# Propaganda Then and Now



## Nolerama (May 10, 2008)

I really good discussion was raised in one of my classes the other day:

From the beginning of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st, where has the average American experienced the most amount/most effective propaganda?

Someone argued for today's consumer-based media. I argued the effectiveness of war propaganda during WW2.

What do you think? Are we getting more bull now as compared to before?


----------



## Big Don (May 10, 2008)

The propaganda in WWII was certainly more entertaining: The Colonel Bogey March I had no idea that had lyrics until about three days ago, now, it is stuck in my head, driving me nuts.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 10, 2008)

I would say that we experience more Propaganda  today over television and in our newspapers than ever before.
We are inundated every day with propaganda from everything from what hair product to use to who is ahead in any political field. We hear only the American (if you live in America or insert your own countries name) and most of the time have little knowledge of what people in the rest of the world are saying as we seldom read articles or listen to news from other countries


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2008)

Slightly off Topic, but speaking of Propaganda and WWII, go to youtube and look up the WWII military training films Called "Snafu"... cartoons made to entertain troops while training/warning them about things like Booby Traps, Being Lazy, letting out secrets... etc...

Highly entertaining.


----------



## elder999 (May 10, 2008)

In WWII it was clerly propaganda; now, it's called _FoxNews_.


----------



## Big Don (May 10, 2008)

elder999 said:


> In WWII it was clerly propaganda; now, it's called _FoxNews_.


Yeah, because ABC, NBC, and CBS have no bias... NBC blew up cars, CBS had FAKE documents, but, they aren't biased...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2008)

elder999 said:


> In WWII it was clerly propaganda; now, it's called _FoxNews_.



This is funny comming from a guy that admitted he doesnt watch fox


----------



## Tez3 (May 11, 2008)

The BBC reckons it's reported things correctly when both the left and the right complain about bias in its political news reports. However there is a tendancy when reporting from abroad towards bias, this is because as part of a PC move the reporters now have to be of the ethnic origin from the place they are reporting from! 
This is interesting

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Dishonest_Reporter_Award_2007.asp


----------



## Sukerkin (May 11, 2008)

A brilliant link, Irene.  Thanks for that.


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> This is funny comming from a guy that admitted he doesnt watch fox


 

No, but I imagine that _Ted Turner_  does, from time to time-that's funny....

...and, of course,FAIR-that's _Fairness and Acurracy In Reporting_, a national media watchdog group, doesn't think Fox is propaganda either.....

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, another media watch group, conducted  a survey of journalists that showed that Fox was the network journalists most identified as having ideological stance in its coverage, and most identified as advocating conservative political positions,with 56% of national journalists citing Fox News as being especially conservative in its coverage of news.

A year-long study by the University of Maryland'shttp://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc] Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) showed that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and  by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:



> Fifty-seven percent of all people surveyed believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
> 
> Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
> 
> ...




"Fair and balanced" :lol:




			
				BidGon said:
			
		

> Yeah, because ABC, NBC, and CBS have no bias..


 
Never said that they didn't-though I should point out that in another thread I pointed out that they are all owned and run by corporations with conservative, Republican leanings-like it or not, ALL the news you get is propagandized in one way or another-Fox is just a little more obvious and heavy-handed about it.
I'm not even going to get into how FoxNews manipulates their screen rockers and ticker.....


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2008)

thats called correlation, not causation

But I dont wanna pick nits.

yeah, quote Ted Turner, in fact i will:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/04/03/turner_0404.html

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state  like Somalia or Sudan  and living conditions will be intolerable."

yeha, now THERE is a man who's judgment I would trust..............

oh, Project for Excellence in Journalism did a SURVEY of JOURNALISTS, most of which work for outlets in direct competition with Fox, and whome Fox is humiliating in the ratings, and they trash it.

yeah that MUST mean it is bad, no conflict of interest there at all..........

Elder, you are listing to sources that are both untrustworthy and easily repudiated, and you refuse to find out for yourself.

Thats all that really needs to be said, you are smart enough to figure out the next part.

But lemme guess

You read DailyKOS?
MoveOn.org?
media Matters?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 11, 2008)

I think the types and degree of propaganda we are exposed to today is so much more complex, complete and ubiquitous then at any other time in history.  We now have so many methods of delivery, that it really is hard to actually separate yourself from it.

