"Death is a much better subject for television than life"

[arendt]

"Death is a much better subject for television than life"
by arendt

...."Ronald Reagan once said, 'If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all."...At the time
....of his remark, I was working with the Sierra Club on the campaign to keep some of the virgin
....redwoods...from being cut down....we worked to convey a sense of what was being lost...We
....carried around photos of the great old groves...They didn't work. Too much was lost in
....translation.

...."Then we started doing the opposite. We carried around photos of acres of stumps where
....hundreds of redwood had been cut down...(this sight) conveys a broadband emotion -
....horror...the media grabbed them.

...."That is the moment I learned that death is a much better subject for television than life."

........Jerry Mander, "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", pp. 289-90.

The political left has made the same advertising mistake as the Sierra Club. They have tried to convey a sense of what a precious thing American democracy is by giving people examples of it, by telling everyone how important it is.

They should simply send film crews to (or use stock footage from) hell-holes where democracy has been destroyed by demagogues and religious fanatics. Places like Bosnia during the ethnic cleansing, Rwanda during the genocide, Iraq during the American-provoked (remember John "Death Squads" Negroponte) civil war. They should interview the rape victims, and the people whose husbands and sons were rounded up and shot. They should interview the people we tortured in Abu Ghraib. They should interview the women teachers forced to take the burkah. They should play hate mongering speeches by famous authoritarians.

We should get the documentary about forced pregnancies in Romania under Ceacescu and play it in response to every fetus-waving misogynist. We should get any video we can about death squads and play it in response to NRA nonsense about assault weapons.

We should show a future world of environmental devastation, sectarian religious warfare, torture, enslavement (Dominionists heartily endorse this), lack of modern health care, widespread ignorance and superstition, medieval living conditions, and all the other nightmare scenarios we can imagine. Because that's where the political right is taking America.

What we need is a nation-sized version of the nightmare "Pottersville" scene from "Its a Wonderful Life"; what we need is "A Handmaid's Tale" on steroids. We need to show people where we are headed. Basically, we need to scare the crap out of sensible people, the same way the radical right has scared the crap out of morons.

We should replay the horrific Republican debate at the mausoleum to that incompetent, insensitive, phony of a president - Reagan - until everyone gets what a bunch of hate-filled, women-hating, greedy, religious whackos they all are. We should replay the three Neanderthals who say they don't believe in evolution a million times. That debate is a gold mine of opposition research.

----

I have never been a pacifist. The idea that you should fight fair while the other guy is kicking you in the balls is not for me. The political right is a non-stop smear and hate machine. O'Reilly spounts a slur every seven seconds - framing them in made-up horror stories: gays taking over America, sexual predators behind every teacher's desk, feminazis out to castrate men.

What America should really be fearing is exactly the opposite. And we lefties shouldn't be afraid to say so - using exactly the same manipulative techniques that the other side is using. In case you haven't noticed, the radical right long ago declared total war on liberals and liberalism. We are the enemy, sub-human, perverts, godless, traitors. So, yes. What I am proposing IS propaganda. Sorry, former flower children, we are in a really nasty place; and if you want to get out of here alive, we are going to have to get tougher. During WW2, the U.S. was forced to counter Nazi propaganda with its own.

And yes, I am completely aware of the impact:

...."It is sometimes said that two competing propagandas cancel each other out; if, however, one
....regards propaganda not as a debate of ideas or the promulgation of a doctrine, but as
....psychological manipulation designed to produce action, one understands that these two
....propagandas, far from canceling each other out because they are contradictory, have a
....cumulative effect. A boxer, groggy from a left hook, does not return to normal when he is hit
....with a right hook; he becomes groggier.

...."...the man whose psychological mechanisms have been set in motion to make him take one
....action is stopped by the second shock...his normal psychological processes are perverted...to
....defend against that, man automatically reacts in one of two ways: (a) He takes refuge in
....inertia....(b) The other defensive reflex is flight into involvement...He joins a party...He escapes
....the opposing clash of propagandas..."

........Jacquess Ellul, "Propaganda, the Formation of Men's Attitudes", pp 181-2

But, look at the above quote. Response (a) is exactly what is driving us all crazy right now. Response (b) is a risk we ought to be willing to take when 80% of the country is against Bush. If we don't get people to choose sides, at this favorable moment, all is lost. People need to stand up and be counted; or Bush will leave office un-impeached, and the coup d'etat will stand.

