9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
Back in the Summer of 2004 outspoken documentary-maker Michael Moore brought out 'Fahrenheit 9/11', his personal view of how the terrorist attacks in the US were used by George Bush to pursue illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The response to the film was huge, but rarely ambiguous - audiences either loved it or loathed it.
Some saw it as a brilliant indictment of the lead-up to an unjust war. Others saw it as unfounded liberal/left-wing propaganda designed to give the Democrats a boost in the lead-up to the 2004 US presidential elections.
At the time Dr Kelton Rhoads, an expert in the psychology of persuasion, wrote a piece detailing the psychological techniques of persuasion used by Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. Although I wrote a summary of Rhoads' article, due to website re-organisations it got lost so I'm reposting it here as it provides a good introduction to propaganda techniques.
Each psychological technique is explained with one example from the film. For a full explanation of the techniques and a fuller list of examples go directly to the document on his website.
Omissions
Psychology: One of the most obvious techniques of any propaganda is not presenting the whole truth. As Dr Rhoads points out, "What gives omissions their power is that often not recognised as missing by their audience." By leaving out important information people are allowed to jump to conclusions about the evidence that is presented. The propagandist has, at no point, failed to tell the truth, they've just failed to tell the whole truth.
Example: One of the largest omission is the failure to show footage of the terrorist hijacked planes hitting the twin towers.
Explanation: Showing this would have provoked the viewer's anger and turned their thoughts to retribution. Instead Moore shows the aftermath, which provokes the emotion of sorrow.
Contextualisation
Psychology: Moore is keen on juxtaposition. This uses an effect psychologists call 'structure activation'. Simply put if you feel sad at any particular moment, that tends to colour how you interpret whatever happens to you next. In propaganda this can be used by creating a bleed-through effect from one scene to another. The emotion from one scene is used to colour how you interpret the content of the next scene.
Example: Contextualisation often makes Bush look foolish
Explanation: First scene: we see the unbelievable grief and suffering of witnesses to 9/11. Second scene cut into this: we see Bush 'happy, smiling and confident'. How could he be smiling at a time like this? The answer is, of course, that he's not, it's just the way the film has been cut together to make him look foolish.
Ingroup/outgroup manipulations
Psychology: This comes down to preferring 'people like us' over 'people who aren't like us'.
Example: The Saudis are represented throughout the film as being part of the 'outgroup' along with Bush.
Explanation: Moore shows Bush to be close to the Bin Laden family by repeated association. Then he shows the Bin Laden family to be close to Osama Bin Laden again by association. Whether these associations are really this close is a point for discussion but the thing to notice is that the only connection is association. Because a policeman tends to be near criminals, does that make him a criminal?
Cynicism
Psychology: People tend to attribute selfish motivations to other people, and altruistic motivations to their own behaviour. On average we have a tendency to be cynical about the reason other people do what they do. It is easy to make people suspicious about someone's motivations by simply questioning them. Intelligence operatives have an acronym: 'F.U.D.' which stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Example: Bush is acting in his own self-interest rather than in the interests of the US.
Explanation: Bush is shown sitting reading "My Pet Goat" to school children for seven minutes after the Secret Service operative has whispered the news of the terrorist attack into his ear. The cynical assumption is that he is possibly: confused, doesn't care, didn't know what to do, etc.. In reality any President movements are completely controlled by the Secret Service for security reasons. Presidents are trained to wait to be told where to go by them. In this situation Bush would probably have been told to stay put while they got information on the best place to go.
Traps
Psychology: Dr Rhoads refers to this as the E.W.Y.G.Y.S. effect or: Either Way You Go Your Screwed.
Example: Bush is presented both as a bumbling fool and as a master manipulator.
Explanation: Bush is shown primping his hair at the start of the film in the moments before broadcasting to the nation. Here he, and indeed the rest of the administration, are seen as master manipulators. The points in the film were he is made to look foolish are almost endless so take your pick.
Modelling the convert communicator
Psychology: People copy each other all the time, it's human nature. If you stand in the middle of the street and stare up at nothing, before long you will have gathered a small crowd of people all straining their neck backwards to see the object of your fascination. If you imagine this situation in terms of people's political point of view, then a similar transformation can be observed. If people are to watch someone else changing their point of view about something it influences them in the same fashion.
Example: One convert communicator in this film is Lila Lipscomb, a mother grieving for the loss of her son in Iraq. She appears to complete a full 180° turn in the course of the film, from supporting Bush to opposing him. From supporting the war in Iraq, to opposing it.
