|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
Tuesday, August 24, 2004Propaganda Tactics and Fahrenheit 9/11 [EN] I promised a A Primer in Propaganda and Perception Hijacking using Farhenheit 9/11 as a benchmark and an illustrious exemple, and I'm still working on it. So, while doing research -thanks, Google- I have found that some one had done something very similar. Meet Dr. Kelton Rhoads who just posted on the net his 31 pages long draft of Propaganda Tactics and Fahrenheit 9/11 (PDF). After gulping about one third of it, I feel that I had to recommend this reading. Well written, better argued. I’ll post a critique when I’m through. Here is Rhoads’ first paragraph: I had my nose buried in books on the subject of propaganda analysis during June 2004, when Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was released. So it’s embarrassing to admit I didn’t immediately recognize something big was happening in my field, and that it was as close as my local theater: “feature-length movie-house agitprop,” as one commentator called it, which he correctly recognized as “a relatively rare and new thing.”1 With a few notable exceptions, such as Leni Riefenstahl’s work, propaganda has made a poor showing at the box office. Hollywood tried its hand at “message films” following World War II, but it was quickly discovered that “most people do not go to the movies to have their consciences disturbed.” Subsequent research has shown that individual movies rarely bring about major changes of opinion.4 Maybe that’s why I was slow to see Moore’s inferno. Still—you’d think that a professor and psychological consultant who considers his expertise to be influence and persuasion, would have gotten to the theater sooner. But I finally did, and for those (admittedly few) of us who marvel at the virtuoso application of persuasion techniques, I’ll say that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine education.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
