Propaganda project 3

Once again I will attach the blurb from my official analysis dealing with this particular piece.

The power point begins with a slide with just the company name, a picture of Jesus, and a cross made out of evergreens.  The second slide goes back to the emotional aspect of propaganda by creating fear by talking about Hell.  The background is of course very fiery and scary looking with scripture on it.  Also, the slide points out recent events that point out that the “apocalypse is near,” and that non-believers are doomed for Hell when this occurs.  Along with this is another loose “fact” and more fear creation.  The next slide deals with the greatness of heaven, and how it is never too late for sinners to repent and get to heaven.  Of course the very next slide gives a lot of information on Evergreen Ministries.  This makes the cycle complete: make the people afraid of Hell, show them that they can be saved and go to Heaven, and then give them the keys to this process of saving, Evergreen.  One of the brilliant things about all the propaganda is how this is the only place anything money-related is discussed.  Like any religious entity, the ministry will need money to survive, and a little blurb quickly points out that it is a member-driven undertaking.  Nowhere is an initiation fee or any type of tithing practice discussed, so potential patrons might think that Evergreen is a nonprofit organization, but this quickly shuns that notion. The final slide is just basic Evergreen Ministries’ information, filled with more images to further the propaganda with the rest of the show.

So obviously the PowerPoint is driven mostly by images.  Images are powerful because they mostly speak to everyone–you don’t need a Ph.D. to understand or interpret them correctly.  The other thing that is important that the above doesn’t touch on is the power of the scripture.  The Bible is such a valued book to all Christians that by taking real, powerful passages that many people may not even realize are in the Bible is something that will instantly open a person’s eyes and (if successful propaganda) will be them to take action.

Now without further ado…

Critical Analysis 3

            An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary that touches on a very heated, polarizing topic—global warming.  In other words, those who see the film are bound to feel very strongly one way or another.  Regardless of one’s politics there is no disputing that the film has many elements of propaganda within it.  Al Gore and director Davis Guggenheim created a highly popular and entertaining documentary, but one that is easily studied for its aspects of propaganda.

            One of the main things that any “skeptic” would consider while watching the movie are the politics of global warming and Gore’s blatant yet weak attempt at masking it.  Gore at one point toward the beginning of the film says that it isn’t a political issue, but more of a “moral” issue.  All the while he consistently mentions his “opponent” and “skeptics” and his campaigns for president.  No human being likes being thought of as “immoral,” so Gore’s making it a “moral” campaign is emotionally charged and almost juvenile to an extent due to the obvious partisanship involved.

            Other emotional appeals are endless in the film.  At one point Gore is telling the story of his six-year-old son being hit by a car.  The story is touching, perhaps even inspiring, but at what point does a shrewd viewer ask, “What does this have to do with global warming?”  This is one of just the many pulls at a person’s emotions (rather than “just the facts”) to get the viewer on the side of the metaphorical “good guys.”  Another obvious facet is the photos and graphics used in Gore’s presentation.  The imagery is often vibrant and alarming.  No one likes the idea of their planet being destroyed, and Gore and the documentary team are able to put forth the perfect images to affect the viewer.  One great example is the polar bear.  The graphic is shown pretty briefly, and Gore even quickly says afterwards “Now what does this mean for us…”  At this point the appeal has already been made, the polar bear is meant to bring viewers to his side.

            Of course these images are only so effective.  They can only do so much, so Guggenheim and Gore seem to step it up a few notches when the bring Hurricane Katrina into the mix.  The brief images and the idea of warm waters creating this perfect storm that blasted New Orleans are very powerful because so many people saw the devastation of that city and many even know someone who was hurt or lost everything during the storm.  This is yet another appeal used by the makers of the film.