When I read this thread, this guy immediately came to mind.



> *Edward Louis Bernays* (November 22, 1891  March 9, 1995) is considered one of the fathers of the field of public relations along with Ivy Lee. Combining the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the psychology of the subconscious.
> 
> He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, _The Century of the Self_, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations.
> 
> He was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.[1]


 
In _Propaganda_ (1928), his most important book, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:


> The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.


Eddie Bernays was the father of modern propaganda.  His ideas inspired Goebbels in the Nazi effort to convince the German populace that exterminating the Jews was neccessary.  His direct clients were every major american corporation and just about every financial elite in the country.  In fact, John D. Rockefeller was considered one of his cheif clients.

Every election, every commercial, every public relations campaign uses his ideas on manipulation.  Entire careers are based on expanding his work.  IMHO, Bernays and his ilk have turned our society into what we see today.  To quote Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter described Bernays and his ilk to FDR as "professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of foolishness, fanaticism and self-interest."

I think that description is more then apt to describe us today.  The realpolitik mantra is as follows...

"The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest." 
 (Edward L. Bernays, "The Engineering of Consent," 1947)


----------



## Makalakumu (May 11, 2008)

I'm going to do something radical and suggest that the topic of propaganda is apolitical.  Pointing fingers at one side or the other is literally the pot calling the kettle black.  I think if both sides just took at step back and realized just how much their opinions and feelings have been managed, they would get more then a little angry.  How do we get away from it?  How do we learn to form our own ideas again?


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm going to do something radical and suggest that the topic of propaganda is apolitical. Pointing fingers at one side or the other is literally the pot calling the kettle black.


 
Well, yeah......interesting, though, how I don't even bother to defend ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN-_or have to_-and how vociferous the defense of that other network is....

...and just what would you make of this:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2008)

that signature of yours is rather elitest Elder


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

or this:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 11, 2008)

The same type of people who created Bernays and profitted by his work own all major media outlets.  So what if Fox spins it one way.  It'll just be spun another way by another organization.  Didn't we already discuss Hegel?  Freud, Bernays and Wundt were all heavily influenced by the dielectic.  

We're caught in the middle of a trap designed to make it look like we have choices.


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> that signature of yours is rather elitest Elder


 
So? Mr. Mencken was the original Shaman of Sarcasm, the truly Seminal Snark, the Prime Minister of the Sinister.....he was alsoa journalist, interestingly enough.....
.....and, like me, he usually thought he was right, mostly because he usually was-especially in this case, as evidenced by the man who was elected to and has held the highest office in the land for the last 7.5 years.....

....of course,_*I*_ didn't vote for him. Guess that makes me an elitist...who'd a thunk it? :lol:

Of course, I *am* an elitist-can't be helped....


----------



## Makalakumu (May 11, 2008)

Ya know, when you think about people like Bernays, its hard not got get cynical about politics.  For the last twenty years, back to the point where I very first got interested in politics, we've had administrations, congresses, and special interests that have spun things so hard its hard to tell what is real anymore.  Politics is hell where Machiavelli killed Satan and took over.


----------



## Big Don (May 11, 2008)

Oh, absolutely. If you aren't at least a little cynical about politics, or at least politicians, you are just not paying attention.


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> But lemme guess
> 
> You read DailyKOS?
> MoveOn.org?
> media Matters?


 

Nope....nope....and, *nope*.

I get all my news from Soldier of Fortune magazine.  :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2008)

i was being serious, but whatever.

have a nice day bud


----------



## Makalakumu (May 11, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Oh, absolutely. If you aren't at least a little cynical about politics, or at least politicians, you are just not paying attention.


 
I often ask the question, as I'm sure all of my American brothers do, why do we put up with this?

And then Bernays and his slimy little reptile nutriders enter the picture.  Big Don, I consider myself a reformed liberal.  There are so many places that I bet we agree more then disagree.  

Why can't we put our minds together?

Bernays and the whackjob they put on our minds.  "They" want us to be this way.

Sorry if you don't beleive this, but this is what I think.


----------



## Big Don (May 11, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I often ask the question, as I'm sure all of my American brothers do, why do we put up with this?


It is hard not to vote for politicians, they are almost always the only ones running... 
We could have elected Perot...
*Q *Who else are you going to get with the administrative skills?
*A  *Businessmen.
Damn near all American politicians have legal degrees, attorneys are a plague on ALL our houses.


