasm dripping everywhere), I apologize for having a temper tantrum...It's been one of those days.
81. betty - 2/4/2002 5:30:01 PM
mgleason,
what search engine do you use?
82. judithathome - 2/4/2002 5:33:04 PM
Probably Google...
83. mgleason - 2/4/2002 5:34:20 PM
Yep, Google, Betty.
84. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:38:29 PM
Betty,
CalGal's views may be offensive to some, but her post was not aimed at anyone here in order to insult, abuse or denigrate them. Whether her opinions themselves are "offensive" or not is neither here nor there. I'm not going to reprimand someone for having an offensive position.
Your comments, on the other hand, were directed specifically at another poster here and clearly meant to insult or abuse. You are free to post such comments in the Inferno but they are inappropriate here.
85. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 5:41:16 PM
well, fuckety.
I hate it when I'm still scolding after the matter is laid to rest.
86. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 6:03:47 PM
Ms. No-
I'm going to swipe "fuckety" First time I've heard it here in flyover country. Just strikes me as funny.
87. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 6:06:18 PM
Thansk for the link to the Esther Williams website!
88. Al D - 2/4/2002 6:07:32 PM
There is a curious argument being made above. Many people would be harmed, especially poor people if drug use were irradicated. Would it also be true these same people would be harmed were drugs made legal and produced by huge companies that even might form a corporation, and we all know how evil corporations are. So, in order to protect poor people we must strive to keep drugs illegal and the price high. After all, we wouldn't want growers to starve to death with no need to grow poppies and forced to grow food.
89. Al D - 2/4/2002 6:10:21 PM
I have 11 grandchildren, oldest 19, youngest 4. If I could keep them from drug use by making them believe doing so aids terrorists, do any have an objection to this? Or is drug use just another activity, neither good or bad, and no business of government.
90. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:12:53 PM
If I could keep them from drug use by making them believe doing so aids terrorists, do any have an objection to this?
Sure, if it's a lie. I have this odd objection to lies. Particularly when they are government sponsored lies.
91. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:15:30 PM
What was the best propaganda campaign of the 20th century?
92. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:17:46 PM
The thing about government-sponsored lies is that they lead to ever more cynicism when they are invariably exposed.
93. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:18:59 PM
Good question.
I assume by "best" you mean "most effective". Does it have to have been an officially sponsored campaign, or just a concentrated effort to change thought or values?
94. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:20:06 PM
See the USA in your Chevrolet, the catchier version of What's good for GM is good for the country.
95. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:20:58 PM
I also am opposed to government-sponsored lies in general but there are times when they're necessary. Not, however, in the case being discussed.
96. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:22:20 PM
Well, governments may have to lie. But when they lie to change or promote values, as opposed to cover up or distract, I get nervous.
97. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:22:52 PM
cal--
best=effective
Official, I suppose. Government, commercial or otherwise.
98. Al D - 2/4/2002 6:24:50 PM
CalGal
Does your "if" mean you don't claim it's a lie? How would I go about establishing to a fact that there is no truth in claiming drug use aids terrorists?
mgleason
I would imagine you are more than a little cynical about all government.
99. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:26:34 PM
Does your "if" mean you don't claim it's a lie?
I haven't seen the case, but I'm extremely skeptical.
100. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:27:18 PM
Oops--hit enter too soon. Yes, I did mean "if".
101. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:27:47 PM
I am more than a little cynical about all human enterprises, Al D.
102. Absensia - 2/4/2002 6:29:19 PM
20th Century? well, there's WWII of course, and then Nixon's "I am not a crook" and then Reagan's "I can't remember." Those could fall under government propaganda.
103. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:30:01 PM
mgleason 94--
A little-known factoid:
GM's Charlie Wilson has taken an inordinate amount of grief for that statement but it was ripped out of context by his foes.
Wilson's testimony in a Senate hearing was conciliatory and, in essence, tied GM's fortunes to those of the the nation. What's always dropped from the statement is what followed: "...and what's good for the country is good for GM".
Look at the speech.
104. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 6:30:32 PM
If this administration really cared about drugs then Dubbya wouldn't try to pass off his coke-snorting as "chocking on a pretzel."
105. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 6:31:08 PM
AlD,
Post 88 is more to the social issue of the ethics of drug policy so I'm only responding to 89.
I don't think that I would lie to my kids in order to keep them away from drugs, but I imagine that you and I have different views about how much and what kind of harm drug use does. I couldn't rule out the possibility that there might be something I'd be concerned enough about that I'd lie to them, but I really hope not.
The reason for this is that liars get caught and then no matter why you told the lie, you've lost your credibility. Teenagers and young adults go through a period of almost compulsively questioning authority anyway. You're on much stronger gound if you've been straight with them.
This is one of the reasons that I dislike Propaganda in general. It's dishonest. It assumes that its audience is ignorant and gullible and doesn't need or can't use real facts.
106. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:34:20 PM
Thanks, AytchMan. I learned that in a history class, I think.
I have another contender thanks to Abs, not for most successful, but for most self-serving: The Checkers speech.
107. judithathome - 2/4/2002 6:34:42 PM
Would the HUAC be effective propaganda?
108. Absensia - 2/4/2002 6:36:34 PM
wow, you bettcha. How could I have forgotten Joe and the boys?
109. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:37:31 PM
judith--
Yeah, I think that the HUAC witch-hunt represents a major success (at the time). Since then, of course, it has been largely discredited.
Good example.
110. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:39:05 PM
I wouldn't say that HUAC was effective propaganda, since it relied on force and empowerment more than willing adoption.
In fact, one could argue that the current prevalent belief that there weren't any communists to speak of was the result of a far more successful propaganda campaign.
111. Ms. No - 2/4/2002 6:42:21 PM
How about the Cold War in general? I mean, the Russians were starving and fighting over scraps of toilet paper for years before the wall came down, but even in the 80's we were led to believe that Russia was the super-power enemy to be feared.
112. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:43:23 PM
PT-109, which fueled JFK's political career and Jackie's manipulation of the media and the country after JFK's assassination. She created 'Camelot' out of whole cloth.
113. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:45:35 PM
I don't think the information has to be false to be propaganda, does it? The Soviets could indeed have been a threat, but there was also a lot of government propaganda spread in order to make sure everyone was convinced of it.
114. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:45:53 PM
cal--
HUAC was very effective in enlisting the Hollywood moguls and other powers-that-were. They only threatened force against recalcitrant witnesses brought before the committee. Many people throughout the country willingly signed on. HUAC's action notwithstanding, there was a genuine Red-scare at the time.
115. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:46:40 PM
Hey, PT109 is a good one!
116. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:47:26 PM
HUAC was very effective in enlisting the Hollywood moguls and other powers-that-were.
My understanding was that they were just as coerced as anyone else was. I'll have to read up on it.
117. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:49:52 PM
Aytch--I'll look it up, but I think the order went like this:
1) There was a very strong streak of communism in the artist community of the 30s and 40s.
2) HUAC went after the Hollywood 10. I forget how many (if any) of these 10 were actually communists.
3) The studios, in self-defense, agreed not to hire communists. It was fear, not conviction, that spurred them on.
118. joezan - 2/4/2002 6:50:26 PM
The biggest propaganda campaign of the 20th century?
One that has carried over stronger than ever into this century, and which grows more insidious as time passes, defying all evidence of its abject failure:
Multi-culturalism.
I really can't think of any widely posited issue with more hypocrisy - more double-talking, double-dealing, deliberate polarization attached to it.
119. mgleason - 2/4/2002 6:54:59 PM
That's the way I remember it, too. Of course, most of them were 'parlor pinks' anyway. The Non-Aggression Pact was the death-knell for the CP-USA.
120. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:56:19 PM
Joe--I was thinking of that, but I was going to be more specific and say the impact of multi-culturalism on education.
Because I have to say that the impact of multiculturalism on American eating establishments was altogether a good thing.
121. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 6:56:34 PM
You're absolutely right joe. What has multi-culturalism brought us?
The Allan Keyes Show.
122. AytchMan - 2/4/2002 6:57:57 PM
cal--
I also need to read up but I think the scare pre-dated HUAC and the Hollywood 10 -- way back to the Truman administration in '47 or '48.
123. CalGal - 2/4/2002 6:58:22 PM
Of course, most of them were 'parlor pinks' anyway.
True. But they were genuinely communists. In fact, I believe that there was a strong bias against anti-Communism in the 30s. Ayn Rand had trouble getting her work published because of her vehement views on Mother Russia.
Not that the world would have been worse off without her books, of course. (g)
124. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 7:00:40 PM
She had trouble getting her work published because it sucked.
I'm still amazed that people shell out money to waddle through her fantasies of getting raped by Frank Lloyd Wright in order to cull nuggets of Alice's "philosophy."
But who am I after all? The Chairman of the federal reserve?
125. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:07:28 PM
Aytch,
But the scare was legitimate. There were real reasons to worry about Communism. I was thinking of HUAC and McCarthy, which is a different thing entirely.
Remember, in the late 40s, you had the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, Alger Hiss. Those are legitimate reasons for concern.
It wasn't until McCarthy took the purge to Hollywood that it became problematic and, again, I don't think the studio chiefs did anything out of conviction, but self-protection.