            In the end, the movie leaves as many questions as answers.  Even when excluding the hard data or global warming questions, a viewer may wonder many things.  What were the motives behind its making and production?  Are Gore’s tactics when addressing his audiences effective rhetoric or blatant propaganda?  Would Gore even admit that the film is propaganda?  Regardless of the answers, An Inconvenient Truth is a compelling, persuasive argument that gets many of its audience thinking about the Earth and how they can help the environment.  With this in mind, it is fair to say that the documentary accomplished exactly what Gore hoped.  This, if nothing else, makes for a propagandistic movie.

Here’s one, designed to be a poster.  It is both humorous, to be disarming, and serious, to accomplish it propagandistic goals.  Unfortunately, it was created in Microsoft Word, and I can’t seem to get it to convert to a picture to post it directly into this post.  Thus, it will need to be opened and viewed that way.   Here it is: Propaganda project 2.

Here is a blurb from my analysis that says a little bit more about it:

            The focus of the document is a huge picture of Jesus directly in the center holding a gun in one hand and a beer in the other.  Above Jesus’ head it says, “Even HE Sinned” and continues, “We Know YOU Do Too.”  Whether or not Jesus actually sinned on Earth is irrelevant to the propaganda; the message is more important.  At the bottom it reads, “Redemption is still within reach at Evergreen Ministries. Where Salvation Grows… Strong.” The message is designed to make people realize their mistakes so they can change their ways through the ministry.  By mixing a little fear (needing “redemption”) in with some humor and very loose, unsubstantiated facts along with something to do (phone number to call for “continued support”), and there is a pretty effective piece of propaganda.

       Lastly, it doesn’t note it during this section of the analysis, but “Where Salvation Grows… Strong” is the group’s attempt to at “branding” for Evergreen Ministries.

The picture, by none other than Doctor Seuss:

Here for the paper part:

          World War II is known in the 21^st century for its famous battles and the monumental struggle between good and evil.  Smack dab in the middle of this good versus evil ideology is Adolph Hitler’s Ministry of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels.  Even many middle school-aged children can tell you that Goebbels is the man who got the German people behind a campaign to exterminate a race of people in what is still one of the most masterful jobs of propaganda in history.  What is less well-known, however, is the United States’ extensive use of propaganda during World War I and II.  Although America doesn’t have a propagandist quite as infamous as Goebbels, Theodor Geisel was pretty prolific, drawing over 400 political cartoons.  Geisel, who is better known by his pen name Dr. Seuss, had many polarizing cartoons which made strong statements.  He drew propaganda used in newspapers and for the U.S. government.

            Perhaps Dr. Seuss’s most interesting cartoon was published on December 12, 1941.  The cartoon, in short, depicts caricatures of the Japanese Emperor Hirohito and Germany’s Hitler on Mount Rushmore with the description “Liberators of America.”  At the top is says, “Don’t Let Them Carve THOSE Faces on Our Mountains!”  Directly underneath that it says in all capitals, “Buy United States Saving Bonds and Stamps!”

            When evaluating any older propaganda like this cartoon, the hardest thing to pinpoint is the pulse of the audience during the time period.  First and foremost, Seuss uses a newspaper to get his message out and does a great job of establishing credibility.  Three options exist for this.  First, the reader may have known of Seuss the author/illustrator and considered him a credible person from the beginning.  Next, the person may have known little to nothing of Seuss, but he goes by Dr. so they may think of him as a credible person.  Lastly, even if the viewer paid no attention to the person who created the cartoon, they would probably recognize that it is well drawn and the artist has some skill.  This pleasantness helps the propaganda’s effectiveness.

            By far the most successful technique the propaganda uses is its mask of an emotional appeal.  This cartoon appeared only five days after Pearl Harbor, widely regarded as the most deadly attack ever on American soil.  Almost anyone who saw this cartoon at the time would have instantly recognized the idea of the Nazis and/or Japanese “liberating” the U.S. through more surprise attacks or invasions.  This certainly could not have been ruled out only five days later, so this appeal to make the viewer afraid is highly effective.  The imagery with the Nazi swastika flying high above the American flag with small tourists viewing the great carvings from below furthers the point.  The representations of the two enemy leaders are also important.  Both are stereotyped so strongly that there is a type of disconnect between the leaders and “real” humans.  In other words, most Americans could have easily looked at Hitler and Hirohito as very different from themselves.  This separation would have given readers at the time a better “us versus them” to get behind.  A government who protects its citizens from evil, attacking, and even alien enemies is much easier to support and give money to following a traumatic event like Pearl Harbor.

