Propaganda & Mass Persuasion

Welcome!

2012-01-23T21:41:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Propaganda & Mass Persuasion blog. For those of you who have never posted to a blog before here are some simple guidelines:

Posting: Use this blog to post about anything relating to the readings, lectures and class discussions. You can also post about current events that relate to the issues raised this semester.
Presentation Posts: Posts are required for oral presentations. A presentation post should include any short quotations, links, images, or video, that you might wish to use in your presentation.
Read before Posting: Always read the other posts on the blog before posting, don't repeat the same material as a previous post unless you have something to add to the discussion. Consider making a comment on a previous post instead of posting on the same topic.
Short Paragraphs & Quotations: Blogging is a short form. Posts do not have to be very long (two or three well written paragraphs.) Quality is more important than quantity. Use short quotations from the assigned readings, always cite your source clearly. Write brief, focused paragraphs.
Cite Sources Clearly: Always cite your sources clearly, using a link to the source material if possible. Use the author's full name, the title, and the page number, if possible.
Strong Links: A good post should include helpful links. Judicious use of links to key reference materials can ensure that your posts are short and to the point. Make sure you only link to authoritative, reliable sources of information.
Relevant Images: Use images that directly relate to the topic of your post. Don't post images just for window dressing. Ask yourself: does the image add to the substance of the post? Or is it just eye-candy? The same goes for videos.
Proof-read! Always proof-read and spell-check your post before publishing. Remember, spell-check does not check the spelling in the title of the post. A warning: this is a public blog and your posts will may be used during class discussion as well (big screen, 40 people reading your post,) so proof-read before publishing!
Comment: Reward good posts with praise and constructive criticism and discussion. Be prepared for comments from unknown sources that may not always be polite. Don't engage in flame wars with anonymous commenters.

Obama's "YouTube Presidency"

2011-05-13T13:43:00.005-04:00

Since before President Obama was elected into office, he and his team saw the importance of social media on the success of his campaign. Now, as President of the U.S Obama continues to use different forms of social media to connect with the American people. During his campaign Obama recognized the power of YouTube and had more than 1,800 videos uploaded to BarackObama.com. Obama now maintains an entire staff who is devoted to new media and his operations team has supplied YouTube with Obama's "Your Weekly Address" videos. The channel is a regular most subscribed/most viewed among YouTube's users. The administration has also uploaded many other interesting clips such as Obama's signing of a public-land-protections bill. Obama has used the internet to his advantage, unlike former President George Bush, who's YouTube videos are mostly composed of parodies or TV news clips. The administration does take some risks with the videos it makes and releses. However, overall the general public has responded positively to these YouTube videos and hopefully they will continue to come throughout the rest of his Presidency.

Here is Obama's most recent YouTube Video:

"You Tube Presidency" 2009 by Virginia Heffernan

2011-05-05T15:13:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama and his team know that Internet is the way of the world and the way of the future. For example a year ago , when he delivered his speech on the race, his "New media" Campaign uploaded their own version on to You Tube. This video alone got over 1.5 million views.
He now his an entire staff devoted to this "New Media Campaign"

Obama has recently been seen all over the web on sites like "You Tube , Joost , Daily Motion and Hulu" (to name a few). He takes his "offline" charisma and puts it "online:, which this article states that it takes an "extensive personal production team".

President Obama used these sites to his advantage. especially You tube. "Where as a You Tube search for Ex- President George bush turns up mostly parodies (like shown in last class - Obamas's (search) is stacked with videos approved and uploaded by the campaign or administration. Clips like the president signing of a public land protectors bill on Mach 30th , that would usually only be shown on C Span. And Obama's"Your Weekly Address" which is most viewed and subscribed are among the many videos that pop up when his name is being searched.

"The YouTube Presidency"

2011-05-05T12:16:00.001-04:00

When you type in “President Barack Obama” into YouTube, millions of videos come up; most of these videos have been uploaded by BarackObamadotcom, or whitehouse. Obama has a team of people (called the White House new-media-operations team) that are in charge of uploading certain videos for the President as well as sending the links out to millions of people on their mailing list. A YouTube search for “Barack Obama” would (for the most part) be videos approved and uploaded by his new-media team, whereas “President George Bush” would be parody, videos of TV news clips, and videos mocking him such as “George Bush Idiot”.

From the start, Obama and his team understood that going viral was the best way to campaign. He carefully designed videos that were great for his image by choreographing speeches and interviews infused with applause.

“And while Obama’s campaign speeches weren’t delivered expressly for YouTube the way the Oval Office addresses are delivered for TV, the versions of those speeches millions of us saw were tailored to the site, with titles, omissions, crowd cutaways, highlight footage and a dozen other manipulations of sound and image that affected the impression they made. When Obama delivered his speech on race a year ago, the campaign uploaded, for example, its own version of the speech; it was cleaner and more elegantly produced that the CNN version, and it has been played more than 1.5 million times” (Heffernan)

Some critics say that this new-media team takes away from the emotion that thrives at live events. Something is “lost” when Presidents are always prepared with a speech and a team of experts rather than a more casual interview. But would these critics rather a biased article written by a journalist, or a short sound bite followed by commentary from the press? By uploading speeches onto YoutTube, the viewer can have their own opinion of the speech and are encouraged to express their views by commenting on the video. Even though the shooting and spreading of the videos are very closely controlled by the new-media team, the public is free to have their own opinion and state them on the YouTube page.

Barak Obama "The Youtube Presidency"

2011-05-05T11:50:00.002-04:00

In today's society technology plays a major role in our daily lives. To live in this world and in America especially it is imperative to keep up with the times. President Obama and his team have mastered the benefits of technology with his video chat and YouTube channel along with other source of Internet communication such as twitter etc.

Its a brilliant method. Not everyone reads the newspapers or do they watch TV. Allowing multiple ways for citizen to stay up to date with the President and The White House events is great. Some "old fashionistas" may disagree but it is clear that before Obama was elected president he used these same methods and it worked for him then as it will continue now. Speaking from personal encounters with friends and associates, there are a number of people that actually like the new ways of media combined with politics. With the weekly address, Americans are able to constantly be informed rather than being left in the dark.

- Anjelica Jones T/Th 2:50

Obama Makes History in Live Internet Video Chat

2011-05-05T09:59:00.003-04:00

President Obama was the first President to have a live internet video chat. The chat was based on the public submitting questions, and the President would answer the most popular questions. Over 3.6 million votes were cast, and the top questions was; whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy by allowing the government to regulate and tax tax the drug. President Obama responded "the answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow the economy." The question about marijuana took up most of the video chat. Robert Gibbs (press secretary) felt that advocates for legalizing marijuana had racked up votes for the question. Obama also discussed briefly that he intended to announce soon what kind of help his administration would give the auto industry; "we will provide them some help" Obama stated. "Thursday's session, which had been advertised on the White House Web site since Tuesday, is the latest example of efforts by the Obama team to replicate its creative use of the Internet in the election campaign" (New York Times). Obama has been going through all types of media (although he was trying to bypass the news media) trying to make the case for his economic agenda (i.e.. Jay Leno, 60 Minutes). The president describe this as an experiment; Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media said that he was pleased with the experiment; "anytime you ask if people will engage and 100,000 people show up, its a big deal." Some say the forum had a "canned feel", they felt the the public tend to be more polite in their questions rather than news reporters.

"So America, what do you want to know about the economy? Just go to whitehouse.gov and ask."

Not only was he born in Hawaii, He's Funny...

2011-05-04T23:44:00.007-04:00

Holding a position in the government is beyond important, and to be taken extremely seriously. Especially when the position is head of state; The President. As many can probably agree president Obama has gone through it all (As i'm sure every other president has), from low points to high points especially recently with the capture and victory of Osama Bin Laden's death. However, somewhere in between serious matters time to address those who seem to have malicious intent, always deems important. After weeks of attacks from Republican Donald Trump denouncing President Obama's American citizenship, the President willingly displayed his Hawaiian birth-certificate in front of a group of his counterparts during, the annual White house Correspondents dinner. Along with the display came a round of jokes during his speech, even Trump had to laugh at. Looking back at President Bush's 2008 Correspondents dinner where he stood in front of his audience with another actor by his side mocking his twin, the Presidents show a wittier, humorous side many aren't used to seeing.