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> i was being serious, but whatever.
> 
> have a nice day bud


 
So was I....wait, which do you mean, Mencken or Soldier of Fortune....no, wait, doesn't matter-I was being serious about both....as well as not reading any of that stuff you posted, but _whatever_....

Have a nice day?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2008)

yeah, it was Sunday, Mother's day, i was wishing you a good day.........


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, it was Sunday, Mother's day, i was wishing you a good day.........


 
Yeah, I was asking you if you _had_ one......


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 12, 2008)

I think, regardless of what source it comes from, that the demonization of the opposite side is the biggest propaganda piece in society today.  It used to be at one time that you could disagree and still remain cordial, even friendly.  But for some reason now, that is not the case.  I even saw a special on the differences between the way Congressmen deal with each other now, versus how they treat each other today.  One Congressman stated in the past, you could fight on the floor, but then go out and have a good meal with each other that night.

Here are some examples:

If you belive in building the border fence, you must be *racists*.

If you don't believe we should have gone to Iraq, then you are *un-American* and *un-patriotic*.

If you don't believe in welfare, then you must *hate* the poor.

If you don't believe the government should pay for health care for families, then you must not *care* about children.

(If my examples seem to point in the direction of "right-leaning", its only because I am more conservative.  I am sure there are many examples of the "right" doing the same thing.)

The point is, propaganda uses facts and information to try to elicit an *emotional* response, rather then a well thought out one.  

In my view, a proper definition of the word "propaganda" is not lies.  It is selecting and using only those particular facts and information which forces the listener in a certain direction.  The propagandist chooses or ignores those facts which disagree with their supposition.  In that context, I don't feel that the screen shots shown, in and of themselves, reflect propaganda.  They are certainly a perspective based on what those commentaters (not news casters or journalists) believe they know to be true.  Now, depending on what they actually say and show, then it may be considered propaganda.  But that is mostly based on what they leave out, not what they put into their comments.


----------



## punisher73 (May 12, 2008)

I'm still not sure how this got to be an argument about fair and balanced news, and the whole conservative vs. liberal thing.

BOTH SIDES use it!  Listen to even the word choices to elicit a different response.  

For example:

"Hillary Claims..." vs. "Hillary states..."  When you use the word "claim" it implies that it isnt' true or there is some type of falsehood.  The use of words and language to manipulate things is very subtle.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I'm still not sure how this got to be an argument about fair and balanced news, and the whole conservative vs. liberal thing.
> 
> BOTH SIDES use it! Listen to even the word choices to elicit a different response.
> 
> ...



It got that way because I used Fox as an example-even called it the most blatant one. I never denied that the "other side" uses propaganda-I even pointed out that I believe that there really is no "other side," that this is a perception that the media (among others) manipulates, and _utilizes _ to manipulate what the public thinks. 

_Some_, of course, want to believe that their source for news is "fair and balanced," and that the commentators they watch and listen to are "telling it like it is." To say otherwise is to offer some sort of insult, though I don't see how-since, as you've rightly pointed out, THEY ARE ALL PROPAGANDIZED.

I'll point out here that WOlf Blitzer is so clearly biased and in favor of Hillary Clinton's candidacy that I'm waiting for his head to explode on CNN when Obama clinches the nomination.....or at least break down and cry when Hillary finally quits...:lol:


----------



## Marginal (May 12, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> What do you think? Are we getting more bull now as compared to before?


Heavens no.


----------



## Big Don (May 12, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Heavens no.


As has been explained ad naseum, the SHIP's Crew's MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> As has been explained ad naseum, the SHIP's Crew's MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.


 



> *George W. Bush,USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003*
> "_In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed  _



Of course, the White House staff made the banner, and the Navy hung it up-and who knows, the Navy might have asked for it after a long deployment......

...and I suppose flying in on a jet in a flight suit wasn't _propaganda_, either....



> *George W. Bush, Camp As Sayliya, June 5, 2003*
> "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> As has been explained ad naseum, the SHIP's Crew's MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.


 

maybe it really should have been this (courtesy of the Daily Show):


----------



## CoryKS (May 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> As has been explained ad naseum, the SHIP's Crew's MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.