            Using these means of appeal, the action for the reader is a given: donate money!  This political cartoon is a great example of propaganda not only for the time period, but in any period of war.  The disconnect between “them,” the enemy, and “us,” the good guys, is a normal propagandistic approach to garner more support.  This along with all the other aforementioned strategies makes this an effective piece.

Works Cited

Geisel, Theodor. 12 Dec. 1941. A Catalog of Political Cartoons by Dr. Seuss. Web. 3 March 2009.

To see just why this is propaganda, let’s take my 55-year-old father.  Dad watches the local news every single night.  It drives me insane, but he says he just has to see the opening stories to keep up with what’s going on locally.  However, he watches the entire broadcast when he wants to see the “what the weather is going to do” because the news stations put the weather at the very end to keep viewers for the whole program.  If it’s the spring or summer and everyone knows the worst that can happen is a thunderstorm, does my Dad watch the whole news program?  Absolutely not.  But will he watch the whole thing if at 5:45 the weatherman jumps onto the screen and says “SNOW OF THE CENTURY COMING… stay tuned for the 6 o’clock news to find out more!”??  Damn right he will, and this news propaganda just creates a ridiculous amount of fear (check out a grocery store before snow) and media hype (nothing the news loves more).

Now back to West Chester.  Now I’m no meteorologist, but I dabble in checking out the weather every now and then.  The most recent weather bulletins Wednesday around dinner time said that Thursday would be a wet, heavy snow, with the heaviest accumulations occurring Thursday NIGHT.  Also, when i checked out the hour-by-hour forecast for Wednesday, it showed temperatures to stay at 33 or 34 degrees all day (thus the wet snow).  Logically, I thought sadly, “no way we got off school tomorrow” because the snow won’t stick to the roads (or even sidewalks it turns out).

So even to my simple mind, I didn’t see all the hullaballoo surrounding the storm that every West Chester disk jockey told me was bringing our area 16+ inches.  Obviously someone at West Chester did, though, seeing as how before I had finished all my homework on Wednesday a text told me school was cancelled. 

Hopefully next time they’ll ignore the media before they get the proverbial egg on their face (do they really think students will go to school Saturdays?).   And as if they wanted to make my point, whoever makes the decisions at the school didn’t cancel classes on Friday until around 5 or 6 AM that morning.  Weather propaganda indeed.

Critical Analysis 1

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear Super Bowl? Do you instantly think abortion? This year, the Colts vs. Saints game has a lot of people thinking more about politics than the Cover 2 or whether Dwight Freeney is healthy or not. Abortion is by no means a new concept, and by most accounts is a practice that dates back to ancient times. In the United States, the famous 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade brought the issue to the forefront by making abortion legal. Fast forward to the present and the issue has become an object of heated debate and partisan bickering.

Now, approaching the world’s biggest annual football game, a CBS ad featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, has some people up in arms. The $2.5 million ad, sponsored by Focus on the Family, promises to have a pro-life message. With an issue this polarizing on the largest of stages, opinions and propaganda are everywhere. One article which was particularly propagandistic was “Super Bowl abortion ad furthers discussion” by columnist Dolph Tillotson in Galveston County’s The Daily News. In the piece, he uses a litany of techniques including loaded language, establishing credibility almost reaching superiority, and other persuasive techniques to show his readership that the ad during the Super Bowl is a good thing.

