um, how do I sign the petition?

I've always wanted to know, what exactly happens to all that paper? 160,000 pages printed to prove a point? Are they recycled in some way? Are you printing on recycled paper? Please let us know!

Here's the URL for the petition:

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911

This is important and we need to make sure we get the word out on this. If we can't stop it, we must weaken its message.

However, we can't forget the issues that have reappeared in the middle of this that are so vital to our long term security. They are also important in defining who we are.

Bush is pushing for legislation to allow even more wiretapping of our phones and gathering of e-mails. He is already doing these I am sure, but we can't make it legal. We need to start holding him accountable.

The secret prisons of the CIA that do not exist have been admitted to. They say no one is in them now, but I'm not sure that can be believed either. And the administration is still trying to claim the right to torture. That is completely anathema to what we should be about.

We have to be tough in the fight against terrorism, but we cannot give up our soul to do so. The end does not justify the means. If we are as bad as them, we become as bad as they say we are. Then whoever wins, there is no one with the high ground.

The Geneva Convention rules were set up for a very good reason. And we were the driving force behind them. Stand up and fight against this effort to remove ourselves from those rules.

brian111 wrote:

>Protesting this movie is playing right into the
>republicans hand. Talk about national security
>and nothing else.

Sorry, brian111, but talking about nothing but national security WILL be playing right into the Republicans' hands. Democrats need to talk about health care, jobs, and education, as well as protecting our ports and our borders.

But thanks for the "help", though.

ABC has full privelege to air whatever type of programming it desires; however, if you suggest that this drama is based on the 9/11 Commision Report, then you should make sure that you present facts correctly.

It is clear that, in it's current state, enough eyes have seen this show and agree that it is fiction at a minimum, more likely intentionally misleading.

Politically driven storytelling of such an important historical event, at a time when Our Country is so divided politically is irresponsible.

Nonetheless, contentious art should always be allowed in an open society. Society judges its merit.

It doesn't look like art, though, when you use real names, cite reports as substantiating references, mimick events well known to the public psyche, yet miss so obviously on accuracy. It looks like dirty politics.

Get it right, or present this innaccurate "drama" and then go sit in the corner with Fox News; they've done so well with biased, faux-news.

M Hemming
Denver, CO

Have you no shame? All those that died that day and those that suffer still from the loss deserve the truth for a change. Shame on you ABC/Disney. And shame on anyone who watches this sham of a movie.

To matthaggs and brian111,

Thanks for your concern. You can now go back under the bridge and drink your kool-aid while the adults go about their business.

There have been so many outrages and critical events in the last couple of years. I am amazed that thread after thread after thread is devoted to a movie. I've never seen such a thing on this blog.

Issues come and go here, sometimes with hardly a mention. I have seen bloggers complain about that in the past.

Does anyone realize that yesterday coalition forces handed control of operations over to the Iraqis?

A fictionalized, dramatized movie. You would think someone was trying to kill us or something. Oh wait, they are . . . . .

Again, I am with Brian111.

Sure, Disney didn't put Goofy and Mickey and Donald and his three nephews into the docu-drama, but Americans should nevertheless be able discern fact from fiction. If nothing else they can listen to the President's account of how 911 happened, and when they see that the two line up pretty darned well, they can return to reruns of "Charmed," fully informed, and ready to blame Clinton for all that is wrong in this country.

I can't wait for the docu-drama the Revolutionary War, when it's revealed that Benedict Arnold's REAL name was Benedict CLINTON!!!

And he's also right about protesting the movie. WE all should know by now that the very worst thing we can do to oppose Republicans is, well...you know...oppose them. The best thing that Democrats can do in response to this movie is to just give up and admit it's all true, and then reveal that Clinton considered bin Laden to be his Secretary of Commerce in his first administration.

You're my man, Brian111. You're a real Democrat!

You rock, Brian111!

I really don't see what you are whining about. Madeline Albright was none too bright when she insisted on telegraphing our planned attack on Osama by giving advance notification to Pakistan.

Sandy Berger was just plain stupid to not order the attack on Osama when he had the chance.