 
_Thank_ you.  Gawd, the willful ignorance regarding this sign is unbelievable.  Had they put up a "Welcome Home" sign, people would be sputtering, "but, but, but, there are still troops over there!  Ha Ha! Yer dumb!"


----------



## Tez3 (May 12, 2008)

Shakespeare was pretty good at propaganda, he has people believing Richard the Third was an evil hunchback. Of course to have written otherwise wouldn't have been politic for him as Queen Elizabeth's grandfather was the one who deposed Richard! As they say - the victor writes the history!


----------



## Marginal (May 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> As has been explained ad naseum, the SHIP's Crew's MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.


I know that's what Dana is telling people now. It was supposed to be the "end of major combat operations" for quite a while once it was clear the troops were still getting shot at however. 

The Bush administration's famous for staging countless photo ops like that one.


----------



## Big Don (May 12, 2008)

Marginal said:


> I know that's what Dana is telling people now. It was supposed to be the "end of major combat operations" for quite a while once it was clear the troops were still getting shot at however.
> 
> The Bush administration's famous for staging countless photo ops like that one.


Violence against allied troops continued well past V-E day too...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 12, 2008)

Please, please, please, people, this isn't a partisan issue!  For my US audience, I am an American, I have children, I work and try to provide for my family.  How different are we?  What do we accomplish by squadering our creative ability in fighting each other?

If some of you paid any attention to Bernays and others of his ilk that I posted, then you see what was happening.  

We are being turned against each other on purpose.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Violence against allied troops continued well past V-E day too...


 

Yep. Sure did........not for _five years,_ though._Operation Werwolf_ never really came together, and mostly faded away after two years-in part because the German people recognized the the U.S. was rebuilding their country. A comparison of Iraq's conquest, occupation, insurgency and "rebuilding" with that of Germany's post-WWII chronology is disingenuous, fatuous, absurd, and cognitively dissonant at best.......it's also propaganda, that you might have heard on Fox News...or CNN...or ABC...or NBC...or MSNBC....or CBS....or maybe the BBC....nah, probably *not* the BBC. :lol:


----------



## Marginal (May 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Please, please, please, people, this isn't a partisan issue!  For my US audience, I am an American, I have children, I work and try to provide for my family.  How different are we?  What do we accomplish by squadering our creative ability in fighting each other?
> 
> If some of you paid any attention to Bernays and others of his ilk that I posted, then you see what was happening.
> 
> We are being turned against each other on purpose.


True. For all our supposed differences, I think we're all perfectly good people. Just 'cause someone thinks one way and someone else thinks another doesn't mean they couldn't have perfectly reasonable conversations on any subject but politics, get along etc. 

That said, it's impossible to believe that people don't consider contrived photo ops to be government propaganda. I'm sure Clinton had a more than a few himself, and that every administration has attempted to sell its position to the American public through means other than reason alone.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 12, 2008)

The essence of modern propaganda isn't so far off from the literal interpretation presented here.  There's a lot of material in this little video clip that really is provactive if you stop to think about it.  The allagory is scifi, but poetic and pertinent.


----------



## CoryKS (May 12, 2008)

This ad has been on tv a lot lately, and it always gives me a chill.  Not because it delivers such a powerful message, but for the creepy propagandaliciousness of it.


----------



## Nolerama (May 13, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> * propagandaliciousness*



That word is awesome.


----------



## CoryKS (May 14, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> That word is awesome.


 
It's a perfectly cromulent word.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ...and I suppose flying in on a jet in a flight suit wasn't _propaganda_, either....



Elder, the man was a qualified jet pilot, and passenger jets dont land on carriers at sea.


----------



## elder999 (May 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, the man was a qualified jet pilot, and passenger jets dont land on carriers at sea.


 

Well, yeah, he was qualified to fly jets, once, but never landed on a carrier, (unlike his dad), didn't land that one, and...oh, yeah-_helicopters do land on carriers at sea, especially those just off shore...._

but what the heck do I know? :lol:  _*come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!*_


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 14, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> I really good discussion was raised in one of my classes the other day:
> 
> From the beginning of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st, where has the average American experienced the most amount/most effective propaganda?
> 
> ...


