Christopher Hitchens is going to tear Michael Moore a new asshole

Excel said:
I dont see a limiter in any definition of propaganda stating that it must be issued by a specific type of body or entity. Just that it be interested in propagating a doctrine or cause.

The etymology of the word refers to the doctrine of an institution, not individuals or in this case a citizen. IMO, it's not the right way to use that word. If Moore was a government official, then his film would correctly be propaganda. What he does as a private citizen is strictly a polemic or opinion, and does not have the blessing of the state behind it. That alone is what makes the difference, not the opinion.
 
It's generally understood that propaganda is brought about by political groups for political gain.

If Moore's film were produced or endorced by the Democratic or Independent party then it would be considered propaganda.

Otherwise it's just one angry guy ranting.
 
cartman said:
The etymology of the word refers to the doctrine of an institution, not individuals or in this case a citizen. IMO, it's not the right way to use that word. If Moore was a government official, then his film would correctly be propaganda. What he does as a private citizen is strictly a polemic or opinion, and does not have the blessing of the state behind it. That alone is what makes the difference, not the opinion.
Ahh, but that is your opinion. The origin of the word itself is also not a defacto limiter, because of language drift. In modern colloquial English, there is no precondition on source, merely intent. I've looked it up in three different dictionaries at home, from the last 50 years, and none of em them mentions any institutional body in the definition.

Which means its both things, according to the English language.
 
scy7he said:
So basicly you're saying that; when we consider the baggage the words carry, one is more appropriate then the other. Right?

I don't disagree with that. But I believe that it's important to point out that the use of the word propaganda isn't restricted specificly to matters dealing with government.


Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623

Ya, it derived from the Catholic church. Hence my understanding of the word is that it refers to doctrines of institutions, not really do to with private citizens.
 
Excel said:
Ahh, but that is your opinion. The origin of the word itself is also not a defacto limiter, because of language drift. In modern colloquial English, there is no precondition on source, merely intent. I've looked it up in three different dictionaries at home, from the last 50 years, and none of em them mentions any institutional body in the definition.

Which means its both things, according to the English language.

I took a documentary class last semester and the text, which was written by the head of the Harvard Film Department, stated that propaganda is categorized as such because it's sponsored by a public political entity.

So, for what it's worth...there's that. But if people don't agree with a message it must be subversive propaganda, right?
 
Excel said:
Ahh, but that is your opinion. The origin of the word itself is also not a defacto limiter, because of language drift. In modern colloquial English, there is no precondition on source, merely intent. I've looked it up in three different dictionaries at home, from the last 50 years, and none of em them mentions any institutional body in the definition.

Which means its both things, according to the English language.

Meanings drift, I understand that. What I'm saying is if you use the word loosely and use it to describe the polemic of individuals, you sully the word and the origins of its meaning. It is meant to describe the behavior of institutions like the church and govt and modern politial parties like uncle slappy says, not private individuals. In my mind, that is a serious misunderstanding of the word.
 
Uncle Silas said:
I took a documentary class last semester and the text, which was written by the head of the Harvard Film Department, stated that propaganda is categorized as such because it's sponsored by a public political entity.

So, for what it's worth...there's that. But if people don't agree with a message it must be subversive propaganda, right?
Oh, not at all. But when it is deliberately misleading (yes, it is, and you all know it whether you agree with the sentiment or not) and exclusionary, its fair to call it propaganda in colloquial use - thats not, necessarilly, an evil thing. I wouldnt say subversive, but then I'm a moderate.
 
Last edited:
cartman said:
Meanings drift, I understand that. What I'm saying is if you use the word loosely and use it to describe the polemic of individuals, you sully the word and the origins of its meaning. It is meant to describe the behavior of institutions like the church and govt and modern politial parties like uncle slappy says, not private individuals. In my mind, that is a serious misunderstanding of the word.
I agree with the sentiment of reserving the word for the use you state, but on grounds of style not definition. Using it for the film, in my mind, would be technically correct, but thats about it.
 
Excel said:
Oh, not at all. But when it is deliberately misleading (yes, it is, and you all know it whether you agree with the sentiment or not) and exclusionary, its fair to call it propaganda - thats not, necessarilly, an evil thing. I wouldnt say subversive, but then I'm a moderate.

Ok at least now I can see why you associate Moore stuff as propaganda, in that all propadanda is deliberately misleading. Well, I wouldnt say that's true all the time. It'd be fair to call moore's stuff like misleading propaganda, but moore's stuff is still just opinion. Though if say the Weinstein's(owners of F911) came out and said everything in the film was true, I'd call it propaganda.
 
For the first 5 or 6 replies I thought that this was joke.

Eventually it dawned on me that you are seriously attacking my usage of the word propaganda.

Other people have already responded to your irrelevant complaint so I won't bother to do so.

I could see pointing out when someone really misuses a word but when you have to delve deep in the etymology and history of a word to find any sort of conflict in meaning then I think that perhaps you need to get a day job or a new hobby or something.

Oh well, atleast I learned some new etymology.
 
Last edited:
Holy fuck.

Did it ever dawn on you that people might associate the more memorable instances of recent propaganda with the meaning and usage of the word? It is a media piece that is pushing a political agenda. Most people would consider that propaganda.