Slick Willy should've kept it in his pants long enough to treat the office of the President with the respect it deserved. The Lewinsky drama was a completely avoidable distraction.

This is CYA at its worst. There was a time when the Party had more integrity than this, though it's been decades.

pear wrote:

>Does anyone realize that yesterday coalition
>forces handed control of operations over to the
>Iraqis?

Oh, good! Does that mean that Coalition Forces can "stand down" now?

>A fictionalized, dramatized movie.

Billed as "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report".

>You would
>think someone was trying to kill us or something.
>Oh wait, they are . . . . .

I agree. The Bush Administration is making enemies of America all over the world.

winephile wrote:

>Slick Willy should've kept it in his pants long
>enough to treat the office of the President with
>the respect it deserved.

When Clinton lied, no one died.

>The Lewinsky drama was a completely avoidable
>distraction.

Tell that to the ravenous Republicans who halted everything, trying to impeach Clinton.

>Again, I am with Brian111.

Of course you are, you work in the same boilerroom.

>Of course you are, you work in the same boilerroom.

Or you are the best parody troll ever!

Posted by brian111 on September 8, 2006 at 02:12 PM

More trees are being killed printing those worthless IOUs that the Republican-controlled Congress has to keep printing to pay for the record national debt.

Petitions, civil disobedience, free speech...they are all things no one expects the GOP to understand. It's kind of like they don't see anything wrong with not counting all the votes?

SandyH, paper trails would kill more trees. Somebody please think of the trees!

Sandy H -

As a Democrat, I do understand petitions and free speech. What I don't understand is petitions to STOP free speech.

>What I don't understand is petitions to STOP free speech.

Oh, you think that libel is protected speech?

Madeline Albright was none too bright when she insisted on telegraphing our planned attack on Osama by giving advance notification to Pakistan.

Thats been debunked
Try again winephile

Trolls seem to be out in force

Airing this miniseries would be a travesty for
our country and ABC/Disney. Do the right thing and pull this from airing.

Airing this miniseries would be a travesty for
our country and ABC/Disney. Do the right thing and pull this from airing.

Pear As i pointed out in another thread
It is not free speach, that right doesnt allow you to violate the rights of others.
It does not allow you to break federal electioneering laws or the Communications Act of 1934
It also does not allow a person or corp to use lies slander or libel.
Movie stars constantly sue tabloids for less offenses.
This is not about free speach or censorship
It is about propaganda filled with lies and false information being used to influence an election.

What you are speaking of is called "Prior Restraint", and it is legally considered a form of censorship:

Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of censorship in Anglo-American jurisprudence because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all. Other forms of restrictions on expression (such as suits for libel, slander, defamation, or actions for criminal libel) generally involve punishment after the offending material has been published. While such punishment might lead to a chilling effect, legal commentators argue that at least such actions do not directly impoverish the marketplace of ideas. Prior restraint, on the other hand, takes the idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship. This view was expressed by the United States Supreme Court, in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

I suggest you look up the term Libel

so Brian and Baron, how do you feel about Disney partnering with Scolastic to put out study guides for their little work of fiction. Is it reasonable to complain that Disney has over reached their audience to try and credit this as an educational movie based on fact when it is clear now that they took great creative license with the truth.

Prior restraint refers to actions taken by the state..

demands by citizens exercising their own free speech by demanding responsible action is not censorship...

it is a remedy for unfettered corporate speech.

Boy that sure looks like a copy and paste from wikipedia.
Did you even read the first sentance? or paragraph?
here's the first sentance for ya

Prior restraint is a legal term referring to a government's actions that prevent materials from being published.

paragraph

Prior restraint is a legal term referring to a government's actions that prevent materials from being published. Censorship that requires a person to seek governmental permission in the form of a license or imprimatur before publishing anything constitutes prior restraint every time permission is denied. More recently, prior restraint has often taken the form of an injunction or other governmental order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, the government becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it. In other cases, the government attempts to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are also usually considered to be cases of prior restraint, because future publications are stopped before they start.

