Would it be wrong of me to say that Moore is a propagandist?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I realize I'm making an etymological point here, so bear with me. Please go check your OED (if it's not OED, it ain't shit).

He's really not a traditional documentarist. He has an agenda (as most everyone does) and creates his film around said documentary. He has a direct political goal, and his film attempts to persuade every viewer to take his side (this is the denotative meaning of propoganda). God bless him.

I hope he admits to O'Reilly that he is in fact a propogandist (the same way various political ads and news organizations--cough, cough, Faux--are propagandists for this administration. If O'Reilly objects, all Moore has to do is ask O'Reilly what the definitional difference is between propaganda and spin. Oh, that would be delightful to see on live TV.

[KittyWampus]

1. Sort Of, You Also Left Out That Mike's An Artist

provocateur and also an entertainer.

Propagandist seems too limited to be definitive.

Film-maker seems appropriate. And storyteller

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

8. Well, you've listed some fine adjectives.

But have you refuted my claim? I'm happy to apply your adjectives to Moore. Can you do the same with mine? Why not?

Film maker seems to be an obtrusive truism and embarrassingly obvious. But it is certainly appropriate (as would be Mel Gibson or Ed Wood).

[tishaLA]

18. Those words were nouns, but nonetheless...

It's only fair to call Moore a propagandist if one also calls Gibson a propagandist. They both take distinct vantage points and edit out things that hamper a coherent aesthetic object. Big deal.

I'm not sure why art as a form of politics is anything new. It has been (at least) since the Greeks.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

25. And I'm an asshole (yet another noun).

Why (interrogative) in (preposition) God's (possesive noun--genetive) name (noun) did (verb--helping) I (noun--nominative) write (verb) "adjective" (noun--objective--though ironic seeing as how "adjective" could be a noun)?

Please tell me I've compensated for my idiocy. Please.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. Interesting point you raise

"If O'Reilly objects, all Moore has to do is ask O'Reilly what the definitional difference is between propaganda and spin. Oh, that would be delightful to see on live TV."

I don't have a TV (no cable = no TV so I only use a TV for DVDs), but I would love to see such an exchange occur and for it to be posted to the net!

[Eric J in MN]

3. Why use a perjorative term, just because he makes a point.

Check out this by Roger Ebert:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

Question: "In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

Answer: That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
----
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that. I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America.

[theivoryqueen]

21. Thank you. We should include every history book as well

they are all written by fallible folks with personal perspectives. That, I think, is the point behind the scientific principle that the researcher or questioner must never forget how their own perspectives color data results.

[Bluebear]

4. That was Matt Lauer's big point last night

Moore insists he is a first and foremost a filmmaker, for what it's worth. That he chooses to use his art for a certain point of view doesn't make him a propagandist to me, EVERY artist has a point of view.

[Deja Q]

5. Let Rush and O'Really say the same of themselves first.

n/t

[TrustingDog]

6. 'bout time...

we had another side.

go propaganGuy mikey!

[Senior citizen]

7. He's a populist....

and a popular one at that.

[doni_georgia]

9. Every movie now days whether a fictional film or docu has a POV

Just like when "Love Actually" came out right wing nutfudges were calling it unAmerican because Billy Bob Thornton's US President was such an ass, and because Hugh Grant's PM called America a bully. Hell, just finished watching "French Kiss" with Meg Ryan and Kevin Kline. Had that movie been released post 9/11 instead of in 95, guarantee someone would have called for it's boycott, because Ryan's character is an American trying to become a Canadian, and later declares she is "currently without country." Really, people who make documentaries seldom do so without an underlying reason for doing so. There is usually a message attached that the film maker wants to get out. Does this make it propaganda - maybe in the dictionary sense of the word if his purpose is to get others to believe what he believes. Does it really matter? I don't think so. I think of this type of documentary more as the film equivalent of a persuasive essay.