So I wouldn't say it was a successful propaganda campaign--but I am separating McCarthyism from the government's overall assertion that communism was evil. A separate and largely correct assertion. (g)
126. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:08:21 PM
She had trouble getting her work published because it sucked.
No, it was because it was anti-Communist. This is not to say that it didn't suck, of course.
127. joezan - 2/4/2002 7:10:33 PM
Cal:
Well, even there, the same effect could be gotten (and was gotten) as a benefit of the Melting Pot Theory.
Either way, I think they all have a lot of nerve thinking they're indispensable even after we have their recipes.
128. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 7:12:02 PM
There was no rason to worry about Communism. The studios had hired Mafia thugs like Willie Bioff to destroy the unions-- the basis of popular support. The rest was just a "show trial" staged in order to "disremember" the fact that the Soviet Union was an ally during WWII.
129. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:13:15 PM
CG,
No one was paying any attention to possible Communist infiltration until after the war. When Whittaker Chambers first tried to implicate Alger Hiss in 1939 (after the Non-Aggression Pact), he was given the brush-off by the Ass't. Secretary of State. It wasn't until eight years later that any action was taken. Great biography, btw; you should read it.
130. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:13:37 PM
Joe,
Well, their food is fine, but their literature sucks dead rat.
(that, btw, is a joke.)
Seriously, the propaganda campaign of equivalency has not helped education much.
131. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:15:32 PM
There was no rason to worry about Communism.
That's true when speaking of Hollywood--at least, I share that opinion. But that's quite different from saying that the bias wasn't there in the 30s.
Maria--Whittaker Chambers bio? Or Alger Hiss?
132. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:18:50 PM
In fact, one could argue that the current prevalent belief that there weren't any communists to speak of was the result of a far more successful propaganda campaign.
The reason this is an accurate statement is those who control much propaganda, ie. Major Media, wanted that result. There is even an effort to make people believe that the USSR was never really a threat. While it is true that government played up USSR strength, it is also true that liberal intellectuals assured us that Communism was a more viable system than Capitalism.
Keep in mind that not all lies are propaganda and not all propaganda is lies.
133. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:22:51 PM
Ms. No
#105
I agree that lies can't backfire. For example, telling teenages that use of pot will make them into to dope fiends as was once common, proves harmful when they discover the lie and conclude all drugs are not harmful.
134. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:23:28 PM
OMG can't=can
135. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:28:04 PM
The reason this is an accurate statement is those who control much propaganda, ie. Major Media, wanted that result.
If that were true, surely they would have succeeded in squelching McCarthy's efforts in the first place.
No, I suspect the reason that belief came into being is because so many of the people who were blacklisted in the 50s weren't Communists. So it went from "McCarthyism ruined the careers of many people who weren't Communists" to "none of the people whose careers were ruined were really Communists" to "there wasn't any threat of Communism in the first place".
Nonetheless, I believe this belief system could have been corrected--if only for historical purposes.
I suspect the reason it wasn't has more to do with the government's fall from grace during Vietnam and Watergate. McCarthyism was then retroactively added to the list of sins, and the incorrect beliefs came along with it. No one who knew the truth would have had any motivation to challenge this.
In writing this, I realize that a lot of belief systems aren't necessarily foisted on us by deliberate propaganda campaigns.
136. joezan - 2/4/2002 7:31:28 PM
Cal: Not to derail the theme of the thread, but I have a relevant (to education) story:
I'm on an education task force to develop strategies for Healing Racism in Our Community (don't ask). An administrator from an elementary school with an "exploding" (according to him) minority population -he estimates his SE Asian pop at 5% - suggested rearranging the whole curriculum to include at least 1.5 hours per day to "multi-cultural" issues, with an emphasis on SE Asia.
Never mind that this "SE Asian" population includes students from four entirely different cultures and languages, and forget the fact that these teachers spend most of their time at these strategy sessions bitching about all the classroom time that's taken up preparing for the state performance exams.
But you should have seen the looks I got from every one of these folks when I suggested that it would be much easier acclimating these kids to the culture in which they seek to become successful.
They don't have a clue - I swear, they're brainwashed.
137. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:32:53 PM
The recent Chambers bio by Sam Tanenhaus. Great stuff.
138. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:35:42 PM
McCarthy had nothing to do with the hearings of the Holloywood bunch.
139. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:41:43 PM
McCarthy didn't participate in the 1947 hearings during which the 'Hollywood Ten' were cited for contempt, but he was in charge of the hearings that began in 1951 when many more entertainers were called.
140. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:42:27 PM
Not the original Hollywood Ten, you're right. That was Parnell Thomas.
But generally the whole era was referred to as McCarthyism.
141. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:47:26 PM
How many people today are aware that Robert Kennedy was a McCarthy aide and a great admirer of Joe?
Yes MG, as usual, you know what's what, but nonetheless, popular opinion that McCarthy was responsible for the blacklisting is extant and certainly was manufactured by media.
Why do you suppose FDR had no interest in learning that Hiss was not only a communist but working for the USSR? Off, track question maybe.
142. judithathome - 2/4/2002 7:50:09 PM
So I guess RFK worked closely with Roy Cohn?
143. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:52:48 PM
To see how communists in Hollywood used propaganga in movies of the 30' and 40's, see Holloywood Party by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley.
To get a different slant on Joseph McCarthy, see Arthur Herman's Joseph McCarthy.
144. CalGal - 2/4/2002 7:54:31 PM
nonetheless, popular opinion that McCarthy was responsible for the blacklisting is extant and certainly was manufactured by media.
McCarthy was responsible for the blacklisting hysteria of the 50s.
145. betty - 2/4/2002 7:55:48 PM
I think the "best" propaganda campaign was Hearst's anti-hemp campaign. a lot of people make fun of the "Reefer Madness" type films made back in the day but we still have these assinine prohibition laws that conveniently include the non-smokable types of hemp.
Of course Hearst had a huge interest in outlawing hemp as he owned a significant stake in the wood pulp to paper process...
while McCarthism ended Prohibition's end still isn't in site.
146. mgleason - 2/4/2002 7:58:03 PM
I've read a bunch of books on the Chambers-Hiss affair, and Tanenhaus does the best job of humanizing Chambers. It's hard to believe the stranglehold the Hiss forces had on the popular imagination, and harder yet to understand how many still defend him.
Why do you suppose FDR had no interest in learning that Hiss was not only a communist but working for the USSR?
Two reasons:
a) No one took the Soviet threat seriously (there's a great book about this time called The Haunted Wood). Remember, the Revolution was only twenty years old, and people looked upon infatuation with the Communist system as youthful idealism.
b) FDR had bigger fish to fry in dealing with the Nazi threat.
147. mgleason - 2/4/2002 8:06:23 PM
You know, we've overlooked the greatest propaganda triumph of the 20th century: Communism. It's down, but by no means out, unbelievably enough.
148. joezan - 2/4/2002 8:10:51 PM
True.
But it's down-but-not-outness is similar to the down-but-not-outness of punk rock.
149. joezan - 2/4/2002 8:11:23 PM
...its, not it's.
150. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 8:30:12 PM
Yep. Bobby worked for Roy.
Wonder if Roy got anything off of him.
Probably not. I gather Roy was faithful to his main fuckbuddy, G. David Schine.
Try and find a copy of Point of Order. If you watch closely you can see Bobby fleeing the scene as Joe McCarthy's ship sinks.
151. Absensia - 2/4/2002 8:53:48 PM
I think most know Bobby Kennedy worked for Joe. Joe's anti commie reached past hollwood..some state legislatures set up their own version of huack and investigated mostly legislators.
In addition, professors were required to take "loyalty oaths" in order to work at a University. A University of Washington Prof attacted the oath, with the help of the ACLU.
The won in federal court and in every appeal all the way up.
One of the attorneys talked years later of what it was like for him. His friends avoided him, some, in public,called him a commie pinko, and many who were not his friends spit on him and said worse. His family was threated and it was devestating.
And during this time, people were off building bomb shelters, stocking them, and looking for commies under every bed and chair.
152. Absensia - 2/4/2002 8:55:43 PM
Joe's anti commie movement
153. Al D - 2/4/2002 9:11:13 PM
MG I've read the Haunted Wood, but it's been a while.
Cellar
Bobby K. was at Joe's funeral but he stayed in the background so he wouldn't be noticed.
Ab
Yeah, wasn't it silly looking under beds for commies when most were in the Universities and still are.
154. amax - 2/4/2002 9:14:49 PM
Came in a little late, but-
You could argue that since the terrorists raised money by running credit card scams, that loyal Americans should burn their credit cards.
There are a couple of holes in that argument, but it intrests me nevertheless.
Moving on to more recent posts, The two really successful propaganda campaigns waged in this country were:
The (mostly non-governmental) campaign to bring the US into what became the Spanish-American war.
The (mostly governmental) anti-German campaign waged by the Wilson administration when the US decided to enter WWI.
155. amax - 2/4/2002 9:16:12 PM
To me the commie scare was pretty minor stuff -- it only affected a handful of people, and it didn't have any major long term effects, except giving academics a sense of persecution that they were desperately searching for.