As Obama indirectly and directly addressed Trump with matters such as Trump focusing on the serious issues, from whether the moon landing actually happened to "where are Biggie and Tupac?"; chuckles and laughs circulated the room and the camera crew focused on the only other star of the room (Aside from Obama) Trump.

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E

"Beat the press does the White House have a Blacklist: by Nicholas Confessore .2002

2011-05-03T14:37:00.002-04:00

Since day one, even before ex- President George w. Bush was sworn in as president. His aide Karl Rove had distaste for one of Washington Posts White House Correspondents Dana Milbank. He even asked the Washington Post to reconsider their decision of making him one of their own.

“The Post declined”.

Dana Milbank is Bush administrations least favorite journalist. He covered a lot of storied that questioned Bush’s work which lead to making Bush’s life and presidency difficult. The stories he covered included Bush’s decision to abandon school vouchers and his administration’s plan to exempt the Salvation Army from state and local anti discrimination laws (just to name a few). That last plan brought major embarrassment to Bush’s aide Karl Rove because he played a central part in that discussion.

This article showed how the Bush administration (as well as any other administration) manages the press. The press is more cooperative and nice to journalists who make them “look good”, like Washington Post’s very own Bob Woodward’s work. Milbank on the other hand gets the bad end of that stick.

Does the White house have a black list?
Its safe to say that the White House may not have a physical one “Blacklist” but based on the Dana Milbank there is definitely a unwritten one.

A critique of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

2011-05-03T12:43:00.003-04:00

Standard Operating Procedure is a 2008 film that was directed by the acclaimed journalist Errol Morris. Morris documents the incedent(s) at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that shocked Americans and Foreigners alike.
This documentary depicts (and interviews) the actions of the soldiers who were involved in cases of perceived torture. In this documentary there are several soldiers who were present during the various torture “sessions.”

To name a few of the soldiers; Megan Graner, Christopher Bradley, Javal Davis and Sarah Denning. One of the soldiers comments that they are going to be receiving some of the Higher-Ups in Saddam Hussein’s regime, Some of these higher-ups are depicted on the deck of playing cards that are used by the soldiers to help tell the difference.

One soldier, Janis Paskinski said “Once were entered Fallujah we smelled the death, we smelled the destruction and rotting flew and we said to ourselves; it’s for real now!”
Paskinski goes on to say, “ In room 1A and 1B Everyone’s naked and wearing women’s panties and I said to myself, something is not right here.”

Even if these soldiers managed to say something, they would be shut down almost instantly by superior officers. Since most “interrogation techniques” were done by Non-governmental Agencies (NGA’s) officers in the regular military have almost no say in what goes on. Lance Corporal Lyndiee England says, “she thought it was weird example set, when there are common thieves being treated as they were higher-up’s.
These men were just taxicab drivers, but he was jailed for some trivial offence and the embarrassment he suffered.

“playing with his dick with a baton and simulated molestation; I don’t care where you are, this is molestation!” Tim Duggan, an intelligence officer said, “Out of all these pictures, no one noticed that these acts were being committed?” Duggan called these soldiers “unprofessional shucks, who tarnish America’s image”

I believe Duggan’s statement because, it takes only a few immoral and unprofessional “soldiers” to ruin the reputation of a whole country in the eyes of the world.

After these images of the detainees were published, soldiers died in the field, because of these horrible images. The insurgents were fueled with such furry and rage over these images of torture.

With the population growing in Abu Ghraib, due to in part of the street sweeps. American Soldiers were trying to purge Iraq of the remnants of the Bathist regime. These wide sweeps brought more and more people into Abu Ghraib; one day there was 200 prisoners and the next day there is close to 1,500 prisoners.

You do not have enough accredited staff to watch over them, so you need low level Soldiers.
In one picture, there was a prisoner they called “Gilligan” who was accused of killing a CID agent. “Gilligan” was photographed in a shower, blindfolded and hooked up to some kind of electrical wires with a mock battery. A soldier said,” this was just for show, none of this was real, it was just a joke”

The world was not laughing at their joke, it needlessly endangered the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen and outraged the world and it also weakened the United States’ credibility in the eyes’ of the world.
Regardless if it was real or not was the point, but these kinds of actions go on at all is the point.

The documentary was gripping and powerful. The best part of this documentary was that it’s a true story; you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Bush Against The Media

2011-05-03T11:50:00.010-04:00

Here you see an image of President Bush addressing a room full of press. Standing firm yet with a slight distance between himself and the podium. This can also be said about his relationship with the media. Bush had a relatively distant relationship with the press and felt it should stay that way. In Ken Auletta's article " Fortress Bush: How the White House Keeps the Press at Distance - and Under Control" (2004), his love-hate relationship with the press is addressed.

In a planned press barbecue that the President gave, he was more lax with the way he answered questions of the media. His most honest view about the press came about when asked how he knows what the public thinks if you're so standoffish with the media. His response “You’re making a huge assumption—that you represent what the public thinks.” The press in his mind is irrelevant because he, being an elected official, is what the public believes in. Not the minds of the journalists that report on his doings. Andrew Card, Bush's Chief of Staff, remarked “They don’t represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. . . . I don’t believe you have a check-and-balance function.” This may be how Bush coped with all of the negative press that surrounded him upon entering the Iraq War.

On the other hand, Bush is deemed personally likable from certain members of the press. He gives them nicknames and seems like a fairly charming man when not in the spotlight. However, he still views the press as leaning moreso to the left so in that way they are deemed the enemy. Only out to get the best headlines. A tactic the Bush administration uses in talking to the press is to give them specific talking points and to engage them as little as possible. That way, the administration gets to say exactly what they want to say without the fear of being questioned about it. Card and Bush justify this way of thinking by saying it is not their job to give the public information, it is the job of the press. This is contradictory to what was previously said because Bush stated that they represent what the public thinks. If the administration does not work with the press then how will the public get the correct information. This only works best for the administration because they can still say they gave info, in all actuality never giving up what is important.

“It’s not our job to be sources,” he replied, flushing. “The taxpayers don’t pay us to leak! . . . I feel strongly that people who get paid taxpayer dollars should be doing their job. If their job is like Ashley’s”—Ashley Snee, a member of the press staff, who sat in on the interview—“if their job is to talk to the press, they should talk to the press. If their job is to help develop policy, it’s to talk to the people who are involved in that policymaking process; they don’t get paid to talk to the press. . . . Our job is not to make your job easy.”

The Bush administration clearly thought of the media as beneath them and not worthy in garnering the public's support. In their minds, what they say is best because they represent what the public wants, not what the press asks. Even if the public is clearly stating that they don't agr ee.

Al Jazeera: Leading the way in global media

2011-04-21T00:27:00.005-04:00

What was a failed venture of the BBC is now an independent 24/7 television news channel based in Qatar. Al Jazeera was launched in November 1996. Sheik Hamad of Qatar was disappointed by the lack of press freedom in the Arab world that he pledged to back the network and give it full editorial and content control. Sheik Hamad said:

"I believe criticism can be a good thing," the emir said in a 1997 speech, "and some discomfort for government officials is a small price to pay for this new freedom."

In a history about Al Jazeera on Allied-Media.com it gives a brief overview of where Al Jazeera began and where it is now. What started as a small network is now one of the leaders in global media. Here is information about present day Al Jazeera:

"The station has come a long way since it was launched in November 1996. With more than 30 bureaus and dozens of correspondents covering the four corners of the world Al Jazeera has given millions of people a refreshing new perspective on global events. Free from the shackles of censorship and government control, Al Jazeera has offered its audiences in the Arab world much needed freedom of thought, and room for debate."