[Cha]

13. I loved "Love Actually"..and

cheered when Hugh Grant gave it to Billy Bob Thornton and he said something about the last Prime Minister of England sucking up to the United States but he wasn't going to.

That movie was a beautiful Liberal comedy!

[doni_georgia]

I cheered also! And I loved Hugh's dance that followed. n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Go right ahead

He is.

The guy's got an agenda and a bias and he deliberately attempts to sway other peoples' minds. The connotations of "unfairness" pretty much stick, too. Denying this just furthers the entrenchment of black-and-white thinking.

Once you've conceded the opinion that he's a propagandist, though, that leaves the door wide open to call all of the right-wing media propagandists too, so if you agree to this point in public, immediately remind the bystanders what scurrilous rotters the lying swine of the right are too, and make it stick.

Remind them that Moore is the mildest version of a propagandist, though, because he adheres to the truth and tries to keep things in perspective. Then point out how the Limbaughs of the world outrightly lie with full foreknowledge and give no quarter or toleration.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

11. Propaganda used to have a much less Machiavellian connotation

Before the First World War it basically meant 'information'

[Curious Dave]

12. His only agenda is honesty

Agenda implies less than pure motives (although that might not be literally true by definition I think most people would see it that way) and I don't see Moore as having impure motives. Just an honest man trying to get the truth out there against impossible odds. One of the few heroes left in this wreck of a country.

[Booster]

19. Everybody, under your definition, is a

propagandist. Do you think Hannity, O'Riley, Limbaugh, Coulter are possibly not propagandist? And do you know why people are propagandist? They make lots and lots of money. Michael is doing nothing more than showing the other side for a change and we should bless him for that; he seems to be the only one who has the nerve to show us the real facts, albeit as he sees them, not the old "do you believe me or your lying eyes" spin. Cut the man some slack; he's got more guts than most.

[nofurylike]

14. definition fits if you call truth a "cause" n/t

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

17. One man's truth is another man's

toilet.

I imagine we both like Moore's stuff. I guess I'm just a little more conscious of the political mechanism in which I participate.

[nofurylike]

31. Moore earnestly cares about Life, the Earth and Justice.

he is willing to brave great risk to find and tell truth - as best and thoroughly sought as humanly possible.

he is a hero.

semantics is a mind-strengthening exercise, but not for me.

long way between truth and a toilet, and the conscience knows which is which.


peace

[LibertyorDeath]

15. Yes it would be propaganda has a very negative connotation

the term propaganda either correctly or incorrectly has come to be associated with people selling you lies so they can further their own malfeasance

So in this sense

YES it would be wrong of you.

Moore is out there speaking truth to power to anyone who gives a shit enough to listen. IMO

Technically you are correct but then again who gives a shit about technically :)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

20. Indeed, who gives a shit about techinicalities.

Such as the meaning of words. :-)

[LibertyorDeath]

37. Words can mean whatever enough people agree they mean

or what they evolve to mean.

propaganda has evolved to mean something negative or dishonest.

Mr. Moore is the opposite.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

39. Then why do many of us hold onto the word "liberal"?

By your rationale we should just avoid it and go with whatever the idiot populace demands that the word mean. In other words, we'd give into the rhetoric of propoganda.

This is my very point: why sacrifice Moore's propaganda to the word "propoganda" when we can challenge the very institution of those who have demonized this word (though many here participate in such ignorant demonization). We've played right into the right wing's hands. I GUARANTEE you that propoganda has been and will be the most used word to describe this movie from the right. We need to own that word (perhaps even going back to Church history).

[LibertyorDeath]

42. Yes I understand your point

That said the word propaganda has been propagandized to mean something pejorative.

If you look at popular culture it's more than obvious that the Idiots are taking over.

