Propaganda Defined

Cover to the propaganda comic book "Is This Tomorrow"' (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: "Remember December 7th" US Government propaganda poster of 1942. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We Can Do It poster for Westinghouse, closely associated with Rosie the Riveter, although not a depiction of the cultural icon itself. Pictured Geraldine Doyle (1924-2010), at age 17. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

'stay on the job until every murdering jap is wiped out!' World War II poster (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

More definition from the American Historical Association

While most persons who give the matter a thought make distinctions between an objectively written news report and propaganda, they encounter difficulty when they try to define propaganda. It is one of the most troublesome words in the English language. To define it clearly and precisely, so that whenever it is used it will mean the same thing to everybody, is like trying to get your hands on an eel. You think you’ve got it-then it slips away.

To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil. They look on the propagandist as a person who is deliberately trying to hoodwink us, who uses half-truths, who lies, who suppresses, conceals, and distorts the facts. According to this idea of the word, the propagandist plays us for suckers.

Others think especially of techniques, of slogans, catchwords, and other devices, when they talk about propaganda. Still others define propaganda as a narrowly selfish attempt to get people to accept ideas and beliefs, always in the interest of a particular person or group and with little or no advantage to the public. According to this view, propaganda is promotion that seeks “bad” ends, whereas similar effort on behalf of the public and for “good” ends isn’t propaganda, but is something else. Under this definition, for example, the writings of the patriotic Sam Adams on behalf of the American Revolution could not be regarded by American historians as propaganda.

The difficulty with such a view is that welfare groups and governments themselves secure benefits for a people through propaganda. Moreover, national propaganda in the throes of a war is aimed to bolster the security of the nonaggressor state and to assure the eventual well-being and safety of its citizens. No one would deny that this kind of propaganda, intelligently administered, benefits every man, woman, and child in the land.

Related articles

• Hong Kong politician likens protesters to American slaves
• German rapper is ISIS propaganda mastermind recruiting British jihadists

Checklist for Your Documentary Review

Titicut Follies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Checklist for Your Documentary Review

·     *  Include summary of the basic arguments of the film, but that summary should not constitute the bulk of your story. I want your analysis.

·      * Evaluate the effectiveness of how the film makes its argument through selecting credible sources. Specifically, what about those sources makes them seem credible?

·     *  Evaluate the effectiveness of how Kunze uses the techniques of filmmaking to buttress his argument. The quality of the lighting, the sound, the compositions, the editing, the use and quality of graphics can influence the acceptance or rejection of his argument.

·      * As Menand’s New Yorker essay suggests, documentaries aren’t “objective” in the common definition of the term. Many don’t try for even the semblance of “fair and balanced.” However, we might judge a documentary so one-sided, so far beyond fair and so far beyond balanced that it begins to work against itself, to turn us away from its arguments. Where does Mobilize fall on that spectrum? Some documentaries leave us feeling manipulated to the extent we dismiss their argument. 

·      * In any case, I would not much like your coming out of any documentary saying that you are now completely convinced of its point of view and are ready to act on its recommendations without further study. Where does Kunze’s documentary leave you? So indifferent to its arguments you have no interest in further inquiry? Intrigued enough to do some research on the topic? Ready to adopt its recommendations after a little/some/much further study?

·      * Kevin Kunze told the class his is essentially a voice-of-God documentary. That is, he does the voiceover. Consider analyzing how often he, as narrator, tells us what to think and do and how often he merely provides the context for his sources. Also, apparently at least once in this documentary he appears as a participant. Does that affect your reaction to the documentary for good or ill?

"The following tale of alien encounters is true, and by "true," I mean "false." It's all lies, but they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer... is no." —Leonard Nimoy, The Simpsons

Forms and conventions of documentary from reigatemedia

Anybody can make a documentary

Six Modes

Reflexive Mode

Frederick Wiseman/Titicut  Follies/He Points the Camera and Listens

Fog of War/Errol Morris – Look at all the ‘artistic’ flourishes, and the flashes of documents that suggest he’s done his homework; it’s more than McNamara’s voice.

Powaqqatsi/an “art” documentary? It’s all about Philip Glass’s music. No voiceover.

Vertov/This is supposed to illustrate Type Five.

Borat/Is is what it is. But what is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_I3tIjztj8




The Noble Honey Badger


Knowyourmeme: The Honey Badger Video


A Dane Defines Documentary