# Battleship Potemkin and Fahrenheit 9/11 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2004, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005 "2004-07-01T04:22:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/21 "2004-07-02T04:08:23Z")
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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.name.html) Examples: Calling someone a Commie, Fascist, pig, fag, terrorist, radical, coward, traitor, freedom fighter 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.gg.html) 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.euphemism.html) 1. 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](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 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.testimonial.html) 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.plain.html) 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.bandwagon.html) 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.fear.html) There’s more here: [http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/index.html](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/index.html) **Which, if any, of these propoganda techniques did Michael Moore use in _Fahrenheit 9/11_**? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/22 "2004-07-02T07:50:17Z")
Isn’t “propaganda” just a euphemism for “an opinion I don’t want to hear”? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/23 "2004-07-02T12:42:23Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 1. 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](http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.fear.html) > > There’s more here: [http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/index.html](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. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/24 "2004-07-02T14:44:36Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/25 "2004-07-02T17:16:27Z")
Would _Ivan the Terrible_ be a closer comparison to F911 than _Battleship Potempkin_? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/26 "2004-07-02T18:14:58Z")
> [@](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![Chairman\_Pow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Chairman\_Pow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chairman_Pow)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005/27 "2004-07-03T18:25:28Z")
> [@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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-potemkin-and-fahrenheit-9-11/253005.md?page=1)