Posted by pear on September 8, 2006 at 03:40 PM

There is a cost for slander and libel. There is nothing "free" in this country especially for those that think it's OK to lie and make up things about real people and events and leave a "paper" trial behind them as they do it.

ABC's complete lack of respect for the 9/11 Commission's work really puzzles me. There lack of respect for the victims and their families by trying so scandalously to profit off the 5th anniversary of 9/11 can only backfire on them.

There's some really bad judgement being displayed on somebody's part at the Disney network. Makes you wonder if they had some help in deciding to do it. It has sort of a Plame outting quality to it somehow, don't you think?

Sandy - I agree with you there. I think it is poor judgment. But then again, I find most TV is.

Bluerall - Yes that is from Wikipedia. I should have stated that. I have trouble doing the links. Yes, I know that refers to government interference. That is what I believe the Senators were doing when they made statements indicating the ABC licenses may be in danger if the movie were aired.

Shaky ground on that, it would have to goto court.
Citizens stand a better chance.
Not only have they opened themsleve up to lawsuits from those libeled but from stockholders as well who stand to lose.

Gosh, I miss Dijhilli's input on issues like these. Always so insightful and ever so independent.

I wonder...Brian111 - do you know where he went?

Nanorich, in response to your comment - I do my best.

Oh, wait...you had two posts about me, didn't you ?

>I should have stated that.

No, it is pretty clear you deliberately left out that part. And any moron can cut and paste a link.

And you were clearly talking about the DNC using this venue to pressure ABC not show the film, if they weren't going to fix it. You were accusing individual democrats of censorship.

Lame and deceptive attempts to mistate the law or legal theory can't not explained why by what "you really meant."

Please don't insult the intelligence of the people who use this blog in good faith to promote a political agenda designed to advance a lie, and damage people who did their very best to protect America...even as people like you were accusing them of wagging the dog.

>Oh, wait...you had two posts about me, didn't you ?

Like I say, you are good. And for a second there, you even fooled me.

Then I realized that you still have a childlike faith that trolls get irony and sarcasm.

My apologies.

This is Censorship. Nothing more, nothing less.

If the democratic party has a problem with a media outlets views, the may counter the claims on their own. They may take the matter to court if need be. Pressuring a media outlet to edit their content to suit a political prtys viewpoint is unacceptable.

I find it insulting to think that the Democratic party wont even alow me to make up my own mind when it comes to the information presented in the media.

You have lost my vote.

>Michael Moore was allowed to bill his own work of fiction as a 'documentary' and even went on to win an award for it, despite being partisan and misrepresenting facts, two things that should have disqualified it from 'documentary' status.

actually you are wrong. Moore had the film fact checked rigorously, probably more than any documentary in history. Just because some idiot on Talk Radio tells you otherwise doesn't mean that is the truth.

And no, he didn't win an Oscar for the film, he pulled it from Oscar consideration so it could be released early on DVD.

People make a big deal because this film originated as a historically accurate representation of true events, based on the 9/11 report.

And then went on to repeat right wing urban myths as truth. When Chris Wallace and Bill Bennett say this film is slanderous, maybe it is time for you guys to punt.

Not that people like you have much interest in the truth, as the first paragraph of your message reveals.

>You have lost my vote.

Tell you bosses the DNC demands better trolls.

Send smarter trolls.

I ended my letter with "If Walt were still alive he would be ashamed of this stunt."

And unlike ABC/Disney, I actually believe what I'm saying is true.

Hypocritical much?
flip that around

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1581

Not when it contains libel

>Send smarter trolls.

You dont really mean that do you? Then we might actually think for our selves. We might disagree. We might not toe DNC line.

All I am asking for is the right to make up my own mind. ABC can air what they want. I will form my own opinion. I dont need a political party pressuring a civilian media outlet to remove their programing. If the documentary is out of line, I will have plenty to say to those who made it. But only if I'm actually allowed to see it in the first place.

>Not when it contains libel

That is for a court to decide. Not a political party.

Do some research on this whole issue.
Your lack of knowledge is showing.

1) negative light would be fine if it told the truth, not when it has to use lies/libel to do so.