Al Jazeera gives a new and different perspective about world news. It has been both praised and criticized about it coverage of world news. During the second Gulf War, Al Jazeera covered the war and showed images of the war that people were not prepared to see. There is a documentary film "Control Room" that follows Al Jazeera network and its journalists during the the second Gulf War. During that war some label the network the "mouthpiece of Osama Bin Ladin", supporters of Al Quada and the Taliban

An article in the NY Times by Brian Stelter he quotes Al Anstey, the managing director of Al Jazeera English:

"Mr. Anstey said he thought that the channel had suffered from “some misconceptions about what Al Jazeera stood for.” During the Iraq war, the Arabic-language channel was criticized by Bush administration officials, and as recently as Friday the conservative Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly branded Al Jazeera as “anti-America.”

Others saw Al Jazeera network presenting the facts about the war. It was showing real images of the causalities of war both in the military and with the civilians.

Until the recent uprising in North Africa and the Middle East, Al Jazeera's main audience came from the Arab world of that region. Beginning with the revolution in Tunisia, Al Jazeera network became a force to be reckoned. They had launched an english language branch in 2006. Al Jazeera English is not available on most US cable or satellite networks so in order to access the network people would have to watch it online. In an article in Bizcommunity.com by Oresti Patricios writes how the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the coverage by Al Jazeera English made people tune in to the network:

"But that changed soon after revolution reared its head in Tunisia. The Tunisian revolution came and went very quickly, but it was long enough for people to realise that Al Jazeera English was the first news brand on the scene and was breaking all the big stories. Then came the mother of all insurrections, the Egyptian revolution. Of course Al Jazeera was ahead of international media networks.

Patricios writes that Al Jazeera's coverage was so influential that politicians and administrators in the White House watched the network:

"When the revolution broke out in Egypt and it became apparent that the White House would have to make a statement and get its foreign policy types in action, politicians and administrators in the US suddenly started finding a way to tune into Al Jazeera English. More so the media reports that when Barack Obama was watching the news on Egypt he was doing so from two sources. The one was CNN and the other was Al Jazeera English which was being streamed into the White House via a digital feed."

In the following clip Hillary Clinton addresses the fact that Al Jazeera is setting the standards for news and how the U.S. is falling behind.

Is Al Jazeera the new media model? Only time will tell.

Second Front Chapter 1 Cutting the Deal

2011-04-07T07:30:00.013-04:00

Vietnam taught America many great lessons, none more powerful than the power of the people and media. President Bush knew the importance of keeping a strong hold on the media while still protecting the first amendment. Operation Desert Shield as it became known as was an attempt to limit new coverage during the Gulf War. Under this stipulation reporters were to stay with military officials at all times. He justified the pool by claiming it protected journalist from military action.
A key public relations figure at this time was Pete Williams The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.Williams ability to manipulate the media was a large part of the success in censoring the Gulf War. Williams made the media feel like he cared for them and was doing everything he could for their betterment. He held small grouped meetings with media elites and made them promises like getting them extra access to the gulf.
The United States took full advantage of the fact that since Saudi Arabia was a sovereign state they controlled the issuing of the press visas. The Saudis held the stance of one visa per news outlet. Seeing that the United States had strong ties to Saudi Arabia the two worked together perfectly to shut out the media.

"The Saudis were saying, One news organization, one visa, and saying that's the way the Pentagon wanted it. The Pentagon people were saying No, no we don't have any problem with it. It's the Saudis.(pg. 17)

Techniques were soon in place to limit the power of the press. As the pools were sent to the Gulf they were required to sign ground rules. In the rules it stated that each reporter had to be escorted at all times. In addition all press material sent back to the United States was reviewed for security. The government was censoring the media effectively with minimal press backlash. When the media finally realized it it was too late and corporations were stuck pointing fingers.

Edward Bernays

2011-03-08T16:39:00.002-05:00

Edward Louis Bernays
Was an American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda along with Ivy Lee, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations".He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct'.

One of Bernays' favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway", he said

Abstracts of books, articles and 
talks by Mr. Bernays deal with 
the public relations problems of 
industry, education, the social 
sciences, labor, government

The objective for Bernays was to provide government and media outlets with powerful tools for social persuasion and control.

"Bernays and journalistic giant Walter Lippman came to Woodrow Wilson’s aid in 1917 to reverse negative public sentiment about war. These two behind-the-curtain wizards were indispensable in helping the president whip gun-shy America into an anti-German frenzy to go “over there” for WWI. Bernays created the patriotic war slogan “Make the World Safe for Democracy”—an irresistibly patriotic mantra that America embraced..."

Applying this to public utilities, since 
government represents the people, the only modification of government attitudes and activities must be 
through modifying the people's attitudes through 
the engineering of consent.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

"How do you communiicate with 38 million people?"

2011-03-06T05:30:00.000-05:00

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times has a nice quotation from California Governor Jerry Brown that expresses the essence of modern political communication:

"Noting that he followed actors into the Statehouse twice, Brown observes:
“A lot of this is theater. How do you communicate to 38 million people? You’re
not sitting down talking to them. So it’s gesture, symbol, the narrative, the
drama. Who’s the protagonist? Who’s the antagonist?”"

This 72 year old veteran of California politics has summed it up: Gesture, symbol, narrative, drama, protagonist, antagonist. A simple strategy for mass communication.

Walter Lippmann by Shugfta Rani

2011-03-03T06:35:00.005-05:00

Walter Lippmann was a prominent American journalist who wrote during the first half of the twentieth century. In this article, Public Opinion/ The Phantom Public, he stated this reality that American people never played a role in the government decision-making. He described that citizens confused that they did not know about the true meanings, messages or plans under the policies that government and elites conveyed and issuing for the ordinary persons. public just knew that this decision was made for their betterment but beneath that order, there was a propaganda spread for a certain reason and benefit. He also mentioned that mostly, opinions come forward in the time of disaster and then lost the importance very soon.

Lippmann also observed the public psychology and stated about the facts, " for the most part we do not first see and then define, we define first and then see. In a great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture."

Biography: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlippmann.htm

Lippman indicated that public should enter in the phase of judgement and essential qualified decisions. He explained by an example, that public, just stayed long enough to know, who was a hero and who was a villain but should wait until the last curtain, then understand the situation.

In 1980, Ronald Steel wrote in his book Walter Lippmann and the American Century that, in the Phantom Public " Lippmann seemed to be arguing that decisions, however arrived at, have no moral value. They are bad, not because they may be unjust, but only if they cause social conflict. The main criterion is not justice but tranquility.

Video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/170338-1

Quotes: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/walter_lippmann/

AMERICANIZING IMMIGRANTS-"CONTROLLING THROUGH ALLIANCE" BY, ROBERT E. PARK

2011-03-01T17:39:00.012-05:00

AMERICANIZING IMMIGRANTS: "CONTROLLING THROUGH ALLIANCE"

BACKROUND INFO: BETWEEN 1890-1920, A LARGE NUMBER OF EASTERN EUROPEAN AND SOUTHERN(TIER) IMMIGRANTS MIGRATED TO AMERICA."BY 1920 OVER HALF THE PEOPLE IN U.S. WERE EITHER IMMIGRANTS OR CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS."

WHY AMERICANIZE THE IMMIGRANTS?:

"THERE WAS A SENSE THAT, UNLESS TRANSFORMED THESE NEW-COMERS ---EDUCATED BY UNFAMILIAR AND BANEFUL SOCIAL,POLITICAL AND/OR RELIGIOUS OUTLOOKS--WOULD UNDERMINE TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES.

AMERICA WANTED TO REMAIN AMERICA!

STRATEGY OF AMERICANIZATION:
ESTABLISHING A FOREIGN-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER IN THE U.S.WHERE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE INTER-RACIAL COUNCIL AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE BUREAU MODIFIED IT CLOSELY.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/press.html

IMMIGRANTS COULD NOW LEARN AND UNDERSTAND THE "NEW WORLD" THEY LIVED IN.

