Where does propaganda exist today?

Hmmm, let's see... CNN?

my friend and i were talking about leni day before yesterday... what a coincidence. sure, no one agrees with her politics, but she DID make technically beautiful.

anyway, it's pretty hard for propaganda not to exist in the privately owned media, considering that the zillionares whom own the companies need/want to protect their money through manipulation of information.... all that said, of course the government has miserably applied an informal alien/sedition acts that strongly discourage bad talking against the government of any sort these days...

all in all - FOX NEWS is FascistTV. Five minutes of O'Rielly is more than a weeks' worth of entertainment - it's like watching a disguistingly satirical mockery of itself....

sorry for the poor grammer in the above post - i am watching a movie while typing and didn't fully pay attention to what i was writing.

propaganda = marketing

;o)

So the majesty of Leni's work (she insists that she didn't like Hitler, but...yeah) has turned into the swill-fest that is O'Reilly. I don't know which is worse.

Here are some other things to consider:

1. Advertising

2. Films directed by Michael Bay

3. Films directed by Steven Spielberg

4. Publications?

5. Video games

6. TV shows (like the Threat Matrix -- and its opposite, 24, in which wealthy oilmen who conspired to start an unjust Middle Eastern war got spanked)

For better or for worse, gone are the days of posters like "When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler!" and all the skin-crawling implications of that message. While works of that variety have "evolved" into yuppie collectibles, I'm afraid that much of what we have today won't. Meaning that, the stuff out there now might actually work--where as Hitler was a jackass who needed to get his ass whacked, the fact is there's been no firm proof that Al Qaeda actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and Iraq wasn't a terrorist state until WE MADE IT ONE. Nothing had me laughing so hard through my tears of rage when Bush said "Iraq is now a terrorist state" (or something along those lines...if I'm misquoting, correct me).

FOX is, in my mind, a wing to express Rupert Murdoch's (whom Esquire Magazine cited as one of ten remaining dictators) extremist views. Their news component is unsophisticated tripe that nevertheless fuels the sentiments du jour, and O'Reilly is but one of many faces of it.

Would it be inaccurate to define propaganda as communications that attempt to define and change core, personal values? How do you counter propaganda and its effects?

Well, okay, there's been some proof but I thought that fundamentally, Osama bin Laden was "allegedly" behind 9/11, not 100% conclusively. Just saying. I gotta be more careful.

Hmmm, let's see... CNN?

indymedia.org

Seems the problem is not propaganda itself, but the message being presented. Stick to moral/ethical messages and propagandize away...

Todd--

Interesting point, but who decides what is moral and ethical? I don't want to play the game of "there are no moral absolutes!" but regardless...part of the problem I have with, say, ADBUSTERS, is that they're convinced their position is right and the corporate position is wrong. Maybe so, but what's the sense in using fact-free arguments to prove a qualitative & subjective position true or false?

But yes, it gets WORSE, I think, when a clearly objectionable position such as GENOCIDE is propagandized...

Stick to moral/ethical messages and propagandize away...

This is always in the eye of the beholder. The Nazis thought they were doing the moral/ethical thing. The world had another view, of course. We won, so it was our opinion/morals/ethics that was correct. WWII is a pretty easy example, though. What about Iraq? Is the winner always right?

How do you counter propaganda and its effects?

You question everything.

Who decides what is ethical/moral? FI there is no higher authority to appeal to, then no one. It's a free-for-all. Let the best propagandist win. Which is basically the situation we find ourselves in now.

Darrel--

Yes, yes indeed. However, whenever you see a "Question Authority" sticker, aren't you inclined to ask yourself "Says Who?!"

I think people are more naturally curious than given credit for...but many people don't ask and don't question because they're afraid. Hell, look at O'Reilly, he'll yell and do whatever he can to humiliate you if you question. Or Ann Coulter, she'll write a book arguing that "you and your ilk" a treasonous traitors who betray and terrorize.

The outlets are still there and there are no more barriers to them than before, but, I think some of the willingness and motivation is gone. I remember in The Medium is the Massage, there was a little cartoon that read "Given TV's awesome power to educate, aren't you glad that it doesn't?"

FOX News completely redefined that...

Sometimes I feel like people (Adbusters, for instance) talks about how "there's no free will" anymore, and that "we're controlled by the media." That's an awfully low and disrespectful attitude towards human beings. We choose either to be influenced or not to be influenced, and the media--propaganda or otherwise--shouldn't determine individual actions.

I'd classify Adbusters as some of the most reprehensible propaganda out there, right up with Coulter and O'Reilly.

1940's: "When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler!"

Today: "When you buy drugs, you fund terrorism."

Is there really that much of a difference?

When you buy gas you also fund terrorism, when you buy diamonds you also fund terrorism, but those are big and legal businesses so nobody talks about that.

All advertising is propaganda.

Much of news is advertising (for a given mindset/political bent/corporate interests etc. etc.)

I think that when it comes to the media, any time you choose to take only one source of news for your information, you willingly subject yourself to propaganda.

Given what I know of how history has been rewritten and slanted time and time again, I'm extremely skeptical of absolute truths. I believe neither the official story, nor the conspiracy theory.