2) The majority of Americans still believe the lies about Iraq
Which lies?
Ties to 911
Ties to Al Qaeda
WMD
Take away all these lies and you have no just cause to invade.

Many of the promos for this mini-series were portraying it as factual. Scholastic had to pull theirs.
Once again ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda were in these promo's
It is time to quit with lying and tell the truth.
To say ohhh its a drama is a lame duck.

My question is who paid the forty million dollars to produce this gem?

It took a long time to get the record straight on the blocker to the database on pork. But, with a process of elimination, the truth was exposed.

We'll soon see who paid for this disinformation campaign, this psychological warfare on the American people.

It is very nice to see that we have become empowered and are united. Great job, everyone. The trolls are very worried. Please ignore them, lest they feel too welcome and continue to pass their flatulance on our nice clean sheets.

911 Truth is a good place to begin.

Think they are on the trail over at dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/8/133335/7036

We think Disney and ABC made a wrong bet, first to make a partisan movie, that politicizes 9/11, then sending previews only to solid Republican backers.

We suspect that there are laws that require that overt political propaganda such as this be labeled as such.

Our advice: withdraw the movie, or my wife will never again watch Oprah or The Group etc I will stop looking at Stefanopoulos.

G
Dr and Mrs D Enthovven

I'm finding more and more folks who think as I do as I read this blog.

Right on, ANDREWFR!

This is America, and in America we are free to watch, believe, or disbelieve any propoganda we want. If we see the propoganda and we believe it, then it is fact. If we watch the propoganda and we don't believe it, it is fiction. That's the problem with freedom is that we all have a personal responsibility to find our own facts.

This is where liberals go wrong when it comes to so-called "science." Liberals believe that when "scientists" present so-called "facts" about things like acid-rain, global warming, evolution, etc., people are supposed to just believe them. Well, sorry to disabuse you of your own fiction, but this is America, where people are free to pick and choose the facts they believe in, and then govern appropriately.

Consider the matter of Iraq. Because we are Americans (and we can't forget that, can we?) we have the right, perhaps even the patriotic duty, to sift through the facts and determine for ourselves which are real, which are not, and choose the ones which fit our conception of "right" and "wrong." That's how wars have been made through the centuries, and why liberals are unable to accept that simple fact is beyond me and people like ANDREWFR.

So now we have a movie that depicts the events leading up to 911, and everyone is all in a lather over what "facts" are real, and what "facts" are not. The point is that it doesn't matter, precisely because we are free Americans and it is our birthright to accept the facts we believe in and reject those that we don't. If ABC chooses to manufacture their own facts for their own purposes, they have the right to do so. We as American viewers have the right to watch them if we choose, to believe them if we choose, and to elect whomever we want on the basis of what facts we...choose. Also, and this is a dirty little "fact" that liberals tend to ignore, we all also have the right to form our own multi-billion dollar communications corporate conglomerate and use it to promote our own personal views to millions of other Americans. What, are liberals lazy as well as stupid and weak?

In the final analysis it's all about choice, and for the life of me I don't understand why liberals, who say they believe in choice in the case of abortion, don't believe in choice when it comes to issues like education and now, it seems, choice when it comes to TV specials.

As I've stated before, if people what to choose an alternate set of facts on the subject matter of the ABC special, they should just read the 911 Commission report (you can get a condensed version on Rush's site if you're too lazy to read the original), or maybe conduct their own personal interviews of Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton, William Tenet and Madeline Albright to get their own facts.

I for one am waiting for the TeleTubby show which will exmaine the issue. I understand that it's going to be a tell-all where Tinky Winky, a known CIA desk agent) reveals his role in prepping the intel for the President, and also discloses that while he really is gay he opposes same-sex marriage and also marriage between any two purple things.

You RULE, ANDERFR!

if you are going to produce a show about the 9-11 massacre, it should be factual, non-political,footage (there was plenty) of the events, not a right-wing spin on history. i feel this will cause you and your parent organization irrepariable harm, and i think that would be an appropiate response for this politially slanted version of an american tragedy.

baronccarpia is an obvious rightwinger on the wrong web page. your doublespeak sounds too familiar with the current administration. of course it is easy to spin the facts of the case, you republicans have been doing it for 6 years.