THEY FELT MORE WELCOMED BECAUSE AMERICANS WERE WILLING TO FUND AND SUPPORT FOREIGN-LANGUAGE PRESS.

ADVERTISING, USED AS AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR OPPOSING RADICAL IDEAS AMONG IMMIGRANT EMPLOYEES AND ENCOURAGED AN AMERICAN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL LIFESTYLE.

"...AMERICA HAS RECIEVED YOU WHEN YOU CAME HERE SHE WANTS YOU NOW TO REMAIN HERE" (-INTER-RACIAL COUNCIL ADVERTISMENT) **THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS IMMIGRANTS WERE PERSUADED INTO DOING THINGS THE AMERICAN WAY.

"BETTER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR" ** EARLY 20TH-CENTURY AMERICA WAS INDUSTRIALIZING AND THE IMMIGRANTS DID THE HARD LABOR.
"USEFUL IN WINNING THE WORLD WAR" **KEPT THE PEACE IN AMERICA

"..FOREIGN- LANGUAGE PAPERS ARE BOUND TO BE MORE PATRIOTIC AND MORE CONSIDERATE OF AMERICAN BUSINESS." -ROBERT E. PARK

** FOREIGN-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS FELT THAT AMERICA CARED, AMERICA WAS ON THEIR SIDE AND AMERICA WANTED THEM TO PROSPER AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY FELT OBLIGATED TO "RETURN IT", THE FAVOR THAT IS.THIS WAS THE ALLIANCE IN WHICH THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT GAINED CONTROL OF THE FOREIGN-LANGUAGE PRESS.
ORGANIZATION'S SUCH AS THE INTER-RACIAL COUNCIL PERSUADED IMMIGRANTS THROUGH THEIR USE OF PROPAGANDA-ADVERTISMENTS.

The Battle Cry for Peace

2011-02-23T11:38:00.009-05:00

The movie "The Battle Cry for Peace" was written and produced by J. Stuart Blackton of the Vitagraph Company. It is a silent movie that was released in 1915 during World War I. At the time, the United States was not militarily involved in the war. This movie was the first propaganda movie used to convince the American public that the United States needed to be prepared and ready to go to war against the foreign enemy that could invade our borders. J. Stuart Blackton wrote the script for the movie after reading a book by Hudson Maxim entitled "Defenseless America".

In a review from Variety, dated August 13, 1915 the author Fred (that's all that was listed)he writes the announcement that Vitagraph released about the film. Here is an excerpt:

" It is a film that will come in for nation-wide discussion. In a publicity way it should be worth columns of space. Its value to Sunday editors throughout the country should be immense for it contains materials for a series of special stories that could run for weeks. Take each and every town and hamlet in the entire country and bring the question of the national defense home to them by taking their own buildings and tearing them asunder, in imagination, with the shells of the big guns of the enemy. "

The review in the New York Times dated August 7, 1915 explains how J.Stuart Blackton wanted to get the data and message from "Defenseless America" out to the government and the public at a faster pace than the book could do on its own. The review said that Blackton argument was:

"that with the screens of the country at his disposal, he could reach the people with the Maxim data at a much more rapid pace than the book itself could possibly achieve. In his brief talk yesterday he said he hoped and expected to show the picture to 75,000,000 persons in the next six months."

Blackton realized that to get to a bigger audience he needed to use film propaganda.

"Thus is the rising propaganda for greater preparedness carried into the
movies."

Anonymous Obama briefers rankle press

2010-05-06T23:35:00.003-04:00

James Rainey analyzes the press coverage on the choice of Supreme Court nominee Soto Mayor. The Obama administration as per tradition had the president introduce the judge Soto Mayor in a closed setting, in a room in the White House named the "Roosevelt Room". There were cameras there and a dozen of reporters. The reporters had to promise not to reveal the two "senior administration officials" giving the briefing. The larger question at hand was not why did the Obama administration choose Soto Mayor, but why was the white house holding the identity of the "senior administration officials". This seems to rile feathers because the white house promised a more transparent and open policy on press release. The response as to why the Obama administration chose this form of privacy is that "staffers should anonymous and remain in the background, so as not to distract from the president and the day's news". This has also been common practice seen in the Clinton and Bush administration. The public and James Rainey are concerned how qualified are the "senior administration officals" and what is the accuracy and quality of the information they are presenting. It was leaked out that the "senior administration officials were David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, and Ron Klain, Vice President Biden's chief of staff and a former Supreme Court clerk. Another question at hand is since the American public does not know their identity or job designation they could be a press aide to a deputy secretary at a federal agency. A common idea in this article is that "Team Obama" should be public with new information and they should set the record straight. When it involves an issue that effects the American people there should be more transparency.

Another train 0f thought is that if information is being censored at this level, what extremes will happen next at these briefings. Maybe journalists will not be allowed in if they are skeptic of the Obama administration in any way. An Obama spokeswoman Obama Jen Psaki's stated the relationship between reporters and staffers at a press office is that ""We provided them with what they asked for and assume the practice is helpful since the requests from the LA Times and countless other papers continue. Washington reporters have long been accepting of anonymous information but this not a reflection of "change". It is concluded at the end of this article that any journalist would be happy to gain access to this briefing rather then peering outside a window. It is unfair to the journalist and the American people that they can not quote "on the record" the source of who they are getting their information from.

The Space Between

2010-05-06T14:15:00.001-04:00

Within the space between President Obama and the press is Robert Gibbs. Who is Robert Gibbs? He is a paunchy 39-year-old man that grew up in Alabama known as Bobby. However he is not just the ordinary southern man, he is the current Press Secretary. His parents were librarians who paved the way to his political career by simply just being themselves. They were liberal Democrats in a state that was not.

Gibbs began his path to Press Secretary in 1992 by volunteering for the campaign supporting Bill Clinton. From there he became friends with a man that would ultimately get him into a job working directly with Barak Obama. Jim Jordan who ran John Kerry’s campaign kept Gibbs in mind while in this position and gave him the National Press Secretary job. However, this ended in 2003. Gibbs ended up quitting because Kerry had fired Jim Jordan. This was not the end of the road for Gibbs however. In later months Jordan informed Gibbs that the people running Barak Obama’s Senate campaign (Axelrod & Plouffe) were in search of a communications director, and that was the beginning of Gibbs’s relationship with Obama and his new career.

Obviously now, Gibbs is the Press Secretary, so things worked out well to say the least. However, it does not stop there. There is more than meets the eye. Obama and Gibbs became friends almost instantly. They have always been on the same wavelength in their friendship and in politics.

Gibbs was and is more than supportive in the way in which Obama chooses to run his campaign and administration. Although compared to the “Bush model” the Obama campaign believed in keeping information safe by having a tight knit group of confidants, they all believe that this prevents leaks from happening, and if there are leaks, the situation is easily rectified. Gibbs had no problem backing up Obama on this front and is said to have had punitive actions on people for ‘shady’ reports. Gibbs is self admitting that he may have been much less than gentile with the press during the campaign, however he stand behind his actions, while at the same time saying the he regrets some of the things that he did.

As far as their friendship goes, Obama and Gibbs have a unique dynamic. It is not the normal situation for the president to be so close to his Press Secretary. Obama says that now that they are in the white house nothing will change. Obama will still confide in Gibbs and use him as a soundboard for any array of things.

Obama Makes History with Live Internet Video Chat

2010-05-06T13:26:00.003-04:00

President Obama went live on Internet video to answer questions asked by Americans on March 26, 2009. The online live town hall meeting was the first of its kind to be done by an American President. It was declared as "Open for Questions" pertaining to our economy.

Over 100,000 questions were submitted and our president was to answer the most popular questions live. After 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions was: "Would legalizing marijuana stimulate our economy if the government regulated and taxed the drug?"