Once you take off the Mr. Nice Guy outfit, new possibilities open up. Think of the audience share you can get with predictions of wall-to-wall violence, voyeuristic interviews with victims of horrific torture, abuse, and public humiliation, and spittle-flying rants from historical bad guys.

Best of all, if the right tries to take this stuff out of circulation, you have instant double standard and lawsuit time (oh, your nightmare fantasies are fine, but not mine) - especially if the producers model their documentaries on right wing garbage that has already been on the air.

In closing, I encourage the media people at DU to take the gloves off. No more dry powder. Use it or lose it.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Blabba O'wiley is a cartoon character who only makes sense when,

he's doing one of the three commercials he does during his show.MSM hasn't been a real good place for information in quite some time ,All-Star wrestling and the National Inquirer never were.

[arendt]

2. If you mean that you can't get this stuff onto the MSM, put it up at Utube n/t

[Berry Cool]

3. It has to be localized and realistic, though.

If it is not, it will just be regarded as a silly scare tactic designed to win elections (just like the Republican equivalent: "Elect us or 9/11 will happen again").

The problem with showing other places where democracy has been destroyed is that they're OTHER places. The "But it can't happen here" belief runs deep-seated and strong in Americans. We've already seen that. Call something the Patriot Act, and they'll happily surrender their rights and freedoms to it, because it's called "Patriot," so how could it be bad?

Maybe the most effective thing we could do is compare the quotes--the straight words--of Republican presidential candidates to those of figures from which Americans automatically recoil. You know who I mean. Hitler. Mussolini. Yeah, Ceacescu, and Castro, and whatever other bogeymen we know of who have wrought real pain on the world. In other words, bring it home to them that it isn't always easy to spot the demagogue who is going to take your rights away and make your life hell. Sometimes he comes in the guise of someone promising to free you from all your misery. Sometimes he comes in the guise of someone who promises to restore "law and order" to your country. Etc., etc.

The idea of American exceptionalism runs strong and deep. It will take a lot of doing to convice people that it CAN happen here, and that the people who want to take away their rights don't always come wearing handy T-shirts saying "Hi, I'm a Fascist."

[arendt]

4. Iraq is an "other place" that we created. We just censored our soldiers' blogs.

I take your point about the navel-gazing of the viewing audience.

But, if we could use the material our soldiers (as opposed to the worthless
junk the corporate media sends out from the Emerald City) have created,
we could show what a hell-hole America itself has created.

We can show how implementing the economic fantasies of the lunatic
right contributed heavily to the destabilization of Iraq. We can show how
it led to massive corruption, both in Iraq and at home. We can show
how women in Iraq are being forced to take the burka. We can show
intellectuals and the middle class murdered or in flight.

And WE DID IT. America is already showing its future in Iraq. That is
why there is such censorship of that news in America today. That is
why the military is "accidentally" shooting a record number of journalists.

Iraq is not like Viet Nam because there is no real, on-the-ground reporting
from Iraq - just a gold-plated version of "the five o'clock follies". Iraq is
"A Dark, Festering Lie".

In closing, I say your objection is too rational when one is proposing to
use propaganda. The people who can be stampeded into thinking left
propaganda is "a silly tactic" have ALREADY been stampeded. This propaganda
is not intended to get them to change. Rather, like all propaganda, it is
intended to recruit the fence-sitters.

But, I do appreciate your rational objection. I just think we have to move
beyond rationality. Irrationality is a sea, on which only the GOP have sailed.
And, like A. T. Mahan showed in his classic "The Influnece of Sea Power
on History", if only one side has a navy, that side has a tremendous
advantage. I just want to build the liberal navy. Let's start by launching
the U.S.S. Potemkin.

arendt

[Tellurian]

7. Forget mainstream..we need to go underground..

The real underground is UTUBE- Go there. The best way to enter someone's consciousness is through their children. Today, most Kids are internet savvy, if the parents are not or not paying attention. The kids will get the message to them and make them see what they see.

As for the message. I think you've got it partly right. The devastation in Iraq compares to the devastation done to OUR country... Relates how? Videos of the rubble and devastation in Astan and Iraq, a descriptive narrative while surveying the damage. Slowly the camera pulling out, widening the scope of what can be see by the viewer. Printed message running concurrently over the screen with the voice over reinforcing what our country has done or not done to be viewing this devastation.. as the message is coming to conclusion, the viewer sees and hears...no this is not Astan or Iraq...this is your America, NOLA and Biloxi, whats left of it 2yrs later.

