Loose Change Assigned in Propaganda College Course
Reports one of our readers, Geoff Burch:
Now, here comes the most outrageous and disturbing part of this story. The professor asked us to watch "Loose Change," a pseudo-documentary that claims the U.S. Government organized and carried out the attacks on September 11th. I know it's hard, but please contain your anger until you finish reading, then you will have plenty of anger to take out on something that's not alive or valuable to anybody. "Loose Change" is made by some college students with a fervor for conspiracy theories. Now, does the professor say, "I am reluctant to show 'Loose Change' because I'm worried you'll believe our own government murdered 3,000 of its own innocent people, and you won't trust our own country." Nope. She doesn't. I guess she is completely content with us watching a film that does nothing but lie, misrepresent the truth, and exploit the people who lost their lives on 9/11 and their families. The film is disgustingly deceitful. It dedicates itself to those who lost their lives on 9/11, but then goes as far to say that the calls families received from their loved ones on that day were hoaxes!
Excellent post! At least the college is being honest in saying that Loose Change and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth are examples of mass media as propaganda.
Labels: Loose Change, Propaganda
posted by Pat @ 12:11 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
I can see where this correspondent is coming from, but I don't see anything wrong with showing Loose Change in a course about propaganda. Doesn't the nature of the course strongly imply that the students will be watching the film from the standpoint of looking out for its biases and distortions?
I think that Dylan - who somehow thinks the South Park episode was a pro-conspiracy piece - would be annoyed to see his magnum opus shown in a class about propaganda. Hey, you guys, it's not propaganda, it's like totally fearless investigative journalism!
Doesn't the nature of the course strongly imply that the students will be watching the film from the standpoint of looking out for its biases and distortions?
Cha-Ching!
Oh god, have we found another institution that's In On The Conspiracy?
I noted that in my post. But if you read the whole thing he notes that prior to showing "Triumph of the Will" the teacher went out of her way to point out that it vile stuff, whereas when she presented Loose Change there was no such disclaimer. Remember too, that propaganda does not necessarily mean "lies".
I suppose, but then I'd be more uncomfortable about showing people Triumph of the Will than Loose Change. Triumph of the Will is a work made by - as hard as it is for me to admit this - a great cinematic talent, in support of a specific party whose ideology enslaved millions of people. Loose Change is a work made by a gang of fuckwits in support of anyone who'll give them the time of day. Maybe the teacher did have some sort of leftist sympathy, but I can't make the leap, based on the evidence presented, to say that this was a pro-LC presentation.
It's true that propaganda does not necessarily equal lies, or even shoddy work. I've just read Dario Fo's Accidental Death of an Anarchist and though its ideology is questionable its standards as a piece of art and as a method of communicating its ideas are peerless. Everyone can name some sort of political film or book which they feel has transcended mere propaganda to become something lasting and/or true.
But then, you could say the same about the word "bias" - everyone, in some way, is biased in favour of something, and yet the word is rarely used in a complimentary way. Myself, I think that having Loose Change taught in the same class as Triumph of the Will is a harsh denunciation in and of itself; if the class does not feel critical of and sceptical towards propagandist art after watching Leni Riefenstahl's film, will it ever gain such scepticism?
I agree. An Inconvenient truth is nothing like Loose Change. I wouldn't even call it propaganda. It's just a slap in the face to f-tards to get them to see past the frightening trend of "Bush science."
No, "An Inconvenient Truth" is deffinitely propaganda. The Goracle takes actual facts and statistics, twists them to present the worst possible scenario, exaggerates the possible effects, and generally presents all of his material as God's Own Truth, when in fact there is plenty of room left for debate on much of what he claims. The only differences between Gore and Michael Moore are that Gore isn't a fat idiot, and he doesn't tell any actual lies.
But yes, I'd have to say that even though I take issue with his movie, it's definitely nothing like Loose Change.
Alex does have it right, Gore takes the truth (gets a few minor things wrong) and then goes into an unrealistic apocalyptic scenario.
It's a terrible movie anyway - no film of a guy giving a power point presentation should win an Oscar.
Saying that, it certainly isn't even in the same galaxy as Loose Change. Loose Change gets absolutely everything wrong but the date of the attacks.