President Obama replied with a joke questioning “I don’t know what this says about the online audience.” The people sitting in the East Room of the White House which were nurses, teachers, and small-business people, laughed and thought it was funny. His response; “The answer is no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow the economy.”

This question later took up time during the daily White House press briefing, where the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, “Suggested that advocates for legalizing marijuana had mounted a drive to rack up votes for the question.”

One of the advocates was the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml) who urged supporters to “let the president know that millions of American voters believe that the time has come to tax and regulate marijuana. Charleston Norml is the creator and promoter of reforming marijuana laws within the state of South Carolina.

The marijuana query was at the top of the list and it provided one of the livelier moments in the forum during the 70-minute event.

According to Sheryl Gay Stolberg from the New York Times, she states that a sliver of news was disclosed and it was that president Obama intended to announce in the next couple of days what kind of help his administration would give the auto industry.

This first time online town hall meeting occured around lunchtime on a Thursday and the point of this was to open up the White House to the American people. Many quesitons arose regarding eductation, the mortgage crisis, job outsourcing, national service and others. Many twittered that it was cool. But did people really feel like they had a voice? Did they feel their questions were answered satisfactorily? Did it make people feel more confident in where the economy and the country are going? Overall it seemed like the large response just proved that people want to feel like they are a part of something and care about whats going on, but that is the extend to which it is displayed.

The president felt it gave him a chance to see what Americans across the country care about and at the same time by pass the media.

Blacklist in the White House

2010-05-06T13:16:00.011-04:00

The duty of a journalist is to receive and report facts in a un-bias, objective manner in order to inform the public on the events in the world. Though the job may be difficult at times for most reporters, its extremely arduous for White House journalists. In White House journalism you must find the balance of reporting hard facts without being too harsh on the president and his cabinet in fear of being blacklisted and debarred from information and privileges.

Though there may not be a physical list of names, White House officials are known for showing favoritism to correspondents who release favorable articles about the president. An example of this is the differences in treatment between the two Washington Post correspondents Bob Woodward and Dana Milbank during the Bush administration.

Woodward is know for his pieces, such as “10 Days in September”, that portray President Bush in a positive light and because of his record he was given special privileges over his fellow reporter at the Post which included exclusive interviews, chronology and anecdotes. Milbank on the other hand has written a number of stories that have made it difficult for the president and embarrassed his aids, such as his Salvation Army account and the secret energy-task-force meetings feature, to the point where they registered complaints to his editors, regularly criticized his stories, and were uncooperative with ordinary requests.

One White House correspondent states, “Basically, if you write something [negative]... the message goes out that so-and-so's on the blacklist -- in some cases for that day, in some cases for that week.” Journalist do expect some flak from the White House as a result of an unflattering stories but some believe that officials are oversensitive to minute-details. "Everyone expects them to be vigilant, to protect their boss -- that goes with the territory,” one correspondent states. "But there's an over-the-top quality here." Even a minor tint issue in the president picture can have a White House staff photographer calling to complain. And ever since 9-11, the staff has become even more defensive.

Since the tragedy and the war, White House officials view difficult questions as being un-American and negative stories as subversive, no matter how accurate the account. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has gone through astounding measures to restrain media coverage of the war. The Washington Post’s ten-year pentagon circuit veteran Thomas Ricks stated, "This is by far the worst the situation's ever been. Rumsfeld has explicitly said to me he would like to send some of the people who leak to me to jail." As a result of Ricks unfavorable stories he had been prohibited from attending a trip to cover a special-force operation, which U.S. reporters were allowed to attend. When he ask why he was denied access, a press affairs officer explained “We don't like your stories, and we don't like the questions you've been asking."

Due to this outward blacklisting of journalist, reporters are placed in an uncompromising position where they can either produce fluff stories about how great the government is or report the facts. Fortunately most writers prefer to keep their integrity and perform the uneasy task of journalism honorably and provide the people of our egalitarian society with real news.

Beat the Press: Does the White House Have a Blacklist?

2010-05-04T13:39:00.005-04:00

Have you ever wondered why impressions are so important, it's easy to understand that making a bad impression on someone can lead to devastating consequences. In the article "Beat the press: Does the White House have a Blacklist", Nicholas Condessore explains a growing habit within the White House. It has always been a tactic of government officials to show favoritism towards individuals connected to the media that depict the government in a positive light. This practice leaves many hard hitting reporters in the shadows fending for themselves and usually trying to piece together stories with minimal information. Condessore makes the comparison between a well liked White House reporter, Bob Woodward who writes positive reviews of white house activities and Dana Milbank who according to white house officials writes negative reviews of the government.
Whether or not her reviews are negatively written is open to interpretation, a reporter could write an objective hard hitting piece that simply influences negative opinions by the public but the piece itself is written with factual information does that make it an intentionally negative piece? The article states that Milbank was treated poorly by government officials; because she was viewed as a negative reporter vital information was withheld from her and handed to other reporters who fit the mold of an acceptable agent of the press. This type of professional favoritism or new aged blacklisting seems to be a tactic of the government to put limitations on the press thus controlling media. Withholding information from the press or giving the press information that the White House deems suitable for them to report on is essentially killing the field of journalism because it diminishes the aspect of truth in the media. The truth will not always bring forth positive public opinion but it is the right of the public to be given the opportunity to formulate an opinion based on factual information. Facts are facts and when the public is given those facts they are able to form opinions that change the happenings of their society. Putting restraints on media personnel and giving more access to positive reports on government activities will form a feeling of mistrust among the media towards the government and when the media does not trust the government more publications criticizing the government will be put into mass circulation.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.

-Thomas Jefferson

Sunday Morning News

2010-05-04T12:17:00.003-04:00

Each week, five Sunday news show producers eagerly work to get the right guest or the best guest on their show. Hundreds of phone calls, and many favors are to be called in order to insure that your show has the top guests to discuss the top issues. The producers cannot book someone to early in the week, so that they do not get stuck with an irrelevant guest, by they must also not wait to long in order to insure that the competing news show does not book the wanted guest. The five main shows that are on Sundays, Fox News Sunday, ABC’s This week, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, and CNN’s Late Edition, are all competing for the who’s who of guests, to have commentary on the issues in the news that week.

The Most sought after guests are White House officials, preferably senior officials, which are appointed by the assistant White House Press Secretary, Adam Levine. He decides who is “offered” to the news station and who goes to which news station. He states that the officials get rotated to all the five stations, but many argue how strictly and fairly they get rotated. Although they say and try to keep a rotation of guests they do keep in mind the networks ratings and which station will be more advantages to them and the issues they want to promote. “I’m sure they think about ratings and where guests will be seen by the most viewers.” says Meet the Press’s Fischer, about the Bush White House press administration.

The White House has full control on who goes out to speak on the news stations and at what station. No matter how connected a news producer may be, no favors can get them the guest that they want when they want, but they are at the mercy of the White House decision's. The White house “rotation system” as it is called is completely controlled by the White House, and it serves their purpose and needs.

It is evident that the booking guests is not on a fair, and sharing of guests ideal and that those reporters that are better connected or on higher rating shows will get the desired guest more often than other news shows. Although the White House is not always strict with the rotation of their representatives, this all depends on the administration and the issues at hand. The issues impact how the White House deals with the news programs, more sensitive issues are controlled more, and other issues need more promotion and debate. During the Clinton scandal, there were less White House representatives offered to the news shows. In contrast to the Bush administration, which after September 11, offered more officials to the news shows, in order to get the messages about the war spoken on and debated as the White House wanted.

Due to the competition for booking guests, White house officials tend to do more than one show on Sunday news, having a guest do only one show on one net work is rare. The White House likes this, because it serves them better, having the person they want speak on issues to many different audiences, buy being booked by different news shows.

Bush The Controller?