Right off the proverbial bat, Tillotson attempts to establish his credibility by showing that his point of view is not biased. He says that people like the First Amendment until someone says something they don’t like, and then he writes: “Conservatives believe in free speech right up to the moment someone shouts “gay marriage” in a crowded theater. Liberals believe in free speech right up to the point when somebody suggests the unrestricted termination of babies in the womb is, well, a mixed blessing.” So after two paragraphs, Tillotson effectively establishes the first two stratagems of influence by setting up his piece displaying his ethos.

The seemingly unbiased account all begins to change the very next paragraph. He introduces the much-talked about ad, and concludes that CBS “deserves praise” for airing it because they “didn’t cave in the face of feminist fury.” This is just the first quick shot, though (he will later say that the ad has, “liberal women’s groups to behaving as though someone set their hair on fire”). The author goes on to describe the ad’s general plotline in couple paragraphs, afterwards asking, “How controversial does that sound to you? To me, not very.” The rest of his writing (still the message part of the four stratagems) gives selected reactionary quotes or his own paraphrasing of such quotes for pro-choice advocates, who are clearly pretty unhappy.

One paraphrase reads, “Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center of New York, has organized a pressure campaign to prevent CBS from airing the ad. Her reason? Well, abortion is a “controversial issue” and should not be discussed during the Super Bowl. Not sure I follow the logic there, and in any case she seems to have failed.” Tillotson does a few things here. First, he sets up her quote by paraphrasing it in his own words to help his point. Despite him setting up this way, he never directly answers what was said or the issue posed, merely settling for saying Greene “failed.”

Another section in the article reads, “And to that, Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, fumes incoherently:

“There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.”

That’s a comment that seems to many people to sort of make Pam and Tim Tebow’s point.”

The author uses strong language here when he writes “fumes incoherently,” much like he does in earlier examples. Then he takes the direct quotation and makes no link to it whatsoever in his conclusion, saying that it seems to “many people” to make the Tebow’s points, which are never clearly established in the article. It is also worth pointing out that by saying many people believe something it establishes more credibility for the author, as it essentially means, “this isn’t just my opinion, a lot of people believe this.”

Finally, Tillotson’s conclusion follows much of the rest of his paper. Despite his paper being incredibly biased and containing a great deal of propaganda, his ending follows the same reasonable, credible voice that the beginning of the paper contained, “Tim Tebow and his mother have an absolute right to make their point about abortion. It’s a right guaranteed by nothing less than the U.S. Constitution. And that’s true whether you are for abortion or against it.” At no point in the article does Tillotson make it clear that that is the point for his paper. This is because of one simple factor: it isn’t. He wrote a propaganda piece in favor of the commercial and a not-so-subtle pro-choice endorsement disguised as a call for people to be allowed to voice their opinions. Tillotson would probably not state the same things if it was a pro-choice commercial.

Works Cited
Tillotson, Dolph. “Super Bowl abortion ad furthers discussion.” The Daily News 7 Feb. 2010.
Electronic.

Source: www.charmaineyoest.com/abortion/

This first thing that struck me with this one is the button on the bottom.  Any good propaganda should give the option to take action.  This one is no different, but its directness is fairly surprising.  This picture seems to be targeted to an older age bracket; perhaps people who wouldn’t feel strongly about abortion if tax dollars weren’t involved.  The cute baby and the pile of money realy give the propaganda a strong visual message, regardless of the demographic.

Source: priyankakapoor.tumblr.com/page/2

I think this propaganda is pretty brilliant.  The statistics are completely uncontestable.  Regardless of whether they are true or not (what would one have to do to qualify as an “anti-abortion leader?”), they really can’t be argued one way or the other.  Other devices are the older gentleman in suits in the very dark background.  This piece seems to be geared toward women, encouraging them not only to get involved, but also to stand up for their bodies.

Source: www.libertyforall.net/?p=916

This picture is probably the most loaded, making it the most obvious piece of persuasion.  I really only included it because it’s so ridiculous that it borders on humorous.  Besides including a ton of stereotypes, the words which are larger and bolder are definitely worth paying attention to in this one.