156. Absensia - 2/4/2002 9:18:29 PM
Naw Al, few if any any more. Many, many in their student days checked out the communist party, just like they checked out other parties. One judge I know was running for re-election and someone dug up that he had been in the communist party for 3 months more than 40 years before. Since then he'd been a republic. And, by the way, was an excellent judge.
157. joezan - 2/4/2002 9:25:21 PM
Hell, *I* was a commie back when I was listening to too much John Lennon and CSN&Y.
An ex-commie who turns Republican has truly found religion. It's the ones who migrate to the dems you have to worry about...it's like switching to lower-tar cigarettes.
158. amax - 2/4/2002 9:33:44 PM
joe:
Like that old spanish proverb eh?
"The converted moor eats pork three times a day"
159. arkymalarky - 2/4/2002 9:37:54 PM
I don't know. I have a thing about attempting to supress people from exercising their basic rights "for the good of the country." No idea is quite so frightening as that.
Joe,
#157 is hilarious and I would actually agree with it, especially if you equate "finding religion" with fanaticism. From one extreme to the other.
160. Absensia - 2/4/2002 9:41:06 PM
Hahahaha, Joe...and I don't think you were joking!
161. bubbaette - 2/4/2002 9:46:57 PM
Yep, I figured that Republicanism must be a religion -- blind faith demanding suspension of disbelief and adherence to dogma.
162. Absensia - 2/4/2002 9:48:40 PM
Yep...and taking only the top GOPS words on anything.
163. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 10:08:59 PM
"I've read a bunch of books on the Chambers-Hiss affair, and Tanenhaus does the best job of humanizing Chambers."
By no means an easy task.
"It's hard to believe the stranglehold the Hiss forces had on the popular imagination, and harder yet to understand how many still defend him."
Actually it isn't. The entire affair might best be described as an "incomplete forward pass."
But you won't find anything about that in Tanenhaus.
When my boyfriend Bill worked at the 8th Street Bookstore in new York back in the 60's he used to see Hiss quite a lot as Hiss worked for a stationary company that delivered to the store. He found him to be a very nice gentleman.
There's a very funny bit in the Edie book where Edie Sedgewick and her pal Ed Hennessey are stopped by a TV reporter in Boston and asked what they thought of the phrase "Better dead than Red." Terminally dizzy, they fancied it had something to do with reading, and solemnly told the reporter that edcuation was critical for the young people of today and that literacy rates MUST improve. Some time later they were at a party where they met Alger Hiss and told him about it.
He didn't get it.
164. mgleason - 2/4/2002 11:25:39 PM
Actually it isn't. The entire affair might best be described as an "incomplete forward pass."
But you won't find anything about that in Tanenhaus.
I don't know what you mean.
165. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 12:58:38 AM
Surely you know me by now, dear.
166. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 1:41:25 AM
mgleason 147--
Bingo. Hands down, the most successful propaganda campaign of the 20th century. Beginning with Lenin in 1917 and running to 1947 when the West finally figured it out with the fall of Czechoslovakia. As you allude, quite a few people still haven't figured it out.
Runner-up: Hitler's deceptions regarding his aggressive intentions throughout the '30's.
167. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 1:45:01 AM
Those are both good, but I like Betty's offer as well. Especially considering that we're using the same no-information scare tactics today to wage the war on drugs.
168. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 1:56:49 AM
ms no--
If you're referring (reefering?) to the anti-hemp campaign, it was quite successful but small potatos compared to the scams perpetrated by the Soviets and Nazis.
169. CalGal - 2/5/2002 2:11:44 AM
Aytch--I've reviewed a number of links, as well as SAG's own history, and there's no question that the studio blacklist was out of fear, not conviction.
In fact, the first HUAC investigation, with the Hollywood 10, was relatively reasonable. All ten were communists, after all. It was the second round of subpoenas, sent out in 1951, that set off the real blacklist terrors.
170. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 2:13:04 AM
Aytch,
On a global scale, yes, but the Soviets and the Nazi ideals are pretty much dead in the water these days while the U.S. still maintains that any illicit drug use will not only destroy your own life but now apparently threatens the existence of the free world. The anti-hemp campaign has become the disasterous War on Drugs.
There's certainly no way to know, but what if hemp hadn't been outlawed? Paper, clothing and fuel from a cheap, plentiful, easily cultivated source rather than clear-cutting and reliance on fossil fuels might've had a tremendous environmental impact.
This is all beside the issue of drug abuse and addiction which have only grown worse since the 50's. It affects us in so many arenas---the ghettoization of the inner city, the explosive growth of the prison population and the proliferation of violence.
171. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:28:52 AM
ms no--
You just made a small part of my point by referring to Soviet and Nazi "ideals". They had no ideals. They ran their campaigns to cover their respective grabs for power.
But to get to the real point: consider the relative effects on history and our present-day life. Note that the anti-hemp campaign was US-originated and -run, the Soviets and Nazis operated in and on Europe. IMO, the results are not even in the same league: a relatively few jail sentences and destroyed lives versus worldwide cataclysm and the Cold War.
172. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 2:30:46 AM
It's hard to beat the Soviets or the Nazis for propaganda, but Madison Avenue comes in a close third.
Some of the best propaganda lines of the last 100 years:
10. I am not Crook/I did not have sexual relations with that woman/I will cut taxes, increase defense spending and cut the deficit, a.k.a. Supply side economics 9. Duck and Cover
8. Peace with Honor
7. The National Rifle Association
6. The Moral Majority/Creation Science
5. Term limits
4. The War on Drugs
3. The Democratic Republic of X, or the X Worker's Party (insert favorite regime here)
2. Separate but equal
1. You'll be (popular, attractive, wealthy, or something else you're not) if you buy X.
173. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:41:15 AM
jones--
The only thing that downgrades Madison Avenue is that it's decentralized -- it's not a monolithic organization as were the Masters Of The Thirties. Still, the advertising machine of the late 20th century was tres formidable.
174. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:46:01 AM
cal--
I'll accept your point on the studios. Nevertheless, I believe HUAC was instrumental in fanning the early flames of the Red Scare in the late '40's. Yes/no?
175. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 2:47:23 AM
The Drug War(s) [include prohibition as the first one] have cost us dearly. Warped foreign policies in Asia, South and Central America; promoting disrespect for the law while at the same time erroding personal freedoms and privacy; the corrosive social and political effects of organized crime here and abroad; damaged mental and physical health because we led one of our largest generations astray with campaigns based on Reefer Madness; an astronomical murder rate fueled by gangs and other organized crime; another "objective" excuse for racism; billions of tax dollars down a rathole that we could have used so much better either in our own pockets or in creating something of lasting public worth.
176. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:47:43 AM
ms no--
Thanks for starting up the thread. Great idea.
177. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 2:49:10 AM
Aytch- Good point about Madison Avenue. I think it's like poison fed in small doses, one build's up a resistance and aren't killed by what should be toxic.
178. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:53:58 AM
jones--
You've expanded the original proposition greatly -- Hearst's anti-hemp campaign of the Thirties. The overall century-long fight against drug use is a horse of substantially different color.
179. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 2:59:13 AM
jones--
One does build up resistance to advertising. I can't help but think of those Cold War stories of defenseless East European exiles utterly unable to cope with the bombardment upon arrival in the US.
180. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 3:06:24 AM
Incidentally, where does one draw the line between advertising and propaganda?
Truth versus lies? Nope.
Good versus evil intent? A little better perhaps, certainly not definitive.
181. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 3:12:28 AM
Aytch- I don't draw much of one, since propaganda is aimed at creating a need and simultaneously suggesting the means for filling the need created.
182. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 3:21:16 AM
I understand what you're saying but there must be a significant distinction since most people believe advertising is, on balance, good while propaganda is bad. Yes/no?
Tangential point: it seems like propaganda often tries to destroy a need, thus eliminating the need to fill it. That is, it encourages inaction.
183. RustlerPike - 2/5/2002 4:16:08 AM
Propaganda is my life.
184. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 5:19:45 AM
For the single most successful and enduring propaganda effort I nominate The Protocols of the Elder of Zion.
185. mgleason - 2/5/2002 6:49:30 AM
Cellar,
You mean that Chambers was attracted to Hiss? Tanenhaus does explore that side of Chambers; It seems that Chambers had a few encounters with men.
186. betty - 2/5/2002 9:39:25 AM
I think it's impossible to seperate Hearst's anti-hemp campaign from the larger "war on drugs"...it was with his funding and the ground work of the anti-hemp "movement" that allows for further degradation of civil rights.
MsNo and Jones sue it up nicely...the anti-drug campaign has cost the US (and unfortunately much of the world because of the US's influence on the UN) huge amounts of money and human resources. It hasn't decreased drug use and yet most americans are still opposed to decrim. of drugs. although that's really changing especially in reference to hemp.
also, bush the elder was probably more of an anti-drug nut (ironic? given his ties to the CIA) than any other president...like Hearst he had financial interest in keeping hemp illegal...he was director of Eli Lilly (from 1977-1979) which has been trying to synthesize the active ingredients in cannabis and could loose many of it's patents (like Darvon) if the weed were legal.
side note, prohibition laws do work in that they keep *some* people from smoking...my Mom has admitted that she would smoke pot if it were legal but is afraid that she might get arrested.
187. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/5/2002 12:00:03 PM
Propaganda doesn't deceive people--it just helps people deceive themselves . . . and much of our thinking is specific propaganda for our appetites.
188. judithathome - 2/5/2002 12:16:35 PM
I believe HUAC was instrumental in fanning the early flames of the Red Scare in the late '40's. Yes/no?
Yes.
189. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 12:17:55 PM
Good point, Wiz.
190. Macnas - 2/5/2002 12:18:31 PM
What was that again? the house comittee for unamerican activites or some such was'nt it?
191. judithathome - 2/5/2002 12:25:55 PM
Yep, that was it.
192. CalGal - 2/5/2002 12:30:40 PM
Jones list is pretty funny. I didn't realize that propaganda was nothing more than a list of ideas that pisses him off.
Most of the items on his list are simple lies, and unsuccessful ones at that. A few are political beliefs that he doesn't like.
Madison Avenue is only successful at propaganda if they change belief systems. That doesn't happen very often.
What's really funny is that Jones' lists things that are at best a marginal attempt at changing thought, while missing the real success story in the area.
For example, far more interesting than the NRA's blatant campaign is the fact that in the late 60s, liberals were pro 2nd amendment. The government was something you protected yourself from, not something that solved your problems. Then lo! a few years later, gun control is a key platform issue. Everyone has changed their mind.
Many people think it's always been that way.
That's propaganda, baby.
I will say that any marketing campaign that manages to shift the variables of a debate--even if ostensibly aiming for a different goal--is successful propaganda. So I would go along with the moral majority/creationism selection, but not for the reasons that you put it on the list. Instead, they managed to shift the debate. They made creationism a player. They were able to make their version of "morality" a talking point.
They weren't successful at getting people to adopt it. But putting it in play counts as success, so far as I'm concerned.
193. CalGal - 2/5/2002 12:32:54 PM
I believe HUAC was instrumental in fanning the early flames of the Red Scare in the late '40's. Yes/no?
I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree. I think much of the red scare in the late 40s was justified. I would say that McCarthy turned it from a legit concern into mass hysteria in the early 50s.
194. CalGal - 2/5/2002 12:38:02 PM
I don't think that propaganda can be considered automatically bad. Nor is all propaganda by definition a lie, is it?
Dictionary definition, just for a basis to begin with:
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Maria mentioned Communism and Naziism as successful propaganda. I agree. What's interesting is that their success within the population was achieved in part by locking out other ideas, preventing choice. On the other hand, their success fooled a lot of people on the outside looking in, who had plenty of input to other ideas and yet accepted the ideas--either for themselves, or as just another ideology.
On the other hand, it seems that those people who have choice adopt communism for a while, but almost always abandon it in the long run.
So the propaganda successes that interest me are the ones that are adopted by people as truth even though they had plenty of access to opposing viewpoints.
195. mgleason - 2/5/2002 12:41:33 PM
If nothing else, HUAC and McCarthy gave the Soviets a nice yuk. The serious recruits were never permitted to join CP-USA, and the sleepers had been in place a good, long time thanks to the inattentiveness of the gov't.
196. glendajean - 2/5/2002 1:54:27 PM
Eli Lilly ... which has been trying to synthesize the active ingredients in cannabis...
Who know that the Prozac City,Indianapolis, home of Eli Lilly could be Maryjanesville. Ha!
This reminds me of those stories about tobacco companies and Kentucky farmers planning for marijuana legilation.
For example, far more interesting than the NRA's blatant campaign is the fact that in the late 60s, liberals were pro 2nd amendment.
Did I miss something? Of course, I was quite young in the 60s, but my memory is that proposals for gun control legislation came in waves after the deaths of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. If people on the left were advocating for gun protection, then perhaps it was the New Left/SDS types, people who actually hated liberals of the day.
It is also my memory that the heavy politicalization of the issue (left v right) came in the late 70s.
197. glendajean - 2/5/2002 1:55:01 PM
or "Who knew..."
198. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 2:01:25 PM
I think Wiz hit it on the nail. Successful propaganda aims at reinforcing prejudices that are already there. The Nazi demonisation and dehumanisation of the Jews is a prime example.
199. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 2:07:44 PM
"You mean that Chambers was attracted to Hiss? Tanenhaus does explore that side of Chambers; It seems that Chambers had a few encounters with men."
What's with this "encounters" bit? I see it cropping up in disussions of Nash's life re A Beautiful Mind. "Encounters" is a weasel word. He had sex with with men. Period. He wanted Hiss and he didn't get him.
So he got him.
Get it?
Good.
200. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 2:09:56 PM
"Successful propaganda aims at reinforcing prejudices that are already there."
And this is why the Anti-Clinton jihaad failed. There was no great public dislike of him to begin with, therefore only a certain degree of antipathy could be stirred up. Not enough to make the impeachment work.
201. mgleason - 2/5/2002 2:15:55 PM
'Encounter' is a fine word to use under the circumstances; look up its etymology.
202. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 2:23:37 PM
Aytch,
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not at all arguing that the War on Drugs should replace Communism or Naziism on the list of best propaganda campaigns, I'm just saying it ought to be included in the list.
Communism and Naziism were both highly successful, but the War on Drugs is STILL successful. This is a line of bull that people are still buying like hotcakes and they've now made it not just about personal morality but about national security.
203. DanDillon - 2/5/2002 2:42:39 PM
Based on the definition CG provided in her Message # 194, all advertising and all news qualify as propaganda. Have we already agreed on that point?
(Nice thread, btw.)
204. dusty - 2/5/2002 2:51:35 PM
I think of propaganda as information with a mission.
It is popularly considered to be misleading, lying, or half-truths, but it doesn't have to be.
The mission is the key. Your mission is to persuade someone to believe something. You supply them with information intended to make them believe.
Broadly speaking, you can choose:
205. dusty - 2/5/2002 2:53:11 PM
Oops, item #4 should be:
Information which is not true and irrelevant
206. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 3:02:19 PM
DanDillon,
I haven't agreed. As I see it: Advertising sells products. Propaganda sells belief systems or ideas. There's certainly some cross-over, but they aren't the same thing.
207. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 3:04:58 PM
Relevant in relation to what?
208. mgleason - 2/5/2002 3:06:22 PM
Advertising is the handmaiden of propaganda.
209. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 3:07:07 PM
Chance is the fool's name for Fate.
210. betty - 2/5/2002 3:07:15 PM
#199
the propaganda of omission. queerness is just not something politely discussed unless it's the butt of someone's joke. (All puns intended)
It amazes me how true this still is.
ABM is a moving drama, we can't have personal idiosyncracies mucking up the girl-boy-oscar love story.
my larger question is, can propaganda be silent?
211. Cellar Door - 2/5/2002 3:08:41 PM
No, never. Propaganda is always spoken.It can't be implied to be truly effective.
212. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:13:05 PM
I agree with Dan in the case of advertising. In high school, we did a short, but extremely interesting segment on propaganda. I've forgotten all of the taxonomy, but I recall that we had to find examples of each type, and in most cases, we used advertising to illustrate the form.
213. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:18:10 PM
PelleNilsson
Relevant in relation to what?
Relevant to the mission.
If I want to sell cigarettes, and I show a picture of a lovely actress and a cigarette, the information is true, in the sense that it really is a picture of the actress, but there is only an implication that cigarettes have anything to do with being or being with a lovely actress. In truth, the information is not relevant to the questions of whether someone should purchase that brand of cigarettes.
214. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:22:50 PM
betty
my larger question is, can propaganda be silent?
I think I'm missing your question.
Obviously, it doesn't have to be spoken, or even verbal.
Do you ask whether omission can be propaganda?
I would think so.
215. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 3:23:22 PM
So the suggestion that Jews slaughter and eat Christian babies for ritual purposes would be "not true but relevant"? (I'm not challenging you, just tring to establish the definition.)
216. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 3:25:02 PM
Maria,
Yes, I can agree with that. I could even agree that the most successful ads are selling a way of life as much as a product. There's a difference, though, when IKEA is showing me how beautiful, hip and happy I can be if I just buy their furniture they're not really invested in whether I'm beautiful, hip or happy, their bottom line is to get me to lay down the bucks for a couch named Bjorn that I'm going to have to assemble myself. They're only interested in my ideology as it relates to their product.
217. dusty - 2/5/2002 3:28:33 PM
PelleNilsson
Yes, assuming yuor mission was to convince people to dislike Jews.
218. mgleason - 2/5/2002 3:39:26 PM
That's the beauty of capitalism, Ms No. You get to part with your money and your mind. ;-)
219. betty - 2/5/2002 3:42:38 PM
dusty,
I think it is true that ommission can be propaganda, but i can't get my head around it enough to create an actual example. Perhaps because as CD said propaganda can't be silent...but I'm not sure.
220. concerned - 2/5/2002 3:46:49 PM
Just thought I'd pop in for this:
Is Propaganda always a lie?
Not always. But don't ever count on it being the whole or unslanted truth.
221. concerned - 2/5/2002 3:49:11 PM
...campaigns....
222. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 4:05:21 PM
Betty,
What about television in general? It tells us that we are a nation of mostly white, upper-middle-income, attractive, educated, healthy, youthful people. By omitting people of color, the poor, the blue collar, the uneducated, the elderly and the unattractive---or even just plain, do we send the message out to society that those things are undesireable and therefore unacceptable?
223. concerned - 2/5/2002 4:07:21 PM
Dunno about that. During a recent advertisement cycle during CNN news, I saw about half a dozen people of color, at least as many women, several girls, a couple of oriental/hispanics, and one ad even had a white guy.
224. concerned - 2/5/2002 4:09:34 PM
Perhaps some people won't believe discrimination is dead until there's no white people in the media.
225. DanDillon - 2/5/2002 4:09:47 PM
Ms. No,
But what, pray tell, is the difference between your ideology and your ideology as it relates to [a] product? Doesn't one directly inform/influence the other? (My god, what an incredibly American question.)
226. dusty - 2/5/2002 4:20:30 PM
betty
Suppose someone formed a foundation with millions of dollars, and funded an advertising campaign.
The theme is "role models". It consists of advertisements in popular magazines, featuring well-known people. A nice pic, and a blurb explaining the good works they have done.
Suppose there are men and women, of various ethnic backgrounds, but none of Arabic descent.
Isn't this propaganda by omission?
227. dusty - 2/5/2002 4:24:01 PM
Ms. No
Did you stop watching TV somewhere around 1968?
I don't watch much TV these days (other than Columbo reruns, Taxi reruns and sports), but your tv doesn't sound like mine.
228. wonkers2 - 2/5/2002 4:24:26 PM
Discrimination may be dead in the media, but it's alive and well elsewhere.
229. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 4:34:58 PM
Dan,
It's mainly a matter of scope---all Propaganda is Advertising, but not all Advertising is Propaganda.
Propaganda is a specific subset of advertising that sells a particular doctrine or cause. Paul, the King of Big-Screen TV isn't selling an ideology, he just wants you to buy his televisions. If it helps him to appeal to your sense of affluence or privelege to sell those TVs then fine, but his ultimate goal isn't to sell you on the idea of being affluent it's to sell you a television.
230. betty - 2/5/2002 4:41:40 PM
MsNo,
concerned begins to make an interesting point...commercials are more representative of the US population than the actual "shows"...is it because advertisers care about including the masses where as TV execs don't?
also, I'm guessing most people who write for TV are from the "mostly white, upper-middle-income, attractive, educated, healthy, youthful" background, hence they write what they know (as all writers are taught to do).
231. betty - 2/5/2002 4:44:08 PM
actually discrimination does live on in "entertainment" asian american and latino families are all but completely unrepresented on TV. think of a show about an asian family or a latino family then tell me about it because I haven't heard of it.
232. CalGal - 2/5/2002 4:47:17 PM
Advertising occurs in a competitive market. Thus all consumers have a choice between competing "truths", so to speak.
233. mgleason - 2/5/2002 4:54:05 PM
I don't think that the makers of commercials care more about being inclusive, but rather they're able to target niches in the market more effectively than the networks.
234. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 4:55:23 PM
Dusty,
I'm not much of a television watcher at all, but according to Nielsen:
For the week of Jan. 21-27, the top 20 shows were:
1. Friends
2. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
3. Fox NFC Championship Post-Game Show
4. Everybody Loves Raymond
5. ABC Premiere Event: Stephen King's Rose Red,
6. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
6. Will & Grace
8. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
9. Judging Amy
10. JAG
11. CBS Sunday Movie: My Sister's Keeper
11. Law and Order
13. ER, NBC
13. NBC News Special: Bush White House: Real West Wing
15. The West Wing
16. Frasier
17. Becker
18. The Guardian
19. Will & Grace
20. Crossing Jordan
Are these shows not primarily peopled by white, educated, upper-middle-income folk?
235. mgleason - 2/5/2002 4:57:04 PM
BTW, PBS is running original episodes of a show about a Mexican family in LA that was originally commissioned by CBS (I think), and then dropped.
236. CalGal - 2/5/2002 4:59:18 PM
Christin, I thought your assertion was that this was propaganda. Are you saying that television producers deliberately put out shows that are only white, educated, upper middle class? If not, then how can you call it propaganda?
In fact, TV shows often blatantly propagandize, and they always do it in favor of the poor, the minorities, and so on.
Response to market demands can't be considered propaganda.
237. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:02:14 PM
Maria, CBS may have passed, but they also gave PBS the pilot for free, when it cost them $1 million to make.
238. mgleason - 2/5/2002 5:04:14 PM
One of the reasons that there aren't more shows directed at a Spanish-speaking audience is that there is a ton of parallel programming (in Spanish) to meet their needs.
239. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:04:20 PM
CG,
No, I didn't make any assertion either way. I asked a question. At least, I think I did. I'll have to go back and look. I'm trying to do too many things at the office while also staying plugged in here.
240. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:06:50 PM
Yep--to mgleason.
Christin, I was responding to your question "what sort of message does television send"? That implies it is deliberate.
I believe it does send this message, I believe it is inadvertent due to response to the market, and I believe they do a fair amount (but could do more) to compensate for the market failure.
Also, the top 20 shows among blacks is completely different from the top 20 shows among whites, which means they are getting their needs met.
241. mgleason - 2/5/2002 5:09:14 PM
CG,
Yes, I'd read that CBS had given PBS the pilot. I wondered why they developed it in the first place.
242. dusty - 2/5/2002 5:23:24 PM
Are these shows not primarily peopled by white, educated, upper-middle-income folk?
I've seen Frazier. Two stars in that category, but two others, while white, not in that category.
I've seen Law and Order (CG's recommendation, I think.) Some fit the category, many do not.
I haven't watched any of the others.
243. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:26:16 PM
Law & Order is certainly not exclusively white, educated, upper middle income. Of the three cops, two are black--and cops aren't upper income.
Certainly most of the rest of them are as Christin describes. It's true that Frasier's dad and Daphne aren't educated upper middle income, but they live like they are.
244. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:28:38 PM
Cal,
I think an entity must be cohesive in order to have an intent. "Television" isn't. There are too many different networks and producers involved for it to have a collective will. This doesn't prevent it from presenting a particular point of view, though, and I agree with you that it's market driven rather than coersive.
The ratings I pulled were collective---not separated by ethnicity, income or gender. I wasn't particularly surprised by the lack of color in the top-rated shows because regardless of the urban population, America is still predominantly white, but I am curious about the missing blue collar world.
I think I'm preoccupied because of something I caught briefly on television the other day. The E! True Hollywood story is what I call hangover television and I happened to see some of the Larry Flynt bio on Sunday. There was some muckety-muck from a feminist organization going on and on about how offensive Hustler magazine is. She wasn't ranting about the degradation of women but about how Hustler appeals to a pool-hall mentality of sexuality.
My jaw literally hung I was so shocked. Not shocked that she'd hold such an opinion, but shocked that she thought she would sway great hoardes of people to her side by insulting the majority population. I mean, there are more Americans with "pool hall mentalities" than there are with Ivy-League degrees.
But maybe it's not that big a deal. Soap operas are still going strong and they're certainly not representative of their target audience in many ways.
And what has this got to do with Propaganda? Beats me, but I just couldn't help myself.
245. mgleason - 2/5/2002 5:37:31 PM
It's got everything to do with propaganda!
246. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:37:45 PM
Cal,
It's true that Frasier's dad and Daphne aren't educated upper middle income, but they live like they are.
Yeah, like the Friends who work in coffee bars and play open mics for change yet live in luxury apartments in Seattle.
This is the result of writing what you know as Betty pointed out. TV writers can create a character with a low-income job, but they generally don't lead low income lives. Shows that come immediately to mind that were/are truer to real life in this regard would be:
NYPD Blue(cop shows are generally really good about this)
Cheers
Rosanne
Good Times
Taxi
Sanford & Son
All in the Family
(yes, I know most of these are loooong gone from TV)
247. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:38:04 PM
The ratings I pulled were collective---not separated by ethnicity, income or gender.
Oh, I know. I was just pointing out that the difference is substantial. Blacks and whites are not watching the same thing at all--although I bet that for blacks it is income based. Probably not for whites, though.
And don't confuse feminists with television. Feminists are an evil all their own.
In fact, "feminist statistics" is an entire category of propaganda that is also largely lies or twisted facts.
248. concerned - 2/5/2002 5:38:11 PM
Suppose there are men and women, of various ethnic backgrounds, but none of Arabic descent.
Isn't this propaganda by omission?
Not at all. Just lump them in the generic Semite category with Hebrews.
249. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:38:55 PM
Maria,
Whew! Good, I'd hate to be off topic in my own thread.
250. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 5:41:35 PM
CG,
I wasn't confusing feminists with television, she just happened to be on television.
251. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2002 5:47:33 PM
Advertising is not propaganda. The issue at hand is being trivialised.
252. CalGal - 2/5/2002 5:48:56 PM
Advertising is not propaganda.
I did say that, I thought. It seems to me that propaganda purports to be education or information for your own good.
253. concerned - 2/5/2002 5:54:02 PM
...successful....