Still...Global warming isn't something to be dismissed. Scientists don't really disagree with the film but there are some small debatable points. Overall the film is extremely accurate and paints a good picture of things to come and the possible moral implications. I don't buy into this BS right-wing science that tries to knock the film down a peg. It's a serious problem that needs to be faced immediately.
Eh, by most estimates we have anywhere between 50 and 100 years before it becomes a real problem, and even that's questionable. Not only do I disagree some of the conclusions in the movie, I also hate the proposed "solutions". Seriously, while having everyone switch to energy efficient bulbs and hang-dry their laundry is certainly not a bad idea, let's not pretend it'll make any difference if the Goracle's predictions are correct. If the situation really is THAT bad, then the only thing that's getting us out of it is technology. We won't make any difference until we can make the switch away from fossil fuels, AND make it possible for the rest of the earth to do so as well. So no, it's not something that "needs to be faced immediately". If the problem is as big as the Church of Global Warming crowd keep saying it is, then there's nothing we can do right now to stop it, short of killing off two thirds of the work population, and living like the Amish.
Personally I find it curious that people aren't ecstatic about the fact that we seem to have managed to avoid another ice-age. That's one sign that the global-warming hype as presented in the media is more of a cult than it is a hard science. Yes, there is science behind it, but it's become so politicized that it's hard to cut through the bullshit and figure out what's real. Plus I get a little sceptical any time someone starts predicting the end of the world.
So even if we know its a problem we should just wait? What's the point? That's part of the morality of the issue. We shouldn't dump this problem on our grandchildren and call it a day. If we know that were causing serious damage to the environment(which we do)we might as well get the ball rolling. Humans are inherently lazy and politics doesn't help that at all. I'm a firm believer that sometimes people need a swift kick in the ass to get the ball rolling. The film mentions an important quote"
"Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problems..."
Solving this issue isn't that difficult and in many respects it would be beneficial to the economy. People are, as I mentioned before, incredibly lazy though.
I find it ironic that we argue with truthers all day that there are no structural engineers in the world that agree with theme yet many debunks turn around and say that there isn't scientific consensus. This is a very real problem that is not debated within the scientific community. There is however an interesting correlation between political affiliation and opinions on climate change.
Solving this issue isn't that difficult and in many respects it would be beneficial to the economy.
Shouldn't it start with Gore then? He contributes to climate change (which is the proper term) several times more than the average American (and his "carbon offsets" are purchased from his own company).
I do my part, my lights and appliances in my house are on a minimum, and I walk or bike to work.
I'm a firm believer that sometimes people need a swift kick in the ass to get the ball rolling.
Then how do you account for the fact that all of the Kyoto signatories have continued to increase their CO2 production? How do you account for the fact that the US has actually slowed it's output growth while countries like Canada and the UK have increased it?
The problem is that, even if you had any kind of evidence to support your opinion, there are currently no proposed policies which have the potential to make a difference.
The film mentions an important quote"
"Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problems..."
That quote is utter bunk, unless by "scientific, technical, and industrial know-how", you mean the ability to nuke most of the world, and then give up technology and move to an agrarian lifestyle. It's one of the things I hate about Al's movie. He pretends that global warming will destroy the world tomorrow, then pretends that we can solve the problem today, after lunch. Nonsense. If it's anywhere near as bad as he claims, we have no hope of stopping it today. We might have the technology in 50 years or so, but since the goracle has predicted that the world will end by then, we may as well give up, eh? :)
Like I said, technology is the key, and we need time to develop it and make it viable. I think we've got the time, Gore says we don't. I guess we'll find out in a couple decades.
I find it ironic that we argue with truthers all day that there are no structural engineers in the world that agree with theme yet many debunks turn around and say that there isn't scientific consensus.
Because there isn't. Scientists agree that it's happening, and that CO2 adds to it. That's where scientific concensus ends. Scientists can't agree on how bad it is, what other factors play a role, or just how much of a contribution CO2 makes. Scientists also don't set policies, and science deffinitely has nothing to do with "carbon offsets" or "carbon credits".
There is however an interesting correlation between political affiliation and opinions on climate change.
There sure is.
Alex said...
No, "An Inconvenient Truth" is deffinitely propaganda.
Holy cornflakes... the world is going end. You and I agree on something.
The difference, Bill, is that I don't think that Gore is pushing his movie in order to usher in a one-world-government under the control of the NWO and Zionist Space Lizards.
Post a Comment
<< Home