2010-05-04T12:16:00.003-04:00

According to this USA Today article from 2003 we learn of a potential plan by George W. Bush and his administration to put heavy limitations on the press during their questioning session in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The article reads, Thursday's event was designed to control the media and make Bush look strong — "not someone who is rushing to war like some wild yahoo." However, is that statement eluding to what is really happening? Is the control meant to cover up and protect our president who is trying to protect his image and divert the attention of the American public from what is really happening?

Of course, we all want to see a President that portrays an image of confidence and knowledge. We want to feel secure, knowing that this individual holds the best interests of our country at heart and will make steady, intelligent decisions based on facts. In the months leading up to the Iraq war in 2003, Bush made two unprecedented moves that could signal the way he and his administration plan to handle — some say intimidate — the media during wartime. The article chronicles the following: First, rather than filing in as usual, reporters were summoned into the East Room in pairs, "as if we were in grammar school and were being called on the line for something," CBS' Bill Plante says. Then, after opening remarks, Bush called on reporters from a predetermined list assembled by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

In the Bush administrations defense, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer contends “There can be no more solemn responsibility of a president than, if he makes the decision to go to war, to take questions about why, to let the public hear what he hears, to see how he thinks, to explain what conclusions he would have reached as commander-in-chief before he puts our men and women in a position where they could lose their lives.” Veteran members of the press state they hadn't seen such a stifling atmosphere since the 1980s, when President Reagan called on reporters using a seating chart.

Some say that whenever a President holds a press conference it is a relatively controlled setting and that this particular instance is nothing to get “worked up about.” However, I believe this is just an instance of fear on the part of the Bush administration. Fear of looking like a fool in front of the world when they are asked certain questions. The USA Today article makes a great point: "There are inherent limits on how aggressive you can be to the president of the United States on the brink of war in prime time when good questions are asked but not answered," Rosensteil says.

FOX NEWS OLD NEWS???

2010-05-04T10:06:00.004-04:00

The days of Fox News being the main channel of the White House seem to be coming to a close after being the preferred channel for the Bush administration. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, Fox's coverage of politics seems heavily in favor of the Republican Party, with Murdoch being a very vocal Right Winger himself. This favoritism towards the Republicans leads many to believe that this network was best to cover Bush, considering it showed him in the most favorable light. As the picture indicates, during the elections, there were a lot of slanderous comments, ads, and news segments made towards Obama, and it will be hard for them to now be seemingly supportive of the president elect.

Being Bush's main channel during his presidency, Fox has been able to take a lead in ratings over CNN and MSNBC for the past 7 years heading into the Obama administration. Being such a heavily Right Winged channel, there is some concern on the network's end that the other companies can catch up, considering how anti-Obama as the station has been during the presidential campaign.

Although they are not completely overhauling their lineups, they are planning to make some adjustments to their shows, similarly like they did during Bill Clinton's stay in office. Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and newly added Glen Beck (also Right Wing), all have new contracts that will last 4 years, through Obama's first elected term in office.

Fox claims their ratings shouldn't drop because they provide "the news in a fair and balanced way and put on a very good product." People and movies such as "Outfoxed" show that nothing could be further from the truth. Murdoch and Fox have been exposed for showing heavy favoritism for the Republicans in their shows. "Some people say" is one tactic they have used in the past to put their biased thoughts and notions out there without really having any legitimate credibility to back their stance. Another cheap tactic the channel has adopted has been during political discussions, they will put a stronger Republican speaker up against a weak and shabby looking Democrat who is usually not as well versed and up to par on political topics as their counter part. This leads viewers to discredit the Democratic in favor of the more knowledgeable, good for America Republican.

The station is claiming they will give Obama objective coverage. They are attempting to make it seem that they are not anti-Obama, but rather that other stations are just pro-Obama for ratings. Their executive vice president for news editorials says that other hosts are guilty of praising Obama to much.

In the end, it's all coming down to the company making sure it doesn't lose too much money in advertising. In 2008, their biggest target audience (25-54) saw the gap closing in terms of viewing. Fox's audience was only 12% bigger than CNN, the closest the competition has been in 7 years. Fox had dominated the other stations in previous years, and the gap probably will get closer in the upcoming years.

The network will definitely lose viewers, but it may not be as drastic of a drop as some anticipate. To their advantage, as Eric Alterman (media columnist for The Nation magazine) put it, it will be much simpler to cover Obama "than to defend a failed war and a failed president." At the present time, the Nielsen Ratings shows Fox still in front of other channels.

WEDNESDAY APRIL 28, 2010

25-54 Total Day

FNC –293,000 viewers
CNN –122,000 viewers
MSNBC –136,000 viewers
CNBC – 62,000 viewers
HLN – 143,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time

FNC – 537,000 viewers
CNN – 164,000 viewers
MSNBC –242,000 viewers
CNBC – 101,000 viewers
HLN – 261,000 viewers

Emotional War Copy

2010-03-23T16:48:00.006-04:00

The photo on the left was taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt.
Emotional photos like these, coupled with the story- of either a man and woman; father and son;mother and son- any number of loving, emotional human bond, could be coupled with that other 'bond'- a War Bond.
Emotional advertising during the war was utilized primarily to sell War Bonds.
War Bonds and stamps were sold all over the United States, and by the Chicago Retail Merchants Association, known before the war as simply, "The Cook County Retail Council".
Responding to the government's expectation of 4% of their July volume in war securities, the association came up with a scheme that would not only mobilize the public to buy, but to buy from their stores as part of a "war effort".
Copy was prepared according to very simple, 900-line insertions meant to capture attention, make an association, and while the reader was in the grip of sentiment, throw in a solution- Buy War Bonds!
The stores that made up the coalition included Marshall Field's, Sears of Chicago and McFarland's of Evanston. Many ways to present wereconsidered, until finally, one man, Clyde Bedell, author of a book entitled "How to Write Advertising that Sells", was put in charge of selecting the most effective copy. There were five 'angles' to be covered, the first three being "Mind wanderings of a soldier", Soldiers on leave soliciting war bonds, and "a father's comments about his son lost in battle." "Some Party", "At Bataan" and "Boy Tracks"were the first prepared, followed by "Dear Mom", and "Prayer".James Sessions, a noted illustrator, did his work illuminating the main ideas of the copy, and used symbols intented to propel the public into reaching into their pockets. 400 Walgreens stores, Woolworth's, A&Ps, and numerous other chains featured the blowups. While there are no direct sales numbers definitley linked to the ads, it is probably safe to say that they reached their end goal of 4% of their total sales for July allocated to War Bonds and Stamp sales.

Public Opinion/The Phantom Public

2010-03-09T00:03:00.006-05:00

Walter Lippmann who was known by his outstanding accomplishments as a writer, reporter and political commentator suggest that some of problems of a reality and relationship between mass media and public through his articles, “Public Opinion/The Phantom Public”.

He points out several problems in his articles about the facts, stereotype, preconceptions and symbols in our culture. Those factors convince us to view the wrong conception of the public opinion. This phrase, from his article, “Public Opinion”, explains the importance of the preconception in our consciousness:

“The subtlest and most pervasive of all influences are those which

create and maintain the repertory of stereotypes. We are told about

the world before we see it. We imagine most things before we experience

them. And those preconceptions, unless education has made us acutely

aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception.”

Western world has improved various mass media, such as the word picture, the narrative, the illustrated narrative, and finally the moving picture and the talking picture. Among those things, he insisted that the photographs are the real and the pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea.

After seeing the motion picture, “The Birth of a Nation” I was confused by my preconception about the Ku Klux Klan because the movie described the Klan as a hero with cross and white horsemen. If I did not know the true history of the America, I would not have known the truth about the racial tension between African American and White people. Therefore I agree that the author, Walter Lippmann suggest that the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture.

Another main idea from his article, “Public Opinion” is the symbol to hold and keep the authorities and rank for the leaders and mass media. He concluded that the symbol is both a mechanism of solidarity, and a mechanism of exploitation in the article, “Public Opinion”. Another article, “The Phantom Public” as the title implies shows that the general opinions of the public vary vaguely and confusing but when the leader and mass media wish to make one general will they use of symbols that assemble emotions.