Explanation: Dr Rhoads uncovers evidence that there was no U-turn and it has been manufactured to aid our persuasion. She in fact voted for Al Gore in the last election and has been quoted as saying that: "Bush stole the presidency."
Pacing and distraction
Psychology: Dr Rhoads: "Distraction keeps us from thinking."
Example: It is difficult to process some parts of the film whereas others such as the parts with Lila Liscomb seem only too clear.
Explanation: Those parts of Moore's arguments that may be perceived as 'weaker' fly by with blaring music playing over the top. The strong parts of his argument (Lila Lipscomb) have no blaring music or fast cuts to cause distraction.
Associations
Psychology: This is an effect that psychologists often talk about in relation to Pavlov's dog. When Pavlov fed his dog, the dog salivated and he rang a bell. After a while the dog began salivating when he rang the bell, despite the fact there was no food in sight. So the dog associated the bell with being fed.
Example: Moore shows members of the Taliban visiting Texas. The automatic assumption is that he was invited by Bush.
Explanation: Bush is shown in association with the Taliban despite the fact that Bush hadn't in fact invited them to Texas. They were there to discuss an oil pipeline with the previous permission of the Clinton administration.
Numeric deceptions
Psychology: People like statistics, they sound good. It's been found by psychologists that people are happy to believe them and don't bother checking them. Sounds perfect for the propagandist doesn't it?
Example: Bush was on vacation for 42% of the time during his first 229 days in office.
Explanation: What the original statistics are referring to is the time that Bush spent not in Washington. And the implications is that, if he's not in Washington he's not doing any work and is therefore on vacation. Obviously not true. I'm sat at home in the UK, sitting back on the sofa as I write this so how can I be working? Perhaps I need to move to Washington for this to count as real work? This discussion is facile, but parts of Moore's arguments revolve on this pivotal point.
Dr Rhoads finishes his article by saying:
"...is Fahrenheit documentary, or is it propaganda? Call it as you will. For my part, I see a consistent, effective, and clever use of a range of established propaganda tactics. If only a few of these tactics were used, or if the attempt to deceive weren't as apparent, I might equivocate...I feel safe in applying the rule: if it flies, walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
But Bush still won in 2004!
So if Fahrenheit 9/11 was such a successful piece of propaganda, how come George Bush went on to win the 2004 presidential election? Dr Rhoads published an update on the apparently failed attempt to persuade the American public which I commented on here.
» You can buy Fahrenheit 9/11
which won the Palme D'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival from Amazon.com, Michael Moore's latest film is 'Sicko
'.» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Labels: Persuasion
Like this post?
Get new articles free in your email inbox (max: 3 per week): 
Subscribe to PsyBlog's RSS Feed
Bookmark this post on Del.icio.us
Stumble It!
15 comments
Another Ad'Hominem attack on the one man ballsy enough to stand up to the sickening lobbyist system that is wrecking the whole planets respect for the one country founded on freedom. I wonder which Health Insurance Company you work for, or failing that which GoP black PR organisation is feeding you this tripe, you ought to be ashamed of yourself and the disgusting trashing of american values you are taking part in.
michael moore is the only american in the media i would welcome to my country, you sir go on the pile with Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter
This material should be taught in schools. Instead we have half-educated fools masquerading as teachers showing Moore and Gore films as gospel truth. As for the previous poster, one can only pity people so out of touch with reality that they believe the propaganda spewing from Moore's mouth. I have lived in Canada and the UK and I can tell you that the picture of their health services presented by Moore in Sicko is pure fantasy.
Wonderful-- now how about doing the same anlysis of those who hold formal positions of authority in the goverment and media news. Did they not do the same or worse with the far more powerful insitutional backing of their positions? Moore is, and is publically seen as, a pundit, so he is expected to use the sorts of techniques detailed here. The President and the news media-- we should hold these actors to a different and higher standard.
One man's point of view is another's propaganda.
At no time did Moore indicate this was anything more than a point of view on how Bush messed up.
Moore does not do documentaries.
anonymous 2: "news media" I am so tired of reading and hearing that used like the thousands of newspapers and television stations are controlled by one person.
In the future, try to qualify your condemnation by writing "networks" or WaPo, LAT, or NYT.
But "the media" doesn't exist.
Propaganda works both ways, so one really needs to consider the original propaganda, the outright lies that lead up to the Iraq war, the support by US administrations for years, and the fact that many are responding to the authoritarian abuse of economic and military power.
Moore was simply telling a side of the story that the mainstream propaganda machine has ignored.
