5 ms·

And there's the nearly 20 year old elephant in the room...

by jakeogh 8y ago

deogeo 8y ago
...September 11th, 2001? How is that involved? Or did you mean something else?
- arcticbull 8y ago
  America does propaganda better than probably any other country on earth, because it’s so interwoven into the fabric of society. Freedom of the press, of speech, of creators is espoused at every opportunity. And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits [1]. Military officials and commentators helped shape the narrative of the Iraq war, often with roles at the media outlets themselves. I’ll dig up the article I was thinking of when I get a chance. They helped shape the presentation after — any embeds had to run their footage by military editors before airing too. What US propaganda does better than Chinese state propaganda for instance is that they don’t just tell the truth they want directly to your face even though it’s obviously and visibly wrong. They shape narratives. It’s an elegant, soft-touch approach. They make you want to hear and buy into their version of the truth. The press here hasn’t really been independent in a long time. I respect the game, tbh. It’s a free press so propaganda is impossible! Nothing to see here haha. It’s also why I get my news from a couple of foreign sources and ideally it cancels out each providers biases. If you get a chance watch some Fox and CNN (I watch both) then compare to CBC and Al Jazeera English. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/n...
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    >And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits. You're omitting a crucial detail and by doing so you make the situation you describe sound much more totalitarian. You're required to get the military to sign off on your script IF you want to use free or discounted military personal, equipment, or locations in your film. If you're making a movie where the heroes of the US military blow up some aliens, you'll be able to negotiate to use real tanks and planes for a reasonable cost in your fee. If you're talking about how the government kills people and is evil, you'll have to find another way to get your props. What you don't have to do is get government approval to make your film.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      I think that’s the crux of my point. Yes of course it’s optional to make a movie with the White House in it. It’s optional to use war footage to report on the war. It’s optional to interview officials in your coverage. However if you don’t, nobody’s going to pay attention so your only choice in effect is to play ball. Who would watch media coverage of the war from the only network without footage/boots on the ground/military subject matter experts? You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t matter if nobody’s listening. In a true free country these would be available to you to do as you wish, wouldn’t they, with equal access provisions? (That’s not rhetorical I’m curious your thoughts) That’s what I respect about it, and what makes it so powerful — the result is the same as under a totalitarian government but without the threats. And it’s still got freedom!
      - ALittleLight 8y ago
        Either you have misunderstood something or I have. You absolutely do not need government permission to show the White House or to show war footage. You need government permission to get to use their hardware for free. If I want b-roll of the White House I can just walk over there and record or buy some online. I don't have to ask anybody anything and the government doesn't get to see my script. If I want tanks or planes in a movie that has a script the government doesn't like, I can always use the hardware from a different country, from a state militia, or private owner - or CGI or get the props department to build one, etc. The government does have a subtle influence. If it's not important to your film, you may as well except minor edits and make the military look good - that way you get some expensive props for free (or for a small price). It's not as insidious as what you're describing though.
        arcticbull 8y ago
        Sorry if I was unclear I was typing in a hurry before takeoff. Yes you can use B footage, etc. What you won’t get is access to embedding in units, you’ll get called on last if at all to ask questions and you won’t get interviews or other access if you don’t play ball. All combined it puts you at a big disadvantage compared to those who tow the line.
  - masonic 8y ago
    the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House This is false, and the article you give as a source says nothing of the kind.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    The suspicion I have with the 'propaganda being interwoven into the fabric of American society' argument is that it's non-falsifiable. How would you prove this isn't happening?
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Very fair point.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        That said, you're right that there are a lot of things we should be on guard for, but that aren't falsifiable. I suppose that's what the ~1850s quote "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" is about. That there is much in a healthy democracy that cannot be mandated or prohibited, but must constantly be observed, thought about, and judged publicly in an open exchange of ideas.
        arcticbull 8y ago
        You’re very much correct that it’s not a falsifiable statement. It’s also hard to express one wherein you can make the claim that political discourse is unaffected by the status quo or parties interested in maintaining/furthering it. Agreed wholeheartedly that eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom. I’m something of an outsider to the US political system, albeit with significant experience, and I do pay a lot of attention to it out of personal interest. I can’t vote anywhere in the world due to where I choose to live. I observe and try to understand. Propaganda carries a lot of negative connotations though that’s usually from those who disagree with what’s being disseminated. The US approach is powerful in my opinion because it convinces people that they want to do the dissemination instead of telling them they need to, if that makes sense. In Canada for instance, there’s very little self aggrandizing, to the extent that we’ve asked ourselves nationally why people don’t fly the flag. I’ve come to feel it’s from a place of confidence; that we know what we are and like it, and so need not proselytize.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  Like the older examples, the media narrative on 9/11 is fascinating: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...