To become intellects and wise a member of public, we need to learn the critical view of the public opinion. As students improving the public opinion and making the better world, we need to avoid being a stereotypical mind and perceiving preconception and symbols that were made by narrowed, prejudiced or wrong idea from the leaders or politicians and mass media. I think it is obviously worthy for me to study this article, “Public Opinion/The phantom Public”.

Advertising that helped to adjust the labor situation

2010-03-08T20:33:00.016-05:00

The end of the World War 1 was a period where the advertising was expanding in America. Businesses and companies started to use advertising more to create a bigger international market for their products. The way advertising influenced people to consume was new and fascinating. Some started to think that the way advertising persuade people could be the solution to the problems society had with the industrial workers. In that time, at 1919, strikers was shaking the nation, destroying industries, threatening the capitalism and the social order. This threat of workingmen making revolution started to show similarity to the "Worker´s Revolution" in the Soviet Union. The so called Bolshevism in Soviet (a type of communism based on writings from Marx and Lenin) could endanger the big businesses in America with its anti-capitalism. ( Breaking The Spell of Bolshevism, p.1)

Flag of the Russian National Bolsheviks.

The Printer´s Ink was a journal that became inspired by how the adverts was persuading people to purchase. They explored how they could use advertising in a way to solve the social problem that the labor rebellion caused. W. Livingston Larned wrote an article in Printers Inc 1919 of how to use advertisements to prevent people to be attracted to Bolshevism. He states that the advertisements have to humanize the workers and make them feel worthy their jobs by including them in the ads (Breaking The Spell of Bolshevism, p.1). Livingston writes that it is too much focus on the strikes and the bad labor condition but it is never mentioned about the improvements that have been done, or that it is seldom written about satisfied workers instead of the dissatisfying ones. The important fact that needs to be stressed in the media is the progress that have done the workers to happy, hardworking, satisfied employees. A foreman of a plant that is producing steel products is interview in Livingston´s article and says,

“OH, yes, I think working men see advertising and read it and are mildly interested, but they would take far greater interest if they could only see themselves glorified a little. Labor is Human.”

The idea is to use advertisements where you not only can see what the product does but also show the men who works down in the dark, dusty places to provide the society with these products. It would give the worker a greater pride in his job. To give the workingman attention will make him feel important and needed in the factory and therefore not let the strikes and Bolshevism lure him to join. The foreman continues,

“Bolshevism wouldn’t come up for discussion if American Labor really thought that it was a vital part of the human side of life.” (Livingston, p. 2)

These are some example of how the companies started to give more attention to their workers in their ads:

The Yale & Towne Company celebrated their Semi-Centennial by issuing an advertisement that gave the co-workers appreciation. Through this publication, the co-workers felt that they were an asset to the company and proud of being identified with the Yale brand.
Blue Buckle Overalls used adverts where they honor the humble clothes the workingmen had to wear. The adverts showed the clothes on workingmen made by fine paintings and pointed out that the working clothes are for busy, hardworking men.

Blue Buckle Overall magazine advert

Reliance Work Shirts used ads where they glorified the theme or workingmen through picturing the worker in an enviable and classy way.
Waltham Watch Company’s advertisements focused more on the expertise of people making the watch than on the actual watch. The advert is giving the workers credit and at the same time praises the Waltham Watch.
The Simonds Manufacturing Company connected their steel products to the working men that was using them.

Ad/Instruction of how to file a hand saw by The Simonds Manufacturing Company.

The Estes Service was using an insignia showing a labors muscular arm rising from industrial plants. This company was inspired by an aggressive advertising campaign used ten years before with the copy: “So do not number your organization by hands. Count the heads – and the hearts. Train the heads. Win the hearts. The hands will then be capable and faithful used in your service.” (Livingston, p. 3-4)

Public Opinion in War Time

2010-03-03T13:42:00.007-05:00

In terms of rallying public opinion for the war effort, I felt that this editorial cartoon (The New York Times, September 29, 1918) perfectly depicted and represented what the United States was trying to achieve during the First World War. With the smoke in the distance representing the allied successes, Uncle Sam is shown loading additional artillery shells that represent the war bonds needed to fund the war. With the caption beneath the cartoon stating “One Good Shot Deserves Another” it is clearly asking the citizens of the United States for their help and to continue funding the war effort. The previous Liberty Loans can be seen as spent shells on the ground and Uncle Sam is holding the Fourth Loan in his hand that’s about to be loaded into the cannon. Just as this cartoon explains that the Liberty Loans are being used for a good cause, in the written assignment “Public Opinion in War Time,” the author goes to great lengths to explain that the Committee on Public Information is not trying to seek public opinion through tugging at American’s emotions or preaching messages of hate for them to act, but rather, trying to rally public opinion for the war by explaining the “fundamental necessities that compelled a peace-loving nation to take up arms to protect and preserve our liberties” (Creel, 186). Just as this cartoon is trying to demonstrate that the fight for liberty is an important one, the article’s author explains why “it was soon seen that we had to devise departments that would prepare matter for the rural press, for the religious press, for the labor press, for the magazines and so on…we had to gather together the essayists and the brilliant novelists of the land—it was a proposition of touching up the high lights—to lay before the people the truth” (188). “We want a public opinion that springs truth from the heart and soul—that has its root in the rich soil of truth. And this fight is going to win because it is a fight for the truth, because we have nothing to be ashamed of” (191). As the saying goes, the truth will set you free (with a little help from Uncle Sam’s artillery shells).

The CPI and the Four Minute Men

2010-03-01T22:40:00.001-05:00

Charlie Chaplin, hoisted into the air on the arms of Douglas Fairbanks,
on the Treasury building on Wall Street during Third Liberty Loan Campaign in 1918.

The Four Minute Men were volunteering speakers that promoted community engagement for the way, like conserving food, drafting and buying Liberty Bonds. All in all, they gave some one million speeches at schools, churches, clubs and especially movie theaters. It was there they got their name, as they spoke in the four-minute break between film reels. Their speeches and rhetoric techniques were directed by the Committee on Public Information, CPI, through bulletins which provided instruction and inspirational material for speeches. (Brewer, Why America Fights, p 63)

Bulletin No. 39, included in our hand-out with examples of World War I propaganda, is titled Forth Liberty Loan and is one of those instruction manuals for the Four Minute Men. This one was to be used in the fall of 1918, just before the end of World War I in November of that same year.

The CPI must have realized the need for rhetoric instruction because of the fact that these speakers, who were important to the future of the war and the country, were volunteers and not necessarily good speakers. They needed to learn how to most effectively “carry to our audiences decision and action in buying Bonds.”

As guidance, the CPI had divided the so called For Minute Speech into four parts:

An opening to grab the attention and interest of the audience.
A body to present facts that will appeal to the rationality of the audience.
An emotional appeal to stir sentiment and make the audience want to act, want to buy Bonds.
An ending that summarizes the speech and appeals to the will of the audience to act, to actually buy Bonds.

The Four Minute Men were then to write their speeches with this outline in mind and fill each part with information and inspiration from the bulletin. The CPI stated crucial points for the speakers to remember, like not saying that America would save the world but that the Allies would or that clear and image-loaded language was to prefer. It also supplied forceful opening lines to catch the audience’s attention, and real-life stories of soldiers taken from official archives, to be used as examples to emotionally appeal to the audience.

What the CPI was trying to do through this publication was to secure the success of the Liberty Bond Campaigns. The agency knew that the more resonant the speakers were and the more unified their speeches, the more bonds would be sold in the end.

Advertising and World War I

2010-03-01T21:49:00.005-05:00

When Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 it was mainly because he campaigned to keep the US out of World War I. The public felt like the conflict in Europe was none of their concern and many therefore wanted US to stay out of it. That did not stop the government that eventually entered the war.