[Dagaz]

16. Yes because his film has items that he knows to be untrue

Richard Clarke has said that he approved the flights after 9/11 yet Moore suggests (without any facts) that Bush might have. He quotes an interview with journalists who claim that they never talked to Morre. He edidted out the interviews with Congressmen when the responded that they had sons in the military. He doesn't have to be balanced and that;s any filmmaker's right but he should be truthful and he's clearly not.

[tishaLA]

22. It's my understanding--without seeing the film--that Moore

attributes the Saudi flights out of the US to "the White House," which was where Clarke worked. I have not heard him attribute it directly to chimpy, but the fact is that if someone working for the administration permitted the flights to leave, it was the WH's doing.

[walldude]

28. Dictionary:

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

I think Mike would fit in there. Just because it's propaganda doesn't make it inaccurate.

[shraby]

23. Richard Clarke approved the flights after

he thought they had been cleared by the FBI or whoever was supposed to clear them. Clarke didn't do the checks on the people on the flights.

[Stargleamer]

26. These are the same charges Move America Forward is making

and I believe Moore answers these charges on his website. At this point in time, I don't think you should be making them, until it is more clear how truthful or untruthful they are. For example, according to Moore's website, he did not edit out any of the footage of Congressman Kennedy, and their actual dialog together appears to be different.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

30. Where I come from, truth or lies has has nothing to do with

propaganda. In fact, the earliest records of the use of the word have to do with the Church (yes, yes, flame away) and the truth of the gospel (propogating the word--planting it and allowing it to grow).

Planting the "truth" and allowing it to grow seems to be exactly what Moore is attempting to do. I would just add, it's HIS truth. Not everyone adheres to the pointed gray areas he presents (if one believes that he presents a narrative from which one can decipher the truth--a highly dubious proposition). His supposed indeterminacy is quite pointed (and more power to him).

[RapidCreek]

43. Son's in the military? No that was not the question...

it was children fighting in Iraq. Since you claim to know the truth....What congresspeople have children fighting in Iraq? You know....enlisted...carrying a rifle, getting shot at. I'll give you a hint. South Dakota.

RC

[Spazito]

53. It is the request for approval that is the pivotal question and that...

came from either the White House or the State Department from Mr. Clarke's testimony. The fact is it came from the top and not from Richard Clarke.

[flewellyn]

24. Denotatively, perhaps. Connotatively, no.

In the strictest, dictionary-definition-only sense of the term, I suppose he is a propagandist, since he disseminates information which reflects a particular viewpoint. On the other hand, a great deal of his work is basically asking questions, more than pointing to a specific answer. "Bowling for Columbine" is a case in point. He comes to no solid conclusion in that film, instead asking some very tantalizing questions, and ruling out some possibilities; in the end, one is left with a sense of what the problem MIGHT be, but it's not definite. Even so, this style of filmmaking might be called propaganda, in the strictest sense of the word.

However, propaganda has such negative connotations that I think the term doesn't apply; it connotes manipulation, distortion, and outright deception, which Moore does not (as far as I can tell) engage in. Sure, he edits for time and sometimes clarity, but I don't think he's unfair about it. I certainly don't think that Moore's films qualify as "propaganda" in the way that the work of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or the other right-wing qualifies. Moore asks hard questions and examines interesting evidence; Limbaugh simply spews insane gibberish and lies. That's propaganda in today's world.

[Must_B_Free]

27. Yes - a purveyor of good propaganda

from my perspective

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

33. Here, here.

A round of whatever pleases Must_B_Free. On the house.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. yes it would be wrong of you

All documentaries have a point of view and an aggenda. That is why people make them. So he is a traditional Documentarian and I guess according to you, not a propagandist.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

34. And yet you fail (again) to show how I am wrong.

I'm willing to believ I'm wrong. But you haven't demonstrated how this is so.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em, Chessy.

[eleny]

32. Oh - go ahead!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

35. Probably. Not all propaganda is "bad" or consists of lies

There is nothing wrong with propaganda, unless it is full of intentional lies.