Wow, I think, last night was the largest troll-turnout in the history of trolls.I wonder why you think you can sway our opinion,yet you can't sway your own folks opinion.

Dear ABC Disney:

Artist Lyrics: Disney
Song Lyrics: When You Wish Upon A Star
Album Lyrics:

When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

If your heart is in your dream
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star
As dreamers do

Fate is kind
She brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of
Their secret longing

Like a bolt out of the blue
Fate steps in and sees you through
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true.

I’ve grown up believing in Jiminy’s words and Tinker Bell’s punctuating the Disney magic with her wand. It is my wish that we again have this magic for all of us children of the past, present and future. Please do not tarnish Walt’s dream!

I am wishing upon the star of truth that we again possess the magic that makes this country great! Put the truth back into America and allow us all to have all of our dreams come true!

Argus247 September 9, 2006

>Wow, I think, last night was the largest troll-turnout in the history of trolls

I really dont know what that means (the troll part, i guess i'm not hip to "blog" lingo).

And for the record, I am neither a republican or democrat. I'm just pissed that a political party is flexing all the power thay can muster to keep me from making up my own mind. I havent seen the movie, I have no opinion on the movie. I just find it unfortunate that the democratic party has such little faith in americans ability to form their own opinions. None of us need that. democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, circus clown, cop, whomever.

And its great that we all get to argue about it.

Cheers!

To say that Clinton is anything like Benidict Arnold is saying you know nothing about the facts.

yes, he had intilligence on the where-abouts of Bin Laden and let him go, at the time he was wanted for nothing more then aiding and abeting a terrorist (yes a big deal, but not as big as what he is wanted for now). In the early stages of Bush's administration, Bin Laden was linked to the Cole bombing, Bush did nothing. Bin Laden warned of a severe attack on US soil, Bush said they didn't have it in them. The leader of the Northern Alliance told the US government was Al-Qaida was up to, the Bush administration response was "So what, what do you want us to do about it?" Bush stood around and did nothing until 9/11 happened. Then all of a sudden, in the wake of a tragedy, he portrayed himself like a hero. He was too egotistical to think anyone would try to attack us. Did he forget Pearl Harbor? Or did he forget they old saying "Those who forget history, allow it to repeat itself"? Bush and Clinton are equally to blame for 9/11. But the film Path to 9/11 will not show you that, it will only show you the lack of response by Clinton and the aftermath response by Bush. They intentionally left out what little Bush did before 9/11.

The statement made by a Bush administration officer when told that the Northern Alliance had intelligence that Al-qaida was training people to fly planes only while in air (no concern with landing - HINT!!!) the administration officer looked at the CIA officer and said "What do you expect us to do?....Warn the airlines and cause mass panic?" Well, unnamed Bush administration officer, I think you succeed in causing mass panic.....

No Mention of Osama Bin Laden's Failed Kidneys

Osama Bin Laden's kidneys do not function and he has to be on a kidney machine in order to flush his kidneys so he can continue living, and I am to understand that this flush is done at a hospital in Saudia Arabia where the CIA is fully aware that he goes and have visited with him at the hospital.

The CIA has not actually been looking for Osama bin Laden at all because Osama bin Laden was not actually involved in the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center, which is why the case was dropped by the Bush Administration.

Apparently the Bushies think they can stir up fear in all the stupid people of America. The colossal gall of this bunch of worthless corporate nincompoops is appalling.

I was not impressed with the Bush conservative right-wing 9/11 ABC movie of what would have, could have or should have been that they just were unable to handle.

Since the REPUBLICANS are unable to handle their positions, they should never have been corporately placed in those positions. These corporate yahoos have been in complete power for FIVE (5) LOOOONG YEARS, which has been long enough to correct any supposed shortcomings of the Clinton Administration and not be whining about the Clinton Administration making it impossible for them. That is a bunch of hogwash.

