|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the ur-example of which being those good old arguments about Al Jazeera's reporting on the Iraq war. their reporting was, absolutely, propaganda! the Qatari royal family exerts some very strong editorial control over their reporting! it just so happened that the Qatari royal family was worried that the American invasion of Iraq was going to produce a bunch of armed radicals running around knocking everything over they could get their hands on, and so were happy to greenlight anyone saying "hey uh it looks like things are going pretty loving badly over there, maybe Americans should think about knocking it off." The only objection I'd raise here is the word "foreign," as we're not all from the same country. But otherwise I agree with you and it does sound like from a media literacy perspective, Al Jazeera should have been ignored.
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:in this case, when M1 is "the propagandist simply chooses someone already saying the message they want to spread," you are describing an editorial page. This is a good example that helps me understand this concept in a concrete way, thank you. Discendo Vox posted:
I think another example would be Top Gun or Top Gun 2 or any other movie that gets made with assistance from the military, where the propagandist P (the US Department of Defense) places the original message M1 (US military superiority) in a legitimating source P2 (mainstream popular movies). Edit: Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/27/top-gun-maverick-us-military/ quote:“Top Gun: Maverick” received support from the Department of Defense (DOD) in the form of equipment — including jets and aircraft carriers — personnel and technical expertise. This was authorized by the DOD Entertainment Media Office, which assists filmmakers telling military stories. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I didn't say you have to prove what the propagandist does or does not believe, but only that the M1 occurred, and the message was secretly transmitted. It would not be unreasonable to infer this in certain circumstances, but it still seems to require a certain conspiracy theory sort of logic definitionally, because it's dealing with something hidden. I've understood the definition of conspiracy theory to be taking motive and opportunity alone to assume guilt, because finding evidence is not possible due to the secretive nature of the conspiracy, and that would apply here. Do you mean screening as in "showing for an audience" or "reviewing before release" because it seems like they do both, but the process of how exactly they control movie production is somewhat secretive. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3040994/sailors-treated-to-advance-screenings-of-top-gun-maverick/ quote:Approximately 800 sailors were in attendance for this event. Also present were Adm. Daryl Caudle, Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command; Vice Adm. Daniel Dwyer, Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet; and Read Adm. John Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic. Though they do say https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-maverick-memorial-day-tom-cruise-pentagon-propaganda quote:“Top Gun,” also a Paramount product, came out post-Vietnam, at a time of public reticence about military adventurism. The movie became a military-supported public relations blitz that supercharged recruiting. As we found in our research, the Pentagon’s Entertainment Media Office internally wrote that the film “completed rehabilitation of the military’s image, which had been savaged by the Vietnam War.” So it does seem they present them as evidence their goals and methods are legitimate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not very familiar with the regulation, but part of the requirements is that the company doing it includes credits to the DoD. Documents involved with DoD assistance in this stuff is also FOIAble. From the article I posted: quote:What exact changes did the Pentagon make to the new “Top Gun: Maverick”? We don’t know, and that’s part of the problem. While we have script change details for hundreds of other productions, such as “Godzilla” and “Fast and Furious 8,” the military has repeatedly invoked a “trade secrets” exception to block our Freedom of Information Act requests when it comes to its most high-value assets.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah the article's pretty disingenuous. They clearly already got other material FOIA'd from the film, and the trade secrets exception applies to IP of the production company, not the military's "most high-value assets." It's really not hard to guess why a trade secrets exception to FOIA may apply to the script of a film that hadn't been released. The article clearly says the military did the invoking and FOIA blocking. Do you have evidence to support your claim that the article is lying?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The article is misleading its audience by both pretending they didn't already get a response to document requests (which they linked in the article, they got them all the way back to 2018). How can an article pretend it doesn't have something it links to? This is what it says quote:In the past five years, however, my small group of researchers has acquired 30,000 pages of internal Defense Department documents through Freedom of Information Act requests and newly available archives at Georgetown University and quote:What exact changes did the Pentagon make to the new “Top Gun: Maverick”? We don’t know, and that’s part of the problem. While we have script change details for hundreds of other productions, such as “Godzilla” and “Fast and Furious 8,” the military has repeatedly invoked a “trade secrets” exception to block our Freedom of Information Act requests when it comes to its most high-value assets. "We got these FOIA requests but they blocked others" is literally the truth, as you say, so how are they misleading their audience?