Whether you call Moore's techniques 'propaganda' or 'persuasive argument' or 'polemic' or 'the truth' will probably depend on whether you agree with the spirit of his argument or not. I am specifically not commenting on the spirit of his argument - this is not a political blog.
What I'm trying to draw out (and although I can't speak for the original author's motivations, I'd imagine they're the same is mine) is how the film uses all the classic techniques of manipulation. This provides a popular way of showing the techniques of persuasion in film that can be used in the service of any political ends.
Amazing as it may seem to some people - particularly the commenter 'Jinkii' above - it is actually possible to agree with the spirit of a message while still being interested in analysing and criticising how that message is communicated.
A comment some 8 months after the initial posting:
The techniques described in the film are part and parcel -- indeed the very tool kit -- of ALL filmmaking. And ALL writing. And ALL politics. And ALL human interaction.
In our engaging with other people, either face-to-face or some other indirect medium, we all engage in Ommission (either deliberately or not, given our motivations, attitudes, and cognitive shortcomings such as Confirmation Bias), in Contextualization, in Traps, Modeling, and so forth.
In fact, I am engaging in those same behaviors at this very moment as I communicate with you. In fact, being human, there is no possible way that I cannot. I can certainly attempt to compensate for those human socio-cognitive weaknesses, but they will still remain.
Difference between Dr. Rhodes and his review and myself writing this post? I am acknowledging that I am doing the same thing I'm critiquing.
(Oh dammit! There I go: I just used another persuasion technique on you by acknowledging that I am more like you than Dr. Rhodes is, and setting the benchmark for "disingenuousness".)
(Gah! I just did it again!)
ad absurdum
Dr. Grumpus
Oops,
That eight month comment at the top of my post? I was mistakenly reading the posting date in American format, not European.
deny it as much as you want, this article is just a politically biased, right-wing, pro-Bush retaliation against a thought-provoking movie. the only psychology related valid point that i see is: omissions. everything else appears very contrived.
if this article were really about "persuasion techniques" alone, how come every single point is made to attack Moore and nothing highlights anything positive? it never says "moore used this technique to convey this point powerfully", it just says "moore used this technique to fool you and tarnish Bush". just baloney.
Of course Moore uses propaganda techniques to make his film, it's part of the dramaturgy of a good story - anyone would do it, regardless of what side of the story they're reporting from. I do agree with the previous posters though, that it would be interesting to see the same analysis applied to "the other side" as well.
And yes, this should be taught in school, as part of making our children critical thinkers and what not. Michael Moore might not always be right, but at least he's not afraid to stick his chin out for what he believes in, unlike most people today.
/Chaney
You don't need to have a degree in psychology to understand that Michael Moore uses propaganda to catapult an unfavorable light on Bush. Moore doesn't show video clips of great motivational speeches by Bush; however, I don't think you'd find many anyway. Bush often has a hard time making subjects agree with verbs. The power of persuasion comes from the propaganda. Moore does an excellent job of citing his sources. The problem is the word propaganda. Propaganda holds such a negative insinuation that when it's used, you feel as though some sort of wool is being pulled over your eyes. I've read all your blogs, and all of you raise interesting points. Dictionary.com defines propaganda as "information, ideas, or rumors deliberalty spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." The propaganda of this passage is just as slanted as Moore's opinion or Dr. Rhoads. Whether you're a journalist, pyschologist, or teacher, propaganda is heavily weighted by personal opinion. I don't feel as though I've been lied to by Michael Moore; however, we were all lied to by President Bush.
Mikey uses propaganda yet he's a guilty pleasure that I likey.
I stopped reading Dr. Kelton's pdf file analysis of Michael Moore's alleged propaganda techniques at his assertion that Moore was committing an error of omission when he only used Jeffrey Toobin to assert that Gore would have won re election if Florida had been recounted.
Kelton asserts that Moore left out numerous articles in major publicactions that showed that Bush won these recounts.
This is false.
The articles do not say what Dr. Kelton says they say and he obviously did not read them.
As the excellent reporter Robert Parry shows here
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html
the mainstream papers used biased reporting in framing the results of the media consortium sponsored recount.
On the basis of all the evidence from their effort, Gore won all four versions of the recount.
Gore won Florida and that is why Moore had the Toobin clip in his film.
Why continue to read the rest of Kelton's attack on Moore when he has made this massive error only several paragraphs into his diatribe/
Here's more on why Kelton is wrong in his approach to Michael Moore.
He uses citations from mainstream media sources to show that Moore is omitted them in only citing Toobin that Gore won. Yet these same sources agree with Toobin!
Here's Bob Parry again:
"“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.
Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.
The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.
This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html