Its worse today. News used to have hire standards and played to a more well read and more educated public.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2008)

you really dont care do you? anything that might make the guy look ok, even if it makes sense, HAS to be spin

cant even be neutral, has to be bad....

and so what even if he just WANTED to wear a flight suit? he EARNED the right to do so


----------



## elder999 (May 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> you really dont care do you? anything that might make the guy look ok, even if it makes sense, HAS to be spin
> 
> cant even be neutral, has to be bad....
> 
> and so what even if he just WANTED to wear a flight suit? he EARNED the right to do so


 
Actually, I was rather disgusted with CNN's reportage on the online interview where he revealed why he no longer plays golf-they completely omitted that he was on the golf course when he was informed of a truck bomb destroying the U.N. headquarters in Bagdhad in 2003, and deciding then not to play anymore-instead, they turned it into a bit of a fluff piece that poked fun at his mannerisms and lack of technical savvy.  I think a fundamentally decent gesture like that-as well as his personally sharing condolences with the families of fallen soldiers, something I have reliable and repeated second-hand knowledge of-are genuine and heartfelt on his part....again, though, what the heck do I know?

I think the landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln was pure photo-op, though....


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2008)

never heard the golf story, it is interesting if nothing else


----------



## Sukerkin (May 14, 2008)

*TF*, you say that Bush the Younger earned the right to wear a flight suit.  

Not that I care particularly but isn't it the very well publicised case that he was a draft-dodger who, if it wasn't for his families influence, would've been kicked out of the never-ever-going-to-get-near-combat National Guard reserve unit he was in?

Like I say, it bothers me not a jot, it's your country after all, but it would be nice to know what is true and what is not.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2008)

no, it is actually proven that he MORE than fulfilled his service obligation, hold on, i'll grab you a link.


----------



## Big Don (May 14, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> *TF*, you say that Bush the Younger earned the right to wear a flight suit.
> 
> Not that I care particularly but isn't it the very well publicised case that he was a draft-dodger who, if it wasn't for his families influence, would've been kicked out of the never-ever-going-to-get-near-combat National Guard reserve unit he was in?
> 
> Like I say, it bothers me not a jot, it's your country after all, but it would be nice to know what is true and what is not.


No, but there were false allegations made to that effect, which, were backed up by a fake memo.
(Then Lieutenant) Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam more than once, but, since his unit was trained in aircraft considered obsolete, he was turned down repeatedly.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2008)

http://www.factcheck.org/new_evidence_supports_bush_military_service_mostly.html


Sukerkin
the thing to remember, that most people forget is that reserve duty isnt really measured in years, but rather in points. For example, one weekend a month gives you 12 points, and the two weeks in summer gives you 7 points, to get credit for the year, you need 19 points.

You can, if your command approves it, do a couple months active, to get enough points for the whole year. A couple of guys in my reserve unit did that.

Bush spent TWO YEARS on active duty for flight school. That ALONE gave him enough points to satisfy his obligation.

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/001394.html

Even the *Boston Globe's story* admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot:
Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''  Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school.

I am however, not shocked that the Brittish press failed to report the WHOLE story


----------



## Big Don (May 14, 2008)

> I am however, not shocked that the Brittish press failed to report the WHOLE story


I don't know why you would be, CBS tried to kill his reelection with the false memo...
Another important thing to note: Bush landed aboard an S-3 Viking aircraft, not a C2 Greyhound, aka "COD" (Carrier On board Delivery) While he could have forgone the flight suit, it was akin to a show of solidarity with the pilots, and crewmen of the Lincoln. 

     Shoot, were I the President, I would damn sure fly in EVERYTHING and fire every damn weapon/weapons system in the arsenal. A guy has to have some fun...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 15, 2008)

Thanks chaps.  

In a thread about propoganda it was interesting to read just *how* different two 'stories' can be even when they're about the same _verifiable_ point in the Presidents life.

Just goes to show how a tale can take on a life of it's own if it's repeated enough.  

That's why I sometimes refer to something as an "Internet Fact", meaning that it's a point that has been taken up by the Net and spread so widely that it *becomes* true in the minds of many, regardless of whether it is or not.  The Net is a mighty propoganda machine, dwarfing the reach of even the biggest media companies.


----------



## Josh (May 15, 2008)

Bush's whole "mission accomplished" thing wasn't a complete photo op.:bs:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I am however, not shocked that the Brittish press failed to report the WHOLE story


 


I'm never surprised anymore when ANY media ANYWHERE doesn't report the whole story, in fact I rather expect it and tune them ALL out.