And there's the nearly 20 year old elephant in the room...

deogeo 8y ago

...September 11th, 2001? How is that involved? Or did you mean something else?

arcticbull 8y ago
America does propaganda better than probably any other country on earth, because it’s so interwoven into the fabric of society. Freedom of the press, of speech, of creators is espoused at every opportunity. And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits [1]. Military officials and commentators helped shape the narrative of the Iraq war, often with roles at the media outlets themselves. I’ll dig up the article I was thinking of when I get a chance. They helped shape the presentation after — any embeds had to run their footage by military editors before airing too. What US propaganda does better than Chinese state propaganda for instance is that they don’t just tell the truth they want directly to your face even though it’s obviously and visibly wrong. They shape narratives. It’s an elegant, soft-touch approach. They make you want to hear and buy into their version of the truth. The press here hasn’t really been independent in a long time. I respect the game, tbh. It’s a free press so propaganda is impossible! Nothing to see here haha. It’s also why I get my news from a couple of foreign sources and ideally it cancels out each providers biases. If you get a chance watch some Fox and CNN (I watch both) then compare to CBC and Al Jazeera English. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2008/n...
- ALittleLight 8y ago
  >And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits. You're omitting a crucial detail and by doing so you make the situation you describe sound much more totalitarian. You're required to get the military to sign off on your script IF you want to use free or discounted military personal, equipment, or locations in your film. If you're making a movie where the heroes of the US military blow up some aliens, you'll be able to negotiate to use real tanks and planes for a reasonable cost in your fee. If you're talking about how the government kills people and is evil, you'll have to find another way to get your props. What you don't have to do is get government approval to make your film.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    I think that’s the crux of my point. Yes of course it’s optional to make a movie with the White House in it. It’s optional to use war footage to report on the war. It’s optional to interview officials in your coverage. However if you don’t, nobody’s going to pay attention so your only choice in effect is to play ball. Who would watch media coverage of the war from the only network without footage/boots on the ground/military subject matter experts? You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t matter if nobody’s listening. In a true free country these would be available to you to do as you wish, wouldn’t they, with equal access provisions? (That’s not rhetorical I’m curious your thoughts) That’s what I respect about it, and what makes it so powerful — the result is the same as under a totalitarian government but without the threats. And it’s still got freedom!
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      Either you have misunderstood something or I have. You absolutely do not need government permission to show the White House or to show war footage. You need government permission to get to use their hardware for free. If I want b-roll of the White House I can just walk over there and record or buy some online. I don't have to ask anybody anything and the government doesn't get to see my script. If I want tanks or planes in a movie that has a script the government doesn't like, I can always use the hardware from a different country, from a state militia, or private owner - or CGI or get the props department to build one, etc. The government does have a subtle influence. If it's not important to your film, you may as well except minor edits and make the military look good - that way you get some expensive props for free (or for a small price). It's not as insidious as what you're describing though.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        Sorry if I was unclear I was typing in a hurry before takeoff. Yes you can use B footage, etc. What you won’t get is access to embedding in units, you’ll get called on last if at all to ask questions and you won’t get interviews or other access if you don’t play ball. All combined it puts you at a big disadvantage compared to those who tow the line.
- masonic 8y ago
  the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House This is false, and the article you give as a source says nothing of the kind.
- ethbro 8y ago
  The suspicion I have with the 'propaganda being interwoven into the fabric of American society' argument is that it's non-falsifiable. How would you prove this isn't happening?
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Very fair point.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      That said, you're right that there are a lot of things we should be on guard for, but that aren't falsifiable. I suppose that's what the ~1850s quote "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" is about. That there is much in a healthy democracy that cannot be mandated or prohibited, but must constantly be observed, thought about, and judged publicly in an open exchange of ideas.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        You’re very much correct that it’s not a falsifiable statement. It’s also hard to express one wherein you can make the claim that political discourse is unaffected by the status quo or parties interested in maintaining/furthering it. Agreed wholeheartedly that eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom. I’m something of an outsider to the US political system, albeit with significant experience, and I do pay a lot of attention to it out of personal interest. I can’t vote anywhere in the world due to where I choose to live. I observe and try to understand. Propaganda carries a lot of negative connotations though that’s usually from those who disagree with what’s being disseminated. The US approach is powerful in my opinion because it convinces people that they want to do the dissemination instead of telling them they need to, if that makes sense. In Canada for instance, there’s very little self aggrandizing, to the extent that we’ve asked ourselves nationally why people don’t fly the flag. I’ve come to feel it’s from a place of confidence; that we know what we are and like it, and so need not proselytize.
jakeogh 8y ago
Like the older examples, the media narrative on 9/11 is fascinating: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...