254. Ms. No - 2/5/2002 6:01:07 PM
Pelle,
I think the only person who is equating the two is DanDillon.
255. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 6:29:59 PM
Cal- my point wrt the NRA was the RIFLE part of the name and the actual focus of the group. In recent past the focus has been on everything but rifles, save for the fights over "assault rifles."
Teflon bullets, handgun control (or the absence of it), concealed carry of pistols and revolvers, "shoot your neighbor" laws etc.
The organization has been overtaken by second amendment purists wanting to arm nearly everyone with concealed weapons, while the safety, hunting and sporting uses of long arms are shunted aside.
Similarly, the "Moral Majority." The majority was always questionable, and the morality portion all too frequently gave over to partisan political practicality.
Its not the truth of the matter asserted that caused me to choose items for my list, but rather the effect of the "party line" in shaping the debate and gaining acceptance or at least intellectual cover for the proffered view of reality. Thus, a die hard liberal like me takes shots at communist propaganda, Nixon, Clinton, and Reagan as leading Presidential fibs, as well as some familiar targets of the left.
256. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 6:47:49 PM
Oh, and honorable mention should go to the following in no particular order, "amateur athletes" in the Olympics until recent reforms, "race" as a scientific concept (save for the most basic and general matters of physiology,
genetics etc., as clusters of like characteristics over a broad continuum of population distribution.)
"the liability crisis," its bastard child "tort reform;" "judicial activism" when used as a synonymn with "liberal;" "original intent" as a school of juridical thought; and prosecutors that deny plea bargaining.
257. Jonesatlaw - 2/5/2002 6:50:08 PM
Pelle- advertising is most certainly propaganda, but the propaganda message is not as much "Buy brand X" as much as "consuming is good and good for you."
258. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 7:00:43 PM
"Wholesome." What the hell does that mean?
259. CalGal - 2/5/2002 7:49:37 PM
I thought of a few other propaganda campaigns that were/are successful, if small--two were spurred by other conversations in the Mote:
1. JFK's "healthy athleticism", when in fact he had a bad back and Addison's disease.
2. The value of a mother's undivided attention on her child every hour of every day, and the notion that until recently this was the norm.
3. The idea that teens are at risk for smoking.
260. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 7:59:11 PM
So teens shouldn't be discouraged from smoking? The risk may be over stated, but the idea that they are at risk is bogus? That hardly amounts to a successful propaganda campaign.
It was never the norm for a mother to give a child "undivided attention." Stay at home moms rarely had one child, for one thing. For another, kids worked at home for their parents from a very early age. The fifties/sixties family construct was a transitional phase that was contributed to in part by increased incomes of fathers and more modern conveniences for women in the home.
261. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 8:00:25 PM
Put overstated together, if you prefer.
262. CalGal - 2/5/2002 8:44:09 PM
The risk may be over stated, but the idea that they are at risk is bogus?
Sure. It doesn't matter in the slightest if teens smoke. What matters is if they continue to smoke past their teens, and as we discussed, that is a function of income.
It was never the norm for a mother to give a child "undivided attention." ....
Um. Yes. I know. That was the point. I figured people could figure it out, but happily, in figuring it out all by yourself, you've stated it for all the others who might be a bit slow to grasp the obvious. I keep on forgetting about that crew.
263. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 8:51:07 PM
What was the worst (=least effective/biggest failure) propaganda campaign of the 20th century?
264. CalGal - 2/5/2002 9:07:23 PM
These aren't the worst, but they came to mind as failures:
--Wilson's sale of the LoN
--Nuclear energy, thus far
--The value of integration in public schools
--Fetus is a human being
265. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 10:06:19 PM
I may be splitting hairs here but I'm inclined to lump some of those under advocacy rather than propaganda. I suppose there's a continuum connecting the two.
266. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 10:15:50 PM
Yes, Cal, it matters if teens smoke.
I don't think you're splitting hairs, H. Advocacy groups may use propaganda, but they aren't necessarily in and of themselves propaganda campaigns. Several on that list, such as integration, are very desirable goals. If some people don't think so it still doesn't make them propaganda campaigns.
267. CalGal - 2/5/2002 10:27:56 PM
Yes, I'd say there is a continuum.
I'd say that Wilson and fetus as human being fall on the advocacy side, then. I think integration value and nuclear energy are still propaganda.
Value of integration is the inherent assumption behind busing, the elimination or de-emphasis of SAT scores for minorities, the redistricting, magnet schools, and a host of other government sponsored mandates. The continual efforts wouldn't be necessary had the value been accepted 30 years ago.
Nuclear energy: I remember all those Disney cartoons, is all.
268. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 10:28:15 PM
Advocacy groups may use propaganda, but they aren't necessarily in and of themselves propaganda campaigns.
Good point and I agree. In the discussion so far, I think we've identified several points along a continuum (or maybe around a circle): advocacy, advertising, news, and propaganda.
It's becoming more difficult to discuss them because everyone seems to have a different view of where the boundaries are. I certainly don't agree with the thought upthread that equated advertising and news to propaganda.
269. CalGal - 2/5/2002 10:32:42 PM
Several on that list, such as integration, are very desirable goals. If some people don't think so it still doesn't make them propaganda campaigns.
This doesn't follow. You might want to review the definition of "propaganda" one more time. The desirability of the goal is irrelevant. What defines propaganda is the effort to disseminate ideas, values, and information.
270. CalGal - 2/5/2002 10:35:10 PM
Yes, Cal, it matters if teens smoke.
Again. It doesn't matter whether you think it matters or not, or whether I do, for that matter. I defined it as a propaganda campaign.
You and Jones both seem to think that any effort that seeks to promote your own values is just truthtelling, not propaganda. Truthtelling can be propaganda, if it has a specific goal.
271. AytchMan - 2/5/2002 10:52:04 PM
I think intent has a great deal to do with how the distribution of a body of information is perceived. So, some working definitions:
News is distributed with the intent to inform objectively. To the extent news is deliberately not objective, it becomes advocacy or propaganda.
Advocacy has the intent to persuade honorably. The information is not necessarily objective but is factual and truthful. To the extent it's not, it becomes propaganda.
Advertising is a subset of advocacy for commercial purposes.
Propaganda has the intent to persuade against the best interests of the subject.
272. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 10:59:41 PM
I don't care how you defined it. I don't care what you concluded. You seem to be infused with this idea that your reality is the one and all others are ludicrous. And rather than suggest what other people reread, you might want to follow your own advice. Effective communication can be your friend.
In short, I agree with H's statement about the continuum, and my point was that I didn't believe promoting a goal was automatically propaganda, and I don't think the implementation of integration was a propaganda campaign. I never said truth can't still be propaganda.
273. arkymalarky - 2/5/2002 11:01:02 PM
#271 is a good way of stating it.
274. RustlerPike - 2/5/2002 11:09:44 PM
This thread moves too fast.
275. CalGal - 2/5/2002 11:39:52 PM
Aytch,
I don't see anything in the definition of either propaganda or advocacy that supports your interpretation. Advocacy is when you take a side. The line between advocacy and propaganda is, I believe, to do with purpose. Advocacy is defense in the interests of someone or something else. Propaganda is offense in one's own self-interest.
The US is busy engaging in a propaganda campaign in Afghanistan. It cannot be described as advocacy. It's propaganda, and has regularly been described as such. Is it your position that this campaign is against the interests of the Afghans?
I don't want to distract the thread into a fuss about semantics, but I think the definition is interesting. Clearly there is a dispute about its meaning. But I can find nothing in the definition that suggests a negative intent.
276. CalGal - 2/5/2002 11:40:38 PM
Arky,
I didn't "define" it. I just used the dictionary.
277. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:00:39 AM
Hmm, Merriam-Webster:
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Obviously #1 doesn't apply, but I wanted to make sure no one thought I'd just taken what I wanted.
278. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:04:38 AM
cal--
I'm having trouble parsing your 275. I'm not always sure which definitions you mean. Anyway...
I am trying to refine the dictionary definitions a bit to establish a common ground for this thread. I think the posted definition is inadequate for our discussion and is causing trouble.
As for Afghanistan, our propaganda campaign was directed against supporters of the Taliban so, yes, I think it was against their interest.
I didn't say (and don't believe) that propaganda is inherently negative in intent (or evil, for that matter). Except in the sense that it's always directed against something.
279. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:05:18 AM
Abs--see Message # 194
280. judithathome - 2/6/2002 12:07:02 AM
Cal: see Message # 3
281. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:08:43 AM
abs--
I think that definition is insufficient for this thread. I can discern no useful distinction in (2) or (3) between advocacy and propaganda. Seems to me they're quite different. Do you guys think they're the same?
282. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/6/2002 12:13:29 AM
Try this:
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.
283. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:17:25 AM
our propaganda campaign was directed against supporters of the Taliban
It was directed towards Afghan citizens, and not against their interests. More than being anti-Taliban, I'd say that it's pro-US.
Or consider Christin's war propaganda posters, earlier. The audience was US citizens. Are you saying it was against their interests?
Except in the sense that it's always directed against something.
I'm really not trying to cause trouble, but this simply isn't true. Propaganda is quite often for something.