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because they are pretending they don't have other documents about that film, and because they pretend not to know why the exemption applies. The script of a film that hasn't been released yet isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military. It is, however, probably going to be trade secret information. Do you have any evidence that these assertions are correct, especially your knowledge of what's going on in the mind of the author? Again "they let some FOIA requests but blocked others" does not seem contradictory or confusing to me so yes, I'm having a hard time following your argument that the author is a deceptive liar. Especially cause you haven't shown you know what's going on in his secret thoughts or have any knowledge about that particular foia request.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I do not need to read the mind of the author to recognize that the trade secrets exception to FOIA would apply to the script of an unreleased film, that the script of a film isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military, or that an author who represents themselves as a FOIA specialist would also know they're not going to get the script of an unreleased film. Why are you pretending to have read the foia request? I'm just going by what the article says, you're saying "Well actually the text of the request was for X, then they lied and deceived people because..." but you haven't shown any evidence that the foia was for what you claim it is ( a request for an entire movie script). Please support your arguments with citations or evidence or something. In terms of how the military works to control the content of the films it helps produce, this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/may/26/top-gun-for-hire-why-hollywood-is-the-us-militarys-best-wingman quote:In the original Iron Man script submitted to the Pentagon, for example, Tony Stark was against the arms dealers, including his own father, complaining that “the technology I’m trying to save lives with is being twisted into some truly destructive weapons”. In the eventual film, Stark becomes an arms dealer to the US military. In the 2014 version of Godzilla, a Japanese character’s reference to his grandfather surviving Hiroshima was excised: “If this is an apology or questioning of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that will be a showstopper for us,” say the Pentagon’s notes. Instead, Godzilla, a monster inspired by US atomic bombing, is revived by a nuclear weapon and wades into battle alongside US military ships and jets. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:BTW here's a good example of what military/movie copromotion looks like: Illustrative. Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsdwvgxLpE quote:An inspirational 30-second commercial titled "Origin Story," timed to coincide with the film's release in March, was the most popular piece of social media promotional content published by any service in 2019, Lt. Col Jacob Chisolm, deputy chief of strategic marketing at the Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS), told the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) during its December meeting. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/05/captain-marvel-effect-air-force-academy-sees-most-female-applicants-5-years.html So yes we can see how that diagram from the other page applies here, in terms of P1 and M1 and M2 and legitimizing. Helpful diagram: 
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 06:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The author said that they were requesting information from the script. I've already explained this multiple times. It's in the article you cited. Discendo Vox posted:The script of a film that hasn't been released yet isn't the "most high-value assets" of the US military. It is, however, probably going to be trade secret information. Which one do you mean? The script itself or information from the script? And why do you keep using "film" singular when that's not what they say? I'm going to read this quote closely because I don't understand where you get the assumptions about what the foia requests say. You keep talking like you know the contents of these foia requests but you haven't provided any sources yet?  I'm curious about the "talking points" they wanted included though. Discendo Vox posted:The people working for the propaganda outlet are, in fact, propagandists- and the propagandist which we've been discussing is specifically engaging in propaganda in the narrowest and most pejorative sense. If this is about Top Gun II, then yes I agree. I don't know who Ted Rail is. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Both would be covered by the trade secret exemption. So you haven't seen this foia request, right? It doesn't seem very media literate for me to accept the claim "that author is duplicitous" without any sort of evidence? And without evidence of what the foia says and what laws require what you say is required? If you choose to provide evidence to support your claims I will be happy to review it but unfortunately I must, at the moment, rate your claims as Media Analysis: Unsupported.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
If I post a post in bad faith, then change my mind and decide the post is right, does it retroactively become good faith? More importantly, how would anyone know it has switched from good faith to bad faith (or vice versa), so they can do media analysis of it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 12:56
|
|