In any position I have ever worked if anyone whined like the Bush Administration whines, they would be replaced right away. It is a shame that WE THE PEOPLE have had to put up with all their whining failures and destruction. All their corporate whining has been able to do is blame others for their FIVE-YEARS OF FAILURE on all counts. Furthermore, this fascist Bush Administration that was placed in office against the will of the people does not plan on accepting any responsibility for their administrative failure to do anything constructive for WE THE PEOPLE in the future.

The right-wing 9/11 movie ABC presented is the epitome of the Bush Administration, a "shirking of responsibility" movie and a "shirking of responsibility" administration. Any and all of the members of the Bush Administration absolutely refuse to accept any responsibility for their failures; like irresponsible children they are always seeking to blame others for their shortcomings. After FIVE YEARS it is too late to be blaming the Clinton Administration, or anyone else; or crying about not being able to break the law as a reason for their wanton failures. FIVE YEARS is toooooo long for any story like they are peddling to have any reasonable significance. /strong>

Should anyone be weak minded enough to be inclined to believe all the garbage presented in their right-wing movie, maybe that person would be interested in buying some land on the far side of the moon or at the bottom of the ocean. [I started to say the Golden Gate Bridge, but our country's bridges are now being sold to private parties in other countries to be made into troll bridges for toll by the irresponsible fascist Right-Wing "corporate controlled" Bush Administration.]

Baron Scarpia:

After all the Right-Wing lying propaganda of the Hitler Regime that brought the United States into World War I with Germany and again in World War II with Germany and Japan, lying propaganda was outlawed in the United States, Germany and England; but now Hitler's type of lying propaganda has returned and apparently you are all for it. May the Lord forgive you.

This Propaganda Watch Website give one a clue as to what to watch for in propaganda and why WE THE PEOPLE want truth from our government, not lying propaganda:

http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/101

And the Whitehouse Briefing Propaganda site at:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/index.php?p=197

Also, the University of Kent in England has a Center for the Study of Propaganda at this link:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/history/centres/proplinks.htm

The electorate should be able to trust their elected officials. Although, Democrats have never been able to trust Republicans with their money, there was a time when Democrats could trust Republicans to make proper decisions for benefit of the country as a whole, but that time has ended.

Bush said he represented ALL the people, but it is plain to see that he only represents his own constituents, the EXTREME RIGHT.

If one is trying to be a REPUBLICAN and isn't of the EXTREME RIGHT, that one is going to be in for a rude awakening because the REPUBLICAN PARTY only represents the CONSERVATIVE RIGHT. Believe me, there is a LEFT and a RIGHT.

Because of Hitler's Right-Wing Regime using propaganda to destroy, the use of lying propaganda against law abiding citizens of their home country was outlawed in the United States and should be outlawed again.

winephile:

President Clinton made some mistakes, least of all being his consenting romp with Monica. I can't say I am a rooter for President Clinton because of his DLC war involvement and his DLC signing of NAFTA, but what President Clinton did doesn't compare to the warring devastation of the planet that the BUSH REGIME has done.

How can you hypocrits think that a little bit of oral sex between a consenting male and a consenting female is worse that BUSH killing thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people and for what?????

Here is also an Adobe page with a description of the SEVEN PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES so one can recognize when they are being used. Propaganda is effective and it will serve us well to be aware of all the forms of propaganda:

ing/reading-media/3/day3.pdf">http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/teaching/reading-media/3/day3.pdf

The names of the techniques are:

NAME CALLING,

GLITTERING GENERALITIES,

TRANSFER,

TESTIMONIAL,

PLAIN FOLKS,

CARD STACKING, and

BANDWAGON.

Sean Hannity uses all seven of these propaganda tactics when he makes an appearance. If one will study these techniques and listen to Hannity speak, one can easily recognize his use of propaganda. Hannity has propaganda down to an art. FOX is the propaganda channel an there's plenty to study.

MarthaA, Oibma19 -

Please read my posts more carefully.

Really - go back and read one them more carefully. You may be surprised.

Propaganda Techniques

NAME CALLING

Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations and races.

GLITTERING GENERALITIES

We believe in, fight for, and live by virtue words about which we have deep-set ideas. Such words include civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health and love.