[BeatleBoot]

36. Palme D'Or at Cannes

Anti-Bush.

It's all I care about. Period.

Nothing else.

[Fovea]

38. One man's propaganda

could be another's polemic.

I have always found the essential difference to be the element of truth.
So OLiely might be better considered a propagandist.

[Bridget Burke]

40. Michael Moore is a maker of Documentary films.

I found a link showing Oscar nominees & winners in that category since 1942--the first year Documentary Features got the Oscar. Who won the first year?

The Battle of Midway US Navy, Kokoda Front Line Australian News & Information Bureau, Moscow Strikes Back Artkino & The Prelude to War US Army Special Services.

It appears the category was invented to award propaganda films. On the right side, of course! Over the years, please note that quite a few of these films "take sides". Michael Moore fits right in.

www.oscarguy.com/History/ByCategory/DocumentaryFeature.html

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

41. Did any of those film maker say anything close to this?

Borrowing from Cal04's post above:

"MICHAEL MOORE is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president. "And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie's indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he — or any other documentary filmmaker — has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation."


Again, I'm a Moore supporter. I can't wait to see this propoganda. I think it'll be great.

By the way, have you seen "Capturing the Friedmans"? Now that the type of documentary many here are referring to when they use the word "documentary."

[trumad]

46. Yah..and so what if he is?

According to Websters a propagandist spreads ideas/facts and allegations to damage the person or the oppossing cause... I have no prob with that and long as it's the truth...

Websters

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

48. Indeed, so what if he is?

Reread (or simply read) my posts.

God, I love being called to task by people who won't even peruse my posts on the given thread.

By the way, Websters is dog shit. Invest, or subscribe to, the OED--the finest dictionary of them all (even the 2 Volume shorter version).

[trumad]

62. It may be dog shit

but it answered your question didn't it?

[BeatleBoot]

44. Ah, the Bandwidth Lost...

On this post!

[Sirveri]

45. Yes, he's a propagandist, but he's on MY side.

So really, why should I care? If he throws people off the fence in such a way that they vote Bush out, more power to him.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

47. No truer words have been spoken here!!

A drink and a toast to Sirveri.

[linazelle]

49. And you are toasting because....?

Because someone agrees that Moore is a propogandist? "No truer words..."

Are you trying to diminish a liberal point of view by placing a confining label on Moore's work? I think you make assumptions when you say he has a predetermined point of view and he sets out to prove it. The fact is, the situations that Moore films existed, and he documented them truthfully.

Propoganda is not always truthful, documentaries usually are. Political documentaries don't become propoganda just because they are political. Also, there is choice available to the people who will view the film. Propoganda is usually distributed widely and regularly with the intended effect of brainwashing and changing minds, and it reaches the intended audience despite their choices. Think "liberal media."

Those on the right have a way with labels and you seem to be pretty handy with them yourself. Hmmmmm....

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kaitykaity]

51. Leni Riefenstahl was a propagandist.

Joseph Goebbels was a propagandist.

Michael Moore makes controversial documentaries. He's
a filmmaker. I don't see any of Leni's "Triumph of
the Will" in F911 whatsoever. You point out, scene for
scene and line for line the techniques Moore uses that
are patterned after Riefenstahl's seminal work of
propaganda filmmaking and you might have a case.

And you can back off with the "truth" and "definition"
bullshit, too. It is so not effective.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

52. You may have a case with regards to your definition if

I used inductive logic exclusively. But I don't, thank you very much.

You write: "You point out, scene for
scene and line for line the techniques Moore uses that
are patterned after Riefenstahl's seminal work of
propaganda filmmaking and you might have a case."

No doubt this is propaganda. But is this how we are to define propaganda as a whole? I think not. Language, as many here have already eloquently pointed out (in their objections to my post) is fluid. But we must take all aspects of denotation into context when talking about the fluidity of language (as alluded to in my original post).