----------



## elder999 (May 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Bush spent TWO YEARS on active duty for flight school. That ALONE gave him enough points to satisfy his obligation.


 
Actually, his letter of commitment (as I understand it) specified a term of service of 6 years, from 1968-1974. It didin't specify any amount of "time served." In any case, he was honorably discharged, and that has to be good enough......this isn't about the particulars of his military career, but about propaganda, and, indirectly, whether or not his fly-in to the USS Lincoln can or should be construed as such. It was, IMHO, clearly a photo-op moment: he could have used a helicopter,  or waited for the ship to dock-it was a mere 30 miles off shore at the time of his landing.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Actually, his letter of commitment (as I understand it) specified a term of service of 6 years, from 1968-1974. It didin't specify any amount of "time served." In any case, he was honorably discharged, and that has to be good enough......this isn't about the particulars of his military career, but about propaganda, and, indirectly, whether or not his fly-in to the USS Lincoln can or should be construed as such. It was, IMHO, clearly a photo-op moment: he could have used a helicopter, or waited for the ship to dock-it was a mere 30 miles off shore at the time of his landing.


 
The problem I have with your position Elder is that you have yet to convey what meaning this photo opportunity is supposed to express.  I do not believe that every photo op is propaganda.  Certainly it is meant to make the person look good, but what is it trying to say.

As I have expressed before, IMO, propaganda is a set of *select *truths, to the exclusion of contrary truths, to support a supposition.  As no one has offered another definition, thats the one I will stay with.  What is this photo saying, and then what do you thing the meaning of what it is saying is.


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The problem I have with your position Elder is that you have yet to convey what meaning this photo opportunity is supposed to express. I do not believe that every photo op is propaganda. Certainly it is meant to make the person look good, but what is it trying to say.
> 
> As I have expressed before, IMO, propaganda is a set of *select *truths, to the exclusion of contrary truths, to support a supposition. As no one has offered another definition, thats the one I will stay with. What is this photo saying, and then what do you thing the meaning of what it is saying is.


 
Select truths-let's see.....

That we have a stong and decisive leader?

That he _needed_ to fly in on a jet, because the ship couldn't be reached by helicopter 30 miles off shore, or he couldn't wait for it to arrive in port? The jet flight, was more dramatic and photgenic than a helicopter flight-if he'd flown on a helicopter, he wouldn't have worn a flight suit, not to mention a chance to take the stick and fly the thing, and maybe even give the false impression that he'd landed?

That he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time-

THat he's "one of us," a common man, a man of the people?

That our use of military might was right, and our cause was just?

That we had "prevailed in Iraq," and accomplished our goals-that we were ready to begin reconstruction of that country as a free-market democracy, made in the corporate ideal, and that that was a good thing?

if ony this were true:



> *President BuSh, May 1, 2003, USS Lincoln*
> Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.


 
or this:



> *President BuSh, May 1, 2003, USS Lincoln*
> Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our "coalition" is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.


 


or any of these (as above, emphasis and quotation marks were added by el Brujo de la Cueva:



> *President BuSh, May 1, 2003, USS Lincoln*
> We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools


 


> *President BuSh, May 1, 2003, USS Lincoln*
> The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on.


 


> *President BuSh, May 1, 2003, USS Lincoln*
> The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda



Of course, the fact is that everywhere the man goes is a "photo op," if not a staged one, then at the very least a managed one...


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2008)

Oh, and yer definition of "propaganda" is limited.

Once again, from the usually excellent _Merriam Webster Collegiate English Langualge Technical Manual_:



> Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
> 
> 
> Pronunciation: \&#716;prä-p&#601;-&#712;gan-d&#601;, &#716;pr&#333;-\ 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
> ...


...*come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!*


----------



## CoryKS (May 16, 2008)

So are you saying that any action taken by a party to make himself look good is propaganda, and therefore bad?  Or is propaganda a more neutral term than its usage suggests?  Because it seems to me that people use the term in order to draw a parallel to the National Socialists, who raised it to an art form.  

While the Bush flight suit photo certainly falls into the category of self-promotion, I don't see what the problem is unless the underlying belief is "I hate Bush, therefore he should never be allowed to present himself in a positive manner."