Dusty had a good catchphrase earlier--propaganda is information with a mission. The information can be accurate or not, it can be a good mission or a bad one. The common element is the sense of mission, or goal, always in the self-interest of the propagandist.
I have nothing against coming up with working definitions--in fact, I agreed with your distinction between advocacy and propaganda, and that they have a continuum. But the definitions have to be accurate, and I can't see any way to agreeing that propaganda is always against the target audience's interests, or that propaganda is always directed against something.
I think Wiz's definition is generally good, except I'd change "views and interests" to "views or interests".
284. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:17:26 AM
Aytch, I think they are different. One problem I've had in the last two days is that it doesn't seem the meaning of propaganda, for this threat, has been established and we are talking about all sorts of things. We may never been in total agreement on a definition but it would set some parametersand lessen confusion.
285. judithathome - 2/6/2002 12:17:46 AM
To tell you the truth, H, I'm beginning to wonder if it's even possible to know what we're talking about. When this thread started, I thought I knew.
286. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:19:08 AM
Cal...nice definition...sounds familiar, too!
287. Absensia - 2/6/2002 12:20:52 AM
Judith, nice definition too....; ) Perhaps we need to think of a specific definition and use it as the intro to this thread.
288. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:21:59 AM
Aytch,
I can discern no useful distinction in (2) or (3) between advocacy and propaganda.
Oh, I think there is a clear difference between advocacy and propaganda. You yourself said that it was a continuum--but then later, you made a comment about the motives being different. I disagree that this is the key difference. One can advocate a cause out of entirely ignoble reasons.
Using the dictionary again,
one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
Again, the notion of advocacy is defense. Propaganda is offense. You "stand up" for an idea as an advocate. You "push" an idea as a propagandist.
Those are pretty clear differences.
Obviously, lots of people call themselves advocates when they are really pushing propaganda. (g)
But that's still a continuum. There is a point at which you cross from advocacy to propaganda, to promoting instead of protecting.
289. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:23:05 AM
I think the definition is always going to be blurry around the edges. That's understandable, and even inevitable.
290. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:26:19 AM
cal--
I could make a tortuous argument that our WW2 homeland propaganda was, indeed, against the perceived self-interest of our citizens but...
I'm willing to chuck my definition. What's better? The MW definition is not good enough. Should not a distinction be drawn between advocacy (which has a good to neutral connotation) and propaganda (which has a neutral to bad rep)?
291. judithathome - 2/6/2002 12:29:02 AM
Ask Mgleason to get the OED definition. ;-)
292. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:37:14 AM
Timeout.
All I'm trying to do is distinguish some things mentioned upthread -- news, advertising, advocacy, and propaganda.
They're all different, we all know they're all different. But we're also all using them all differently.
This is causing confusion because some are labelling, say, advertising as propaganda or whatever. One's reaction to 'advertising' is different than to 'propaganda'.
293. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:40:43 AM
If we simply use the MW definition, then Wilson's "advocacy" of the League of Nations is indeed propaganda and, to me, this seems unreasonable.
Even worse, news and advertising are also propaganda as pointed out upthread. Say it ain't so.
294. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 12:45:35 AM
I encourage someone else to take a shot but you must distinguish news, advertising, advocacy and propaganda from one other. Feel free to appropriate my crippled attempt.
I still believe intent is the key.
295. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:49:48 AM
Aytch,
Should not a distinction be drawn between advocacy (which has a good to neutral connotation) and propaganda (which has a neutral to bad rep)?
There is a distinction. I thought I made a pretty good pass at it. But the connotation is irrelevant. It's the desire to portray one as good and the other as bad that is, in fact, causing the problem, as people define anything they disagree with as propaganda, and anything they approve of as advocacy. These connotations are baggage that are brought to the table with no basis in the definition.
In fact, that's how the conversation gets interesting--to demonstrate propaganda can indeed be valuable and be used to good end. That many campaigns with positive results were, in fact, propaganda, and that advocacy can be ignoble.
I think that Wilson was an advocate; I accepted your correction of that. To my knowledge, there was no concentrated effort to push LoN. He just argued forcefully on its behalf. On the other hand, I think the government had a definite agenda in selling us on nuclear energy, and their efforts were propaganda--again, this doesn't define the goal as nefarious.
296. CalGal - 2/6/2002 12:51:35 AM
I still believe intent is the key.
So Hitler and Goebbels, who had nothing but the good of Germany at the heart of their intent, were advocates?
No. Intent is irrelevant. Purpose--to protect or to promote--is a reasonable distinction, and one that the definitions clearly support.
297. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:05:28 AM
cal--
We're missing each other somewhere. I don't understand how you read me as suggesting that Hitler was an advocate. He propagandized.
I also can't see a great distinction between intent and purpose. Hitler's intent with his propaganda was to deceive and divide the Allies. The purpose of the propaganda? The same.
In fact, my dictionary uses purpose and intent to define each other. What do you see as the distinction?
Finally, could you point out your distinction between advocacy and propaganda?
298. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:09:39 AM
cal--
Rather than address my 297, please take a shot at the four definitions we need. Good definitions will end our axle-wrapping.
299. CalGal - 2/6/2002 1:20:18 AM
Aytch,
It was in #275, the post you didn't understand. (g)
Advocacy is when you take a side. The line between advocacy and propaganda is, I believe, to do with purpose. Advocacy is defense in the interests of someone or something else. Propaganda is offense in one's own self-interest.
I may be wrong in using the word "purpose".
The way I was using it, "purpose" is the aim, not the intent. What are you setting out to do? Not in subjective terms, but objective. Are you stepping forward to defend or protect something, an onslaught, an attack? Or are you seeking to promote an idea?
Or, now that I think of it, maybe "intent" is fine--provided that you also keep it objective. Not positive goals or negative goals, for audience interests or against audience interests. But promote or protect is intent, objectively described. (or more objectively, anyway!)
I don't understand how you read me as suggesting that Hitler was an advocate.
But if you use intent as the motive, you could easily argue that Hitler just wanted to do good things for Germany. This is nonsense, of course. But the minute you make it about motive, people start to argue about motive.
If you view it as he actively sought to promote a particular view or belief, then it's a lot more difficult to blur the lines. However, the lines inevitably blur in the middle--because, as you described first off, advocacy and propaganda are on a continuum.
300. CalGal - 2/6/2002 1:23:18 AM
Feel free to ignore 299, per your request. My pass at definitions coming up.
301. CalGal - 2/6/2002 1:39:30 AM
Four definitions:
1. News--to provide information without a specific goal or agenda. To describe what has happened, not what should happen.
2. Advertising--tough one, but I would say that product or business related advertising doesn't seek to disseminate information, but define itself in relation to its competition. In fact, I'd say that competition is a key factor in distinguishing advertising from propaganda--and why we capitalists take such a dim view of monopolies? But I'm open to debate on that one.
3. Advocacy--to protect or defend the interests of an idea, value, belief (or person). The goal isn't to convert, but to withstand.
4. Propaganda--to actively promote and disseminate an idea, value, or belief. The goal is specifically to change beliefs, values, ideas.
As a (possibly) separate matter, I noticed a difference in rewards to the provider that I thought would be worth mentioning to see if I have it right:
1. News--Information provider is neutral (in an ideal world, of course) and must not benefit from the choices made. (in a perfect world)
2. Advertising--Information provider is directly and openly rewarded if successful.
3. Advocacy--The interests of the advocate are irrelevant/orthogonal to the interests protected, can be paid or voluntary.
4. Propaganda--Organization providing information are not directly benefiting, but the purpose of propaganda is to benefit the interests of the disseminators, either directly or indirectly.
302. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:41:03 AM
On your definition from 275: I still can't resolve A and P into recognizably different things, even as cousins of the continuum. No offense.
Defense vs. offense hangs me up. I can easily envision advocating a change in some existing policy. Isn't that offense? I can also envision using propaganda to deter somebody from something. Isn't that defense? I am, perhaps, far stupider than originally planned.
303. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 1:47:12 AM
We've got a long night ahead of us, Missy.
304. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:09:29 AM
Which of the definitions don't you buy?
I can easily envision advocating a change in some existing policy.
I thought of that, and I think that depending on the situation, this can be where the line blurs. Or maybe we use "advocate" when it's actually propaganda, because of the negative/positive connotations you mentioned earlier?
Suppose the desired position is "prohibit employment of children under the age of 16".
1. News--I think we're straight on this one. News is not propaganda.
2. Advertising--an advertising agency is given the job of developing a campaign to spur donations to a fund devoted to ending child labor.
3. Advocacy--An advocate seeks to create a new law to protect children.
4. Propaganda: A government wants to be accepted in a trade organization, and they aren't eligible until they have a child labor law on the books. So they begin a propaganda campaign to change thinking on child labor, to reduce resistance to child labor laws so that they can gain acceptance to the trade organization.
Or: Government decides that child labor is causing all sorts of problems, and determine that even though the populace isn't ready, it's time to get things moving. They need an educated population, a healthy population, they need more jobs for adults. Whatever. They set out to change thought.
Now, what is the difference between 3 and 4? The advocate is seeking to protect children. The propagandist is seeking to promote a value and belief system. The advocate doesn't really care if people agree; the propagandist wants to change thought.
305. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 2:21:34 AM
Just saw your latest. This is to 301.
News is fine. The idea of objective or neutral shines through.
Advertising. It's more of a quibble but I would say advertising definitely seeks to disseminate information. Even your "defining relative to competition" requires putting out info.
Advocacy. I just can't get past that defense aspect. As I see it, the goal often is to convert. Consider your Wilson example. He needed to persuade Congress, not withstand them. If the status quo prevailed, there would be no League.
Propaganda. This might be fine pending resolution of Advocacy. As it is, to me, advocacy fits in here as well. We're missing whatever it is in the popular imagination that makes the idea of advocacy 'good' and propaganda 'bad'.
Note that I'm not saying one is good, the other bad. There is good propaganda and bad advocacy. But the popular reaction to one concept is positive; to the other, negative.
306. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:24:55 AM
This has been fun, but I don't want to get bogged down. I will say this: I see no support for the notion that advocacy is good/positive/noble, propaganda is bad/evil.
Go back to what kicked this off in a way: my four proposals for failed propaganda:
1. Wilson's sales job on LoN
2. Nuclear energy
3. Value of integration in public schools
4. Fetus is a human being.
1 is advocacy. Wilson was speaking out in defense of his own idea, the League of Nations. I don't think he actively sought to change values, rather to defend his baby against misconceptions. However, it could be that there was a propaganda campaign that I'm unaware of.
2 was propaganda back in the 50s and 60s, if my memory serves me correctly.
3. Propaganda. The government consistently tried to change thinking and values, primarily by putting blacks and whites together in the confidence that they would soon see the light and realize the value of this approach. This in no way cast aspersions on the goal itself.
4. Fetus is a human being--I originally agreed that this was advocacy, given that it is protection of life as the advocate saw it. But you know, I think that a lot of people are promoting this idea without really believing that the fetus is a life, and in that case it is an agenda to change thoughts and values--ie, propaganda. So I think the definition depends on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual. Not whether their aim is good or bad, but whether they in fact believe that the fetus is a human being in every way.
Finally, I don't think this will be resolved unless everyone agrees that the subjective notions of good and bad are left out of the distinction. If we can do that, then any debate about whether something is propaganda, advocacy, or even advertising will be meaningful. If we can't get away from the value-laden definition, then there's trouble.
Off to the gym.
307. CalGal - 2/6/2002 2:39:27 AM
Okay, just saw 305 and will respond before I run off.
As I see it, the goal often is to convert.
Yes, but in defense, not in offense. But I totally agree that this is a tough nut. I mentioned that Wilson wanted to speak out for his baby. An advocate thinks the value of his or her ideas is self-evident, that all that needs to be done is explain and defend it and people will see the truth. The problem is misrepresentation and (maybe) bad people trying to harm the protected entity.
Propagandists want to change thought, values, etc. to benefit their own interests. The truth of their pov isn't as important as the results. This is not to say that propaganda is untrue.
Some people will see the first explanation as positive, the second as negative. And that's where the connotations come from, I think. Propaganda has the stink of the ends justifying the means.
But in fact, there is nothing necessarily negative about changing thought by any means necessary. Given the choice between fooling people into disliking child labor and convincing them that it's wrong, I'll take the method that gets kids off the job. And since it doesn't necessarily involve untruth, where's the automatic downside?
The advocate can be wrong, too. They might just think they know the truth, which can often be dangerous.
Finally--advocates often cross the line over to propaganda. My pet peeve: NOW. They began by seeking equal rights. But they are often actively seeking to change values and definitions--and it is for their own interests, if you know anything about their fundraising problems in the 80s. At a certain point, the advocate becomes powerful enough that they have status to maintain--where the victory becomes a worthwhile end.
and NOW I will get myself to the gym.
308. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 2:53:37 AM
This has been fun and we are quite bogged.
Final thoughts:
News -- We're agreed. Objective and neutral.
Advertising -- More or less agreed. Usually but not exclusively commercial.
Advocacy and Propaganda -- Closely related but we can't define the essential difference.
Help, Mote. Without a reasonable definition, my advocacy is your propaganda. OTOH, why should this thread be any different?
309. AytchMan - 2/6/2002 3:18:29 AM
Final, Final Thought:
Cal is suggesting that, in order for the discussion to proceed, we avoid any assignment of 'good' or 'bad' to the definition of Propaganda.
After lengthy consideration, I think she may be right. It just doesn't sit well to lump the massive Soviet disinformation campaign in the same category as NBC Nightly News. Indeed, if there is no 'good' or 'bad', they are exactly the same thing.
And, in fact, dan dillon is then correct: news, advertising and advocacy are all propaganda.
Alas.
310. Jonesatlaw - 2/6/2002 5:43:10 AM
As for one of the proposals concerning advertisment versus propaganda- one propaganda definition included persuasion against the best interests of the target of the persuasion. Clearly some advertisement falls into this category, (depending on your view, of course) for example the "other" political parties campaign ads; tobacco ads; various late night infomercials promoting dangerous or fraudulent diets or financial schemes; or finally to promote wasteful spending on trendy or fad products-i.e. the evils of materialism/consumerism; etc.
Is it really in anybody's interest to own a damn Chia Pet?
I am more comfortable with the distinction between advocacy and propaganda being the ways and means, rather than the motive behind the speech. Hitler was a propagandist because his persuasive speech was intentionally untrue and his goal evil, his means of persuasion were without moral limit. OTOH the latest get rich quick guys may be facially truthful and genuinely don't mind if I get rich, even though they don't necessarily feel the need to point out the actual odds of that happening if I buy their product. I see them as advertising, while Hitler was spreading propaganda. I also associate propaganda
with intent to harm, or exploit, and a willingness to abandon truth, logic and whatever other ethics one could bring to bear.
311. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 9:44:30 AM
Unless I'm very much mistaken so far in this thread no one has brought up Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes by Jacques Ellul (Knopf, 1965; Vintage, 1973)
It supplies all the necessary information for a real discussion of this topic.
Advertising,in and of itself, isn't propaganda.
Having strong opinions (especially if they're Left Wing, given the current climate) isn't propaganda.
Expressing the view that the poor aren't given a fair shake by this society isn't propaganda.
312. CalGal - 2/6/2002 10:25:18 AM
It just doesn't sit well to lump the massive Soviet disinformation campaign in the same category as NBC Nightly News. Indeed, if there is no 'good' or 'bad', they are exactly the same thing.
How do you get this? Soviet "news" was government sponsored, and an arm of the propaganda machine. Therefore it doesn't meet the definition of news, no matter how much it pretends.
I would say instead that it is true that Hitler's propaganda and the US WWII campaign to bolster support for the war are exactly the same thing.
313. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 10:28:38 AM
U.S. news is corporate-sponsored, and an arm of its propaganda machine. When Lisa Myers has Ken Lay's wife on the "Today" show, allowing her her sob like a deranged fishwife and never asking her a pertinent question what you've got is propaganda at its most implicitly effective.
314. CalGal - 2/6/2002 10:32:12 AM
Well, if you can't see the difference, you're an idiot. But in any event, you are certainly a sadly ineffective propagandist for the left.
315. Cellar Door - 2/6/2002 11:04:41 AM
It's not a question of "seeing the difference," idiot.it has to do with comprehending the way "news" is manufactured and disseminated.
And how,praytell, am I a "propagandist for left"? By having an opinion?
(This should be rich, folks. To CalGal everything that doesn't proceed from the right is "propaganda" -- except for Hitler.)
316. CalGal - 2/6/2002 11:09:26 AM
And how,praytell, am I a "propagandist for left"? By having an opinion?
No. By skewing facts and reality to make the left appear more attractive. You're just very bad at it.
For example, your claim that the US news media is in no way indistinguishable from Soviet propaganda. That's not brave. It's moronic.
It was also a (mild) joke.
To CalGal everything that doesn't proceed from the right is "propaganda"
Well, if by "right" you mean "anything to the left of Stalin" you might be right. In any event, that's wrong, too. But whatever.
317. marjoribanks - 2/6/2002 11:19:19 AM
US mainstream media is an embarrasment, whether you want to call it outright propaganda or not. CNN is an American shill (the international version is better), Fox is a raucous jingoistic pep-rally, and the three networks are simply unwatchable and tedious.
I know of no other wealthy developed country where the media swims so unified, in such an opaque swill of half-truth and outright manipulation, or where the populace is kept, perforce, so much in the dark about the country's affairs.
318. CalGal - 2/6/2002 11:21:17 AM
I know of no other wealthy developed country where the media swims so unified, in such an opaque swill of half-truth and outright manipulation, or where the populace is kept, perforce, so much in the dark about the country's affairs.
Gosh, with this recommendation it's clear we're doing something right.
319. marjoribanks - 2/6/2002 11:23:34 AM
I'd compare the US mainstream media to what I know of China's. (I've spent some time working with the editors of a major Chinese newspaper - the Gongren Ribao.)
There is leeway to pursue scandal and corruption, but on certain matters the mainsteam will simply refuse to cover the story half-way honestly. And ridiculous weightage is given to the "official" line, reducing the papers and most of the television news to something very much like unreliable "house organs". So yes, s