[arendt]

8. Good storyboard! Yes, NOLA is a perfect subject.

Myself, I haven't got the time to put together a video of decent quality for Utube.

But, I strongly encourage people to do so. And, I encourage them to use propaganda
techniques. Leni Riefenstahl spent fifty years (from the end of WW2 until her death)
successfully defending her "artistic vision"; so just because your video uses propaganda
techniques doesn't mean you are a Nazi.

As for another horrific story topic - what about the forced abortions in Saipan?
Talk about slavery. And, it was Tom Delay pushing to protect them. It happened
right here.

arendt

[arendt]

6. Well, someone is doing what I am proposing...

Sidney Blumenthal writes:

Having written extensively on the Bush administration's torture policy, I came to the conclusion, in light of the shocking photographs from Abu Ghraib, that the visual medium is the most powerful and penetrating in communicating the policy's reality. More than two years ago, I brought my idea of making a documentary to Alex Gibney, the director of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, and he shared my sense of urgency. Taxi to the Dark Side staged its premiere on 27 April 2007 at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. (Alex is the director; I am executive producer.)

Through the film runs the story of an Afghan taxi-driver, known only as Dilawar, completely innocent of any ties to terrorism, who was tortured to death by interrogators in the United States prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Taxi to the Dark Side traces the evolution of the Bush policy from Bagram (Dilawar's interrogators speak in the film) to Guantánamo (we filmed the official happy tour) to Abu Ghraib; its roots in sensory-deprivation experiments decades ago that guided the CIA in understanding torture; the opposition within the administration from the military and other significant figures (the former general counsel of the navy, Alberto Mora, and former chief-of-staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, explain how that internal debate went, while John Yoo, one of its architects, defends it); the congressional battle to restore the standard of the Geneva convention that forbids torture (centred on John McCain's tragic compromise); and the sudden popularity of the Fox TV show "24" in translating torture into entertainment by means of repetitious formulations of the bogus ticking-time-bomb scenario.

[Carolina]

5. Excellent

and I agree. Our side has been too nice, too long ... starting with the Reagan Years.

If he and his ilk had been exposed at the time ... loudly and relentlessly, our current executive branch wouldn't be filled with his leftover crony criminals wreaking more -- and worse -- havoc on the nation and the world.

[benEzra]

9. You do also have to pick rational fights...

We should get any video we can about death squads and play it in response to NRA nonsense about assault weapons.

I agree with most of your post, but have to disagree on that one.

You do realize that the weapons used by death squads in other countries are already restricted here, right? (10-year Federal felony for possession outside of police/military duty, unless you have Federal authorization, i.e. BATFE Form 4.)

What you propose on that issue would merely hand the old "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" club to the repubs and repeat the 1994-2004 debacle--and for no reason, since rifles are rarely used in U.S. homicides anyway.

Around half of gun owners are Dems and indies. Stay the hell out of our gun safes, please.



-----------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[arendt]

10. Quite frankly, no. I was unaware that death squads had rules about what kind of guns...

they can and can't use.

But, I must congratulate you on your use of propaganda techniques. I can learn a
lot from you. I have no intention of discussing guns with you. This
thread is about propaganda techniques. My comments below should not be
read as being a "gun grabber", but merely as a propaganda student paying homage
to a master. Sort of like Stephen Colbert paying legitimate homage to Bill O'Reilly.

Let's look at this little excerpt from your long propaganda rant.

>> Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

>Whenever a Democrat urges a ban on "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's," he or she looks
>dishonest to gun enthusiasts familiar with the law, because military AK-47's and Uzi's are already
>tightly restricted by Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934--which, after all, has only been
>on the books for SEVENTY YEARS.

Nice phraseology. You are merely an "enthusiast", while your opponent is "dishonest". Yes,
classic propaganda technique. Snarl words and purr words.

> Oh, the prohibitionists didn't tell you that the legislation they gave you didn't ban any military weapons,
did they? Just civilian nonhunting firearms like my wife's 15-round Glock handgun.

Gee, Glock handgun with 15 round clip. Where have I recently heard about that? Maybe Virginia Tech?
But, no matter. You tell me it is not a "weapon of war". Marvelous propaganda. You were really vindicated
on that one.

>It astounds me that more than ten years after the 1994 "assault
>weapons ban" was passed, many politicians and respected media organizations were still reporting
>that the ban covered "automatic weapons" or "weapons of war" or "machine guns." When all anyone
>had to do was go to the BATFE web site and read the Federal Firearms Law FAQ to find that this was
>100% wrong.

