Propaganda Then and Now

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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]

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: \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\ 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 1capitalized : 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

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

 

[CoryKS]

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]

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]

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:



or this:





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







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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.