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> So are you saying that any action taken by a party to make himself look good is propaganda, and therefore bad? Or is propaganda a more neutral term than its usage suggests? Because it seems to me that people use the term in order to draw a parallel to the National Socialists, who raised it to an art form.
> 
> While the Bush flight suit photo certainly falls into the category of self-promotion, I don't see what the problem is unless the underlying belief is "I hate Bush, therefore he should never be allowed to present himself in a positive manner."


 

"Propaganda" *is* a more neutral term than usage suggests-any _negative_ connotations are circumstantial. A good example is the "use condoms" campaign-no, not the Trojan man ads, though advertising can qualify as propaganda-but those "public service announcements" to the effect that using a condom prevents the transmission of HIV and other STDs, and is the "only" way to do so.....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Select truths-let's see.....
> 
> That we have a stong and decisive leader?
> 
> ...


 

I have to ask then, if you actually have a problem wih propaganda in general, or just when espoused by particular individuals?  Because if you look at your post here, it is nothing but propaganda.


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I have to ask then, if you actually have a problem wih propaganda in general, or just when espoused by particular individuals? Because if you look at your post here, it is nothing but propaganda.


 

Admittedly, but the thread was in reference to the _news_ being propagandized, and the examples noted were examples of that very thing-right down to the quotes, many obviously false after three years, from the soeech given that particular day. 

Of course I don't have a problem with "propaganda in general"; it's kind of hard to avoid if one wathes the news at all....especially...er...certain cable networks. :wink:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Admittedly, but the thread was in reference to the _news_ being propagandized, and the examples noted were examples of that very thing-right down to the quotes, many obviously false after three years, from the soeech given that particular day.
> 
> Of course I don't have a problem with "propaganda in general"; it's kind of hard to avoid if one wathes the news at all....especially...er...certain cable networks. :wink:


 
Well, by your definition and examples, practically everything is propaganda, so.......


----------



## elder999 (May 17, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Well, by your definition and examples, practically everything is propaganda, so.......


 
Not by _*my*_ definition, sir-_the_ *definition*. And not  everything " *is* propaganda," but certainly everything _could be_....one has to consider the source, of course...those other images I posted from May 1, 2003, for instance....
*Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!*


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 18, 2008)

Ah, propaganda - the spreading of ideas and the presentation of information in a way that furthers one's own cause and/or destroys the cause of another. It is everywhere. Everybody does it. Everybody uses it. No matter what the subject, people love to add their own little "spin" onto it to make it seem much better if they have done something wrong or much worse if one of their competitors have done something wrong. Just human beings being human beings.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 18, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Not by _*my*_ definition, sir-_the_ *definition*. And not everything " *is* propaganda," but certainly everything _could be_....one has to consider the source, of course...those other images I posted from May 1, 2003, for instance....
> *Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!*


 
And I am saying that those images are not propaganda.  The pictures are not saying anything.  Nor are they showing any particular position on any subject.  

This particular instance, while I may agree with you on some others, are not propaganda.  In my opinion, of course.


----------



## elder999 (May 18, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And I am saying that those images are not propaganda. The pictures are not saying anything. Nor are they showing any particular position on any subject.
> 
> This particular instance, while I may agree with you on some others, are not propaganda. In my opinion, of course.


 
And what is that opinion based upon? Have you at all considered the source, or the possibility that the photos were managed and manipulated to convey a preset notion?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 18, 2008)

It's an interesting exchange, gentlemen but I do feel that the point is starting to slip away in the crossfire.

It's not often I will make an unqualified statement in a discourse which is largely opinion based but, in this case, it is very clear that these pictures are PR spin of the usual political nature.  What does that make them?  Propoganda.  

No amount of argument will change that.  It's political reality and denying it does not unmake it (tho' governments try that tack too ).

If you're enjoying the scrap, then lay on, chaps.  If you're just winding each other up maybe it's time to let it go?  Then again, as long as you 'keep it clean' and close to topic then the thread will stay open, so there's no need to stop if you don't want to.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It's not often I will make an unqualified statement in a discourse which is largely opinion based but, in this case, it is very clear that these pictures are PR spin of the usual political nature. What does that make them? Propoganda. .


 

Especially when one considers that the source-the same photographer that supplied those images to the press:it was the officlial White house photographer, and that I got them from the White House Webpage.


----------

