Battleship Potemkin and Fahrenheit 9/11

[Zoe]

Is Fahrenheit 9/11 propoganda? These were the most common propoganda techniques that I learned in civics class in cough1957cough:

1. Name-calling

The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence. – Institute for Propaganda Analysis

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.name.html
Examples: Calling someone a Commie, Fascist, pig, fag, terrorist, radical, coward, traitor, freedom fighter

2. Glittering generalities – the misuse of commonly cherished words, ideals and symbols that mean one thing to one group and quite something else to another. Examples of words that may be commonly misused: civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, love.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.gg.html

3. Euphemisims – the substitution of pleasant or bland words for unpleasant realities.

Examples: transportation tubes (for body bags), casualties, friendly fire, post-traumatic stress disorder (instead of shell shock), the Department of Defense (instead of the War Department), collateral damage (the killing of innocents), the Peacekeeper (MX missile)

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.euphemism.html

4. False connections

Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something which otherwise we might reject. – Institute for Propaganda Analysis

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.transfer.html

Examples: Using the symbol of Uncle Sam to approve or disapprove of something, associating a religious figure with the ending of a State of the Union Address, quoting “scientific” research to support racism

5. Misuse of Testimonials – citing individuals who are not qualified to make judgements about a particular issue.

Example: Streisand has a right to the expression of her personal opinion, but she is probably not a qualified source for Middle Eastern policies and politics. (But then who would have thought that Ronald Reagan would become POTUS…)

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.testimonial.html

6. Plain folks appeal – trying to appear “down-home” dispite the fact that you are worth millions

Examples: Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, Dubya

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.plain.html

7. Band wagon

The basic theme of the Band Wagon appeal is that "everyone else is doing it, and so should you.

"It plays on “fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group.” – Institute for Propaganda Analysis

Example: the Klan, Hitler youth groups

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.bandwagon.html

8. fear – warning people that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action

Examples: Pass amendment against gay marriage or the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Invade Iraq or America will be nuked shortly by Saddam. The secular humanists are taking over our schools. Vote Kerry of John Ashcroft will dismantle the Constitution.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.fear.html

There’s more here: http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/index.html

Which, if any, of these propoganda techniques did Michael Moore use in Fahrenheit 9/11?

[rjung]

Isn’t “propaganda” just a euphemism for “an opinion I don’t want to hear”?

[LonesomePolecat]

@Zoe

8. fear – warning people that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action

Examples: Pass amendment against gay marriage or the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Invade Iraq or America will be nuked shortly by Saddam. The secular humanists are taking over our schools. Vote Kerry of John Ashcroft will dismantle the Constitution.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.fear.html

There’s more here: http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/index.html

***?

I note with some amusement that Propaganda Critic cites a bogus quote from Adolph Hitler to illustrate manipulation through fear, to wit:

• “The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” - Adolf Hitler, 1932 *

This quote first appeared on a poster (along with a picture of Adolph) published in the '60’s which was popular with college students and young people in general. The poster was a left-wing response to cries for law and order which followed in the wake of urban riots and campus disturbances.

The problem is that no one can find the quote in any of Hitler’s writings or any sound recordings or films of his speeches.

The poster was an obvious and dishonest attempt to discredit legitimate demands for law and order by linking them with Nazism–and Propaganda Critic apparently fell for it.

[you_with_the_face]

The OP hasn’t explained why we should the accept premise of the argument. You say F 9/11 is propaganda, but you don’t explain how it is. Yes, it has an agenda, but propaganda that does not make. You say it is a product of “fallacious logic”, but you don’t explain how. But you don’t want the thread to be a critical analysis of the film, either.

So are we supposed to take your word that the film is all the things you call it?

However, I fear that the film and its timely release may color the election in a way that’s not favorable for the country.

How so? Do you think it will make people vote for Kerry for the wrong reasons? What reasons might those be? And why are they wrong?

[TwistofFate]

Would Ivan the Terrible be a closer comparison to F911 than Battleship Potempkin?

[Zoe]

Lonesome Polecat: I note with some amusement that Propaganda Critic cites a bogus quote from Adolph Hitler to illustrate manipulation through fear…

I cringed when I saw that also. Elsewhere at this site they address briefly the issue of judgment of their own examples. I’m surprised that no one has caught the mistake.

rjung: Isn’t “propaganda” just a euphemism for “an opinion I don’t want to hear”?

No. It is probably easier not to notice or label statements that back up one’s own opinions and to see through the propogandistic techniques used by those who disagree. The website that I gave offered suggestions on examining statements to see if they are propoganda – questions to ask yourself.

Propoganda isn’t about the speakers’ opinions. It is about techniques used to sway your opinions. You can spot these techniques in ordinary ads on TV just as easily as you can in political ads and campaign speeches of various political parties.

[Chairman_Pow]

@Entropy at Work

Consider the 1930s Soviet film, the Battleship Potemkin. The Soviet government funded Eisenstein’s allegory of the people’s revolution against the Romanov czar. However, because the film had been so widely released in state-run movie theatres throughout the Soviet Union, many Soviets by the end of the Cold War accepted the film as an account of the truth. The fabricated mutiny of Russian sailors against their captain became the popular memory of the victorious revolution and the rise of Communism.

Recall that Eisenstein was directed to make a movie about this. It was, literally, agit-prop.

In many cases his logic is fallacious, and his presentation is meant to be cathartic. The problem with Moore’s approach is that it’s overwhelming enough to convince people of the truth without persuading people to think about all of the evidence they’ve been shown. I fear that people will remember the events of 9/11 not from the hours of footage they were shown on the day of, but from the two hours of footage they were presented in some cramped movie theater.

I disagree. From what I’ve read of him talking about the film, he’s meaning to shock people (into doing research on their own) and show that there is another side to the story.

Admirable, no?