Comments on: 9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:25:00 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:19:00 +0000

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/

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:10:00 +0000

Mikey uses propaganda yet he's a guilty pleasure that I likey.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:17:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:45:00 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:05:00 +0000

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.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:15:00 +0000

Oops,

That eight month comment at the top of my post? I was mistakenly reading the posting date in American format, not European.

By: Dr. Grumpus

Dr. Grumpus — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:11:00 +0000

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

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:39:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:24:00 +0000

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.