When it comes to our profession, most of us are complicit in propaganda of one form or another. Take Annual Reports: really very few companies want to tell the absolute truth to their shareholders. It's all a highly contrived combination of advertising, information and statistics that are skewed to give the best possible view of the company's status.

Marian--

Well, most annual reports. Okay, all. Except one: Convex Technology. They are/were pretty irreverant...such as, after a bad year, the CEO dressed up like a rapper for his photo, and in the letter of a remarkably cheaply-produced piece, opened up by saying "Yo yo yo, why spend a lotta money to report that you lost a lotta money? It don't make no cents!"

Amy--

Well, "When you buy, you fund terrorism." Its got legs, would certainly provoke, I think...

But then again, perhaps the most effective form of communication in such an instance is to be more...respectful, because most Propaganda is disrespectful. I think.

The difference between the Amy's 40s example and 00's examples? No difference, they are both true.

A funds terror.

B funds terror.

C funds terror.

That no one talks about B and C does not negate the truth of A.

Bradley, it has legs, but not the legs it thinks it does. And it's been used, to a laughable effect. The terrorism it funds are the daily terrors of life in Inner City, USA, and in South America, but of course our govt doesn't care about that because that would indicate that it's their own fault due to the Prohibition parallels for organized crime. It's only when it's highly paid white people in big towers who die that it matters enough to advertise. Marketing again.

Todd W., yes, it is all true, and B and C do not negate A. My point is that not much has changed.

It's still propaganda, even if it's partially true. The desired effect of the ads are to frighten or shame the viewers/readers into thoughtlessly complying. To make a shameful pun, it's the thoughtlessness that counts.

Propaganda is the propagation of a belief system, or set of principles/values. I believe there is an inherent difference between good old advertising and sneeky propaganda. Sure there's a blurry line in there somewhere where the two concepts begin to cross, but essentially I think the difference lies in how the message appeals to a person.

Propgranda picks at a persons insecurities and/or lack of knowledge on something. This "picking" is to force the viewer into forming an opinon on the subject. By displacing some information this person hopefully doesn't know about or information in a different context, hopefully persuasion will occur.

Advertising attempts to show the inherent value in spending money on a product or service. Consumers want to know why they should buy something so they naturally ask themselves all the time, why should I be spending my money on this particular thing?

Now both of these things can inherently be used for means of profit. But that doesn't make them the same thing.

I totally agree with most of what has been said about how ADBUSTERS and CNN and FOX news entail a crap load of propaganda. Its just hard to filter it all or distinguish which is which when you've got so much of the two mixed together, particularly on news channels. Just keep an eye out for questionable agendas.

Propaganda is the propagation of a belief system, or set of principles/values. I believe there is an inherent difference between good old advertising and sneeky propaganda. Sure there's a blurry line in there somewhere where the two concepts begin to cross, but essentially I think the difference lies in how the message appeals to a person.

Propgranda picks at a persons insecurities and/or lack of knowledge on something. This "picking" is to force the viewer into forming an opinon on the subject. By displacing some information this person hopefully doesn't know about or information in a different context, hopefully persuasion will occur.

Advertising attempts to show the inherent value in spending money on a product or service. Consumers want to know why they should buy something so they naturally ask themselves all the time, why should I be spending my money on this particular thing?

Now both of these things can inherently be used for means of profit. But that doesn't make them the same thing.

I totally agree with most of what has been said about how ADBUSTERS and CNN and FOX news entail a crap load of propaganda. Its just hard to filter it all or distinguish which is which when you've got so much of the two mixed together, particularly on news channels. Just keep an eye out for questionable agendas.

How funny was it to find out that the superbowl commercial that showed kids playing with a gun and then one shooting the other was not an anti-gun commercial but rather an anti-herb ad? Sorry, i didnt mean funny, i meant [sad/ pathetic/ unbelievable].

And i guess i cant argue that drugs dont fund terrorist activity - but why weren't they running those ads in the mid-80s when the drug was lleyo and it was the u.s. gov that was supporting terror in both central america and the mid-east?

all day i've been reading articles about how this administration has superceded checks and balances and how it's propaganda goes unchallenged... so i wont write what we all know - but i will piss in my own bucket and say that michael moore is very much so guilty of providing unbalanced info and infallable arguments. I agree with what he says, but not in how he presents the info as absolute.... still, Charlie Heston at the end of Bowling For Columbine - PRICELESS!

BigSteve, yeah on Michael Moore. I wonder if he's ever thought of that?

Wow...great quote from The Medium is the Massage. I should re-read that book one of these days...

I believe neither the official story, nor the conspiracy theory.

Well put. History isn't fact. That's the first step to understanding propoganda, IMHO. ;o)

And i guess i cant argue that drugs dont fund terrorist activity

And let's not forget that the war on drugs also funds terrorist activity. ;o)

For an alleged fascist she made unusual choices in boyfriends

Read Jacques Ellul.

To liven up this discussion, here's an odd bit from Cabinet magazine about the propaganda generated during the Great War between LA and SanFran... how soon we forget!