For our purposes in PROPAGANDA ANALYSIS, we call these VIRTUE WORDS "Glittering Generalities" in order to focus attention upon this dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; they can be used in different ways.

This is not a criticism of these words, as we understand them. Quite the contrary. It is a CRITICISM OF THE USES to which propagandists put the cherished words and beliefs of unsuspecting people.

When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school and in church. Our first and natural reaction is to ASSUME that the speaker is using the word in OUR SENSE, that he/she believes as WE DO on this important subject. This lowers our 'sales resistance' and makes us far less suspicious than we ought to be when the speaker begins telling us the things 'the United States MUST DO to preserve democracy'.

The Glittering Generality is, in short, Name Calling in reverse. While Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to make us approve and accept without examining the evidence. In acquainting ourselves with the Glittering Generality device, therefore, all that has been said regarding Name Calling must be kept in mind…

TRANSFER

Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he/she would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he/she thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something, which otherwise we might reject.

TESTIMONIAL

This is the classic misuse of the Testimonial Device that comes to the minds of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently and tell ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents or even our parents.

With our next breath, we begin a sentence, 'The Times said,' 'John L. Lewis said…,' 'Herbert Hoover said…', 'The President said…', 'My doctor said…,' 'Our minister said…' Some of these Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device; others, however, may represent the sugarcoating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion…

PLAIN FOLKS

"Plain Folks" is a device used by politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and even by ministers and educators to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves—"just plain folks among the neighbors". In election years especially do candidates show their devotion to little children and the common, homey things of life. They have front porch campaigns. For the newspapermen they raid the kitchen cupboard, finding there some of the good wife's apple pie. They go to country picnics; they attend service at the old frame church; they pitch hay and go fishing; they show their belief in home and mother. In short, they would win our votes by showing that they're just as common as the rest of us—"just plain folks"—and, therefore, WISE and GOOD. Businessmen often are "plain folks" with the factory hands. Even distillers use the device. "It's our family's whiskey, neighbor; and neighbor, it's your price."

CARD STACKING

"Card Stacking" is a device where the propagandist employs all the "Arts of Deception" to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal. He/she stacks the cards against the truth. He/she uses under-emphasis and over emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts. He/she resorts to lies, censorship and distortion. He/she omits facts. He/she offers false testimony. He/she creates a smoke screen of clamor by raising a new issue when he/she wants an embarrassing matter forgotten. He/she draws a red herring across the trail to confuse and divert those in quest of facts he/she does not want revealed. He/she makes the unreal appear real and the real appear unreal. He/she lets half-truth masquerade as truth. By the Card Stacking device, a mediocre candidate, through the "build-up," is made to APPEAR an intellectual titan; an ordinary prizefighter, a probable world champion; a worthless patent medicine, a beneficent cure. By means of this device propagandists would convince us that a ruthless War of Aggression is a Crusade for Righteousness. Some member nations of the Non-Intervention Committee send their troops to intervene in Spain. Card Stacking employs sham, hypocrisy and/or effrontery.

BANDWAGON

The propagandist hires a hall, rents radio stations, fills a great stadium, and/or marches a million or at least a lot of men in a parade. He/she employs symbols, colors, music, movement, and/or all the dramatic arts. He/she gets us to write letters, to send telegrams, to contribute to his/her cause. He/she appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd. Because he/she wants us to follow the crowd in masses, he/she directs his/her appeal to groups held together already by common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, sex, and/or vocation. Thus propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as Catholics, Protestants, or Jews…as farmers or as schoolteachers; as housewives or as miners.

With the aid of all the other propaganda devices, all of the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group. Thus, in EMOTION made to PUSH and PULL us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/teaching/reading-media/3/day3.pdf

Information From Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.

One more try, if it doesn't work, I've still got the information on the blog because people need to be able to identify these Right-Wing control tactics.

If you decide to investigate the propaganda techniques, do your investigation first on Sean Hannity. The reason I say that is because Sean Hannity uses all of the propaganda techniques. Also, the FOX Channel. If you learn these propaganda techniques then you will start noticing when the tools of propaganda are being used.