[kaitykaity]

54. Both are political films. So yes, this is how we are to define

propaganda films in this case. One film is on behalf of a
government, and is considered the seminal work of political
filmmaking. Reifenstahl's film is the standard bearer
for all other political propaganda.

Moore's film is against a government.

You set up the syllogism. If, then, all of that.
The logic will bite you.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

55. What are you talking about?

Have you read the entirety of the thread?

You have shifted the definitional terms I began with. Which is fine, but it changes the original point I was making.

Why do set up an either/or dialectic? Perhaps you listen to too much Rush and Hannity? Can there not be different species of this genus propaganda? Do all of our ducks have to walk in a straight line?

Perhaps I set up an "if . . . then" syllogism, but it has now clearly been perverted by your inductive logic. If all propaganda is to be defined by Reifenstahl, then there will be no propaganda but Reifenstahl.

Example: George Bush is a shitty president.

Ahhh, but so were X, Y, and Z.

But they were no George Bush, so therefore, they were not shitty.

I'm more than happy to let the denotative logic (inherently deductive) take me where it may; one can stop deduction before it bites you. You, my friend, have taken a bit of the inductive apple, and it will surely bite you eventually.

Finally, let me say this: I really appreciate your post, in spite of my smarmy, unfair rhetorical jobs (yes, using Rush and Hannity is as smarmy as it gets). But I figured we were playing the game of silly rhetoric (and it gets no sillier than inductive reasoning) so I let loose. I hope you take it in the spirit it was meant: honest disagreement but fun never the less.

[kaitykaity]

58. I like a challenge as much as the next person.

And yes, your use of Hannity and Rush was smarmy.
It was also insulting and uncalled for, and really
really low. Shameful, really.

That said, your example blows, because I can tell you specific
reasons why HW Bush was a shitty president, and draw comparisons
to other shitty presidents that include them in the group,
thus increasing the size of the group.

You still haven't answered any of my questions. I invited
you to draw comparisons between Moore's film and Riefenstahl's.
You refused or you were unable to, making some high-sounding
rhetorical excuse for your failure.

Then I gave you a distinct and clear difference between
Moore's film and Riefenstah's that is central to the
definition of propaganda itself. You dismissed this as
pure induction. That's because you don't have a factual,
effective argument to counter the point.

I win on both counts.

Tell you what. Why don't you come up with some clear examples
of propaganda that are like Moore's film? Then I might let
you back in the game.

[PeaceProgProsp]

56. No. He's making an argument about the truth.

propaganda: n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

He's not making documentaries to promote a "cause." He's doing it to promote the truth, which isn't cause.

[stickdog]

57. The "argument" is semantical.

Why would you wish spin that connotation?

If Moore's a propagandist, so is the publisher of the NY Times.

So is CNN.

So is BBC.

And so on.

[bo44]

59. So what!

At least he is propagating the truth and not some neokkkon fundamentalist nightmare being passed off as a safer America.

[JCMach1]

60. No, a MUCKRAKER, in the

finest tradition of muckraking!

A muckraker is a journalist or an author who searches for and exposes scandals and abuses occurring in business and politics, or muckraking, a popular form of reform-minded investigative journalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that specialized in exposing corruption or social wrongs. The rise of muckraking corresponded with that of Progressivism and the two were correlated, but not intrinsically tied.

The term muckraker is most properly applied to American reporters and writers from the early 1900s, but is also used to describe modern writers who follow in the tradition of the muckrakers. Although the term muckraking has negative connotations, the information so discovered can be valid and even justifiably important for the public to hear about... http://www.free-definition.com/Muckraker.html

[sendero]

61. At this point in our history...

... at least 90% of all public political discourse could be more or less accurately defined as propaganda.

We've been listening to theirs for decades, it's about time we got a shot.

Three million cheers for Michael Moore.

[NashVegas]

63. Moore IS a Propagandist

And I have no problem with it at all.