Speaking of 'governments' or 'political movements,' why is it that Rush Limbaugh or guys like Charlton Heston are so obviously part of some vast Republican right wing network yet guys like Moore aren't part of the analogous democratic political apparatus.
 
Last edited:
MADness said:
For the first 5 or 6 replies I thought that this was joke.

Eventually it dawned on me that you are seriously attacking my usage of the word propoganda.

Other people have already responded to your irrelevant complaint so I won't bother to do so.

I could see pointing out when someone really misuses a word but when you have to delve deep in the etymology and history of a word to find any sort of conflict in meaning then I think that perhaps you need to get a day job or a new hobby or something.

Oh well, atleast I learned some new etymology.

dont take it personally, I've seen people refer to moore's stuff as propaganda many times here. I felt that was wrong as I understand the word. I think I was at least partly vindicated by Slappy. It's not just the root of the word though, It is a serious misuse of the word.
 
MADness said:
Holy fuck.

Did it ever dawn on you that people might associate the more memorable instances of recent propaganda with the meaning and usage of the word? It is a media piece that is pushing a political agenda. Most people would consider that propaganda.

Damnit, fucking spelling.

ultimately, depends on who owns that media piece and what their agenda is. Otherwise it's like anyone else's opinion, a polemic.
 
cartman said:
dont take it personally, I've seen people refer to moore's stuff as propaganda many times here. I felt that was wrong as I understand the word. I think I was at least partly vindicated by Slappy. It's not just the root of the word though, It is a serious misuse of the word.

No, it isn't.

a) the definition of the word doesn't include a requirement of government involvement or support

b) even if it did, if someone believed that Moore was part of some governing or political entity (whether that belief was justified or not) then they would not be misusing the word even if point a didn't exist.
 
I wouldnt say its a misuse (especially based on the word of the head of a film department rather than, say, a linguist or something) but I would say its... unwieldy. Clumsy. Technically correct, but not the best possible way it could be labeled/expressed.
 
MADness said:
No, it isn't.

a) the definition of the word doesn't include a requirement of government involvement or support

b) even if it did, if someone believed that Moore was part of some governing or political entity (whether that belief was justified or not) then they would not be misusing the word even if point a didn't exist.

Fine, i wouldnt argue with that. I just think that's loose use of the word. It's basically elevating some private individuals polemic to propaganda(my use) of the state.

B) hehe thats a funny arguement. So if peopel believed it, then it must be true huh. Faith based knowledge, thats great.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propoganda#History_of_the_word_propaganda

Techniques of propaganda generation

A number of techniques are used to create messages which are persuasive, but false. Many of these same techniques, based on social psychology findings can be found under logical fallacies since propagandists use arguments which, although sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted, and that work is important, but it's clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these propaganda messages is a necessary prerequisite to studying the methods by which those messages are spread. That's why it is essential to have some knowledge of the following techniques for generating propaganda:

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling fear in the general population - for example Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.

Bandwagon: Bandwagon-and-inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take a course of action "everyone else is taking." "Join the crowd." This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their interest to join. "Inevitable victory" invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or partially, on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is the best course of action.

Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to get the audience to disapprove an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it, the members of the group might decide to change their position.

Glittering generalities: Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."
Saddam Hussein pictured as a decisive war leader in an Iraqi propaganda picture

Rationalization: Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.

Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application

Transfer: This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.


Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

Common man: The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothes in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person.
A Romanian propaganda poster promoting Jewish settlement in Palestine, 1930s. The first line reads "Toward a New Life".

Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation

Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.

Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really responsible, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which blame is being assigned.

Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc., are virtue words.

Slogans: A slogan is a brief striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. If ideas can be sloganized, they should be, as good slogans are self-perpetuating memes.

See also doublespeak, meme, cult of personality, spin.
[edit]

Techniques of propaganda transmission

Common methods for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio , television , and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials.

Granted, you could argue that the author of that piece was also misusing the word 'propaganda' but in my experience that is a pretty readily accepted definition and usage. :shrug:

It seems to me that you take issue more with my labelling Moore's work as propaganda than you do with the actual usage of the word in regards to the work of someone who is not clearly identified as working under government orders.
 
The writings of Romans like Livy are considered masterpieces of pro-Roman statist propaganda. The term itself originates with the Roman Catholic Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith

So basically the modern understanding of the word is as a pejorative, as wiki says. So like I said, you think Mooore's stuff is bad, so therefore it's propaganda. Look at the history, it's all about soviet propaganda, nazism, public relations, psy-ops in afghanistan by our spec-ops. This all relates to the cynical motives of 'propaganda', so is this equivalent to moore's polemic i wonder. I'm underwhelmed.
 
cartman said:
Basically what anyone says is propaganda if you dont like it then...

No.

The specific reason that I used the term propaganda is because he uses so many of tools and methods that have been used in great propaganda.

Whether you agree with Moore or not, it seems obvious that he focuses on specific subjects and tailors his movies to appeal to a specific crowd and to present a specific point of view.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this but the skill and consistency with which he does it differentiates his work from that of other media figures.

As to the assertion that I think that one man can rise up to become as important as the state or to become a political party by himself, I DO believe that.

The political, social and media influence of guys like Moore and Rush Limbaugh so dwarves that of previous political commentators that the political landscape is no longer the same.
 
Back
Top