Couldn't bother to state the words of that law which you keep quoting right here, could we? Just assert your
interpretation of some official act, and move on.

>When leading Democrats seek to ban any ammunition capable of piercing body armor--which practically A
>NY centerfire rifle caliber will do--why are they surprised when rifle owners feel threatened? (Yes, even grandpa's
>old .30-30 Winchester deer rifle will drill through level II or IIIA body armor like it's not there.) Oh, the prohibitionists
>didn't tell you that Kevlar body armor is only designed to stop handgun rounds, did they? But ten minutes' research
>would have revealed that--if any Democratic strategist had bothered to check.

And finally, black and white thinking and exagerrated fear. "Gun prohibitionists" is pure agitprop. People don't
want all guns banned all the time (prohibition). They want sensible, locale-aware regulation. But, the first rule
of propaganda is to lump all your enemies in one basket, and then paint them as evil, evil evil.

Finally, exaggerated fear, the staple of propaganda - "rifle owners feel threatened". Maybe some do, maybe with some
reason. But the whole tone here is of apocalyptic hysteria. Just like Sean Hannity screaming that gays are planning to
rape your children right now. Very effective stuff.

----

All in all. Thanks for the marvelous lesson on propaganda techniques. Glad you're on our side.

arendt

On edit: smiley removed.

[benEzra]

12. The "assault weapon" meme is one of the most effective buzz terms I've ever seen.

Quite frankly, no. I was unaware that death squads had rules about what kind of guns they can and can't use.

The "assault weapon" meme is one of the most effective buzz terms I've ever seen. The fact that you brought up "death squads" (presumably meaning paramilitaries equipped with military automatic weapons, a la Argentina/Columbia/Iraq) in the context of the term illustrates that point, I think, since the term "assault weapon" refers solely to U.S. CIVILIAN (NFA Title 1) guns like Ruger mini-14's, the AR-15 platform, civilian shotguns holding more than 5 shells, and so on.

Military automatic weapons are very tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, which is found in 18 USC 922 and other places.

>Whenever a Democrat urges a ban on "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's," he or she looks
>dishonest to gun enthusiasts familiar with the law, because military AK-47's and Uzi's are already
>tightly restricted by Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934--which, after all, has only been
>on the books for SEVENTY YEARS.

Nice phraseology. You are merely an "enthusiast", while your opponent is "dishonest". Yes,
classic propaganda technique. Snarl words and purr words.

The point of that paragraph was to get people to LEARN THE LAW before making dumbass statements that indicate they've fallen for a bait-and-switch. Possession of an actual AK-47 or Uzi is already a 10-year Federal felony under the National Firearms Act, so if a politician invokes the perceived need to "ban weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's", then they have obviously been misled as pertains to (1) existing Federal law and (2) what the legislation they are pushing actually covers, i.e. non-automatic NFA Title 1 civilian guns, not already-banned "weapons of war."

Gee, Glock handgun with 15 round clip. Where have I recently heard about that? Maybe Virginia Tech?
But, no matter. You tell me it is not a "weapon of war". Marvelous propaganda. You were really vindicated
on that one.

70% of police handguns in this country are Glocks, and they also account for a very high percentage of lawful non-LEO civilian sales. Unless you want to claim that the pistol your local police officer carries on her hip is a "weapon of war" with no legitimate non-military purpose, then one might want to reconsider that rhetoric.

The Glock is the quintessential ordinary civilian handgun in this country. You can agree or disagree with the desirability of non-LEO civilians owning ordinary 9mm pistols (and invoke the VT shootings if you want), but you can't claim special powers for them, and they are no more "weapons of war" than a Smith & Wesson 9mm, or a .38.

And finally, black and white thinking and exagerrated fear. "Gun prohibitionists" is pure agitprop. People don't
want all guns banned all the time (prohibition).

Jerry Falwell doesn't want to ban all abortions all the time--just those not necessary to save the life of the mother. Red herring. The 18th Amendment didn't ban all alcohol, either...

Banning half of all civilian guns is not significantly more acceptable to gun owners than banning all of them.

They want sensible, locale-aware regulation.

Which is precisely what I argued for in the piece you so stridently objected to. Leave it to the states, I said, and stop trying to shove California-style gun bans down the throats of people in other states that have repeatedly and consistently rejected such bans.

And first and foremost, LEARN what is already banned, and what new legislation would and would not cover, before framing the debate over 6-round shotguns/15-round pistols/protruding rifle handgrips in terms of "death squads."

[arendt]

11. front page kick n/t