![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Agit-prop and the Politics of Fear
Aug. 6th, 2004 02:35 pmBelieve it or not, this isn't a political post, per se. Granted, the backdrop is decidedly political, but the focus is on the power of the media, so if you generally skip the political bits because you don't care for my positions, i'd encourage you to stick it out, and if you disagree with the conclusions to let me know.
There's been a lot in the media— and a lot more in the left-of-centre realms in the blogosphere— about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11.
It's a movie I think everyone should see. Not because of the political message it's preaching— because most of the electorate has already decided where they stand on the presidential contest- essentially a referendum on George W. Bush and his performance in office, but because of what it can teach us all about independent thought.
I've seen a lot of people bash the media for their spin on issues, and, granted, big chunks of the reporting seem really tilted toward the ideologic right. That doesn't automatically mean that it is lacking in value, just that a little digging into the facts is necessary. Many people on the "other side" from the media raved about this film presenting the big picture of the other side of the news. I'm fairly certain that i disagree.
Moore is no more above partisanship than is Fox News, he just applies a different spin. There are some powerful images presented in the movie, but emotional impact can't serve as a substitute for logical thought process. There is a lot of innuendo and half-statements, strung together skillfully to lead those who suspend reason to buy the conclusion the film would have viewers reach. This is the art of propaganda, and it's no different now than it was in the hands of Leni Riefenstahl or Sergey Eisenstein.
An example: Moore cites the service record of 1st Lt. George W. Bush upon his suspension from flight status from the Texas Air National Guard. He notes that in a copy he has, there is the mention of a second name, also suspended from flight duty at the same time- that of Maj. James R. Bath, which was redacted from the later release. He then proceeds to note that Bath was the Texas money manager for the bin Laden family, and from there infers a grand collusion- the Bath, paid to invest in Texas by the bin Ladens then underwrote Bush in his early oil exploration company, and extrapolates this to a grand conspiracy of Saudi investments in the US oil industry and in turn, influence purchasing. Unfortunately, there's never any evidence presented.
Moore builds most of his argument in this house of cards fashion, but it doesn't withstand the logic test. It's great agit-prop— something which isn't often accomplished; but the conclusions aren't supported completely by the evidence, and, were the viewers a jury, i don't see where on the basis of the case presented by Moore, they could arrive at a verdict. There's simply too much circumstancial evidence, too many elements which may either be crucial to the case against the Bush administration or irrelevant red herrings, but which aren't logically tied together to build a compelling case.
With that being said, though, it's probably near perfect for the sound-bite society in which we live. It takes paying some attention to notice that the logic chain is discontinuous, and most people likely either lack the attention span or have become so acclimated to being presented with pre-digested stories leading them, as with bulls by nose-rings, to the conclusions that they're supposed to reach that they're not likely to think independently enough to raise questions.
There's been a lot in the media— and a lot more in the left-of-centre realms in the blogosphere— about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11.
It's a movie I think everyone should see. Not because of the political message it's preaching— because most of the electorate has already decided where they stand on the presidential contest- essentially a referendum on George W. Bush and his performance in office, but because of what it can teach us all about independent thought.
I've seen a lot of people bash the media for their spin on issues, and, granted, big chunks of the reporting seem really tilted toward the ideologic right. That doesn't automatically mean that it is lacking in value, just that a little digging into the facts is necessary. Many people on the "other side" from the media raved about this film presenting the big picture of the other side of the news. I'm fairly certain that i disagree.
Moore is no more above partisanship than is Fox News, he just applies a different spin. There are some powerful images presented in the movie, but emotional impact can't serve as a substitute for logical thought process. There is a lot of innuendo and half-statements, strung together skillfully to lead those who suspend reason to buy the conclusion the film would have viewers reach. This is the art of propaganda, and it's no different now than it was in the hands of Leni Riefenstahl or Sergey Eisenstein.
An example: Moore cites the service record of 1st Lt. George W. Bush upon his suspension from flight status from the Texas Air National Guard. He notes that in a copy he has, there is the mention of a second name, also suspended from flight duty at the same time- that of Maj. James R. Bath, which was redacted from the later release. He then proceeds to note that Bath was the Texas money manager for the bin Laden family, and from there infers a grand collusion- the Bath, paid to invest in Texas by the bin Ladens then underwrote Bush in his early oil exploration company, and extrapolates this to a grand conspiracy of Saudi investments in the US oil industry and in turn, influence purchasing. Unfortunately, there's never any evidence presented.
Moore builds most of his argument in this house of cards fashion, but it doesn't withstand the logic test. It's great agit-prop— something which isn't often accomplished; but the conclusions aren't supported completely by the evidence, and, were the viewers a jury, i don't see where on the basis of the case presented by Moore, they could arrive at a verdict. There's simply too much circumstancial evidence, too many elements which may either be crucial to the case against the Bush administration or irrelevant red herrings, but which aren't logically tied together to build a compelling case.
With that being said, though, it's probably near perfect for the sound-bite society in which we live. It takes paying some attention to notice that the logic chain is discontinuous, and most people likely either lack the attention span or have become so acclimated to being presented with pre-digested stories leading them, as with bulls by nose-rings, to the conclusions that they're supposed to reach that they're not likely to think independently enough to raise questions.