According to Stuart Ewen, the propaganda ministry, CPI, was created by the president with George Creel as the director. Creel’s purpose was to convince the public that war was essential and the right thing to do, but also to make the enemy seem as horrible as possible. Creel did not believe that the newspapers were convincing enough to do this alone but that “an extensive fabric of persuasion would have to be knit.” They therefore started to turn to several other forms of communication tools, including advertising.

If advertising could be used to sell products it could also be used to sell “political and social ideas,” many believed. The advertisement division of CPI under the leadership of William H Johns (president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies) therefore spread their message on advertisements and billboards across the country. They also tried to get space in the newspapers and as a result pressured them to supply free advertisement space. (Stuart Ewen)

By mixing words and images loaded with emotion, the adverts awoke sympathy and appealed to people around the country. They constructed a “language of images” created by skilled designers, illustrators and cartoonists.

As we can see in our handout, the Red Cross created an effective campaign together with the CPI, to raise the funds required by the war. Slogans such as “All you need is a heart and a dollar” and “The Greatest Mother in the World” were featured together with illustrations of pleading nurses and Madonna-like figures looking up towards the sky while embracing wounded soldiers. They simultaneously played on sympathy and associated with religious values. The advertisement “The Greatest Mother in the World” also emphasized that she cared about everyone in need, regardless of race and religion, which was an attempt to appeal to groups in society that did not have that much interest in the war.

Other CPI advertisements, some of which are included in our handout, encouraged the public to look out for German spies that could be listening in on their conversations, for soldiers to keep their mouth shut, and for people to report any suspicious activity to the government. They also promoted enlisting in the navy and buying Liberty Bonds. Uncle Sam is perhaps the best known example of advertising for recruitment with the famous slogan; “Uncle Sam Wants You!”

But it was not only the CPI advertisements that used the war; private companies soon realized the power of the patriotic message and began to use it in ads. For example, the advertising for American Hammered Piston Rings, American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the YMCA. They all related to the war in one way or another and emphasized values and sympathy linked with patriotic messages and colors.

The Brownies' Book

2010-02-18T17:23:00.018-05:00

The Brownies' Book was published for only about two years, from January 1920 to December of 1921. It was an independent enterprise, yet appealed to the youth faction of Crisis, the NAACP's magazine. W.E.B. DuBois, Jessie Redmond Fauset and Augustus Granville Dill were the magazine's editors, and the NAACP published it monthly.

The magazine sought appeal from a specific demographic; young African-American men. Girls were also featured, but the themes of integrated patriotism and the fight for desegregation and equality were noticeably aimed toward males.

This form of propaganda, the furthering of one cause, incidentally promoting another, was seen during the Spanish American war as well. while African-American men fought for their country, oppressing the natives of the Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, their sensitivities had to be lain aside while they embraced their inclusion in the military, and ultimately as part of American Society.

There is an unspoken belief in America that anyone who serves their country deserves the rights of that nation.

Brownies' Book was the precedent to the Army's well-placed, glossy ads proclaiming "Be All You Can Be" in magazines such as Ebony, Jet, and Essence.

Tantalizing ads promising "Easy Transition from High School to Flight School" sought to seduce young men and women with limited options, without disclosing the hardships and racism they were sure to address in actual military life.

In the Brownies' Book, Mildred Barfield (winner of an essay contest) wrote this heartwarming and timely essay in which two young men, one white, one brown, are mesmerized by the glamour of the United States Army.

They tremble at the sound of the man's voice; it makes them 'feel funny and warm'- two orphans, no sense of belonging, they finally find their home (and their Daddy) in the U.S. Army.

Big score for the Army; but an even bigger one for civil rights. Nobody even cares anymore what color Sam and Billy are, because they will be soldiers...and for two orphan boys with very few options, that's looking pretty good. A picture of Mildred is inserted for validity and as a reminder, that she is a good girl, a smart girl, and she would really like a young patriotic boy.

http://outsmartme.blogspot.com/

President McKinley: Emancipators, Not Masters

2010-02-03T20:41:00.050-05:00

The Treaty of Paris,December 10, 1898, officially ended the Spanish American war. At the treaty the U.S. had acquired Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from Spain.

President William McKinley did not understand the Filipino's customs, but he need to justify occupation of the Philippines and convince Congress, Anti-imperialists, and Americans that acquiring the Philippines would advance the freedom and prosperity for both. In Why American Fights by Susan Brewer, she writes that in his strive to continue Americas Manifest Destiny, McKinley voiced the message that Americans must "fulfill their manly duty to spread Christian civilization".

In a passage from Emancipators, Not Masters, President McKinley writes,

"the treaty now commits the free and enfranchised Filipinos to the guiding hand and the liberalizing influences, the generous sympathies, the uplifting education, not of their American masters, but of their American emancipators".
The President promised that our government would do everything to make this a peaceful transition, and that America had the Filipino's well being in the forefront.
The sentiment of the Wasp's (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) during this period was that they were the superior, civilized, and a self-controlled race (Brewer,2009). President McKinley used this stereotypical attitude to drive home the necessity to uplift, redeem, and emancipate the "child-like savages" of the Philippines. He persuaded Americans to believe, Brewer writes, that "our brown little brothers" were "savage warriors" that would benefit from this "humanitarian mission".

President William McKinley's use of propaganda convinced the American people that the "spreading of (our) democracy and (our)freedom" was for the good of all mankind. Brewer also states that President McKinley had "the notion that Americas global ambitions and democratic traditions are one and the same.

A Definition to Start With . . .

2010-01-28T14:36:00.000-05:00

There are many ways to define the term "propaganda." Here is a good one to begin with from a standard text on the subject:

“Propaganda is a form of communication that attempts to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. Persuasion is interactive and attempts to satisfy the needs of both the persuader and the persuadee. A model of propaganda depicts how elements of informative and persuasive communication may be incorporated into propagandistic communication, thus distinguishing propaganda as a specific class of communication . . . . Public opinion and behavioral change can be affected by propaganda.” [Jowett & O'Donnell, Propaganda & Mass Persuasion, p.1]

A more concise definition from the same source:

“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” [Jowett & O'Donnell, p.6.]

Avoiding Media at All Costs

2009-05-05T01:09:00.003-04:00

In Fortress Bush, writer Ken Auletta illustrates the resistance George W. Bush and his Administration had towards being transparent and cooperative with the press. Past White House regimes, such as Reagan and Clinton, embraced the press and aimed to established likable relations with the press in order to obtain positive media coverage. However, Bush’s relations with media have been intentionally strained and distant. Disdainful and distrustful of press, Bush dismissed the notion that reporters are a representative source or vessel for public opinion. Therefore, the Bush staff strategically avoids their questions and gives answers that convey predisposed messages.

One such tactic includes the Bush Administration’s attempt to focus on speaking “with one voice” to convey the same “talking points” so that the staff transmits the same response to media questions. The Administration also held daily “pulse check” meetings to reassure that everyone was staying “on message.” Believing that less is more, President Bush became known to respond to public questions with vague, fabricated answers which stick to “the message.”

In another attempt to avoid the media, the president only held eleven solo press conferences during his first presidency by January 1, 2004, a significantly small number in comparison with prior presidents. This was done in order to help Bush dodge being in the media spotlight in uncontrolled, formal settings. Bush representatives, such as Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary, have also been found to avoid questions through humor and giving repetitive remarks.

Through data and observation, Ken Auletta reveals the Bush Administration’s tactics in keeping the press at a controlled distance. From this evidence, I feel the Bush Administration misled the public by lubricating the whole truth and the facts they wish to deny.

Bush as Media Ringleader

2009-05-04T20:24:00.004-04:00

On March 9th of 2003, USA Today's Peter Johnson reported on a news conference that former U.S. President George W. Bush held during prime time. Many local networks and cable stations broadcasted the conference that Bush held in order to answer questions regarding America's stance with Iraq.

After the interview took place, there was a variety in opinions from several journalists who were present at the conference. Some felt as though they were in grammar school once again, by the way the question and answer segment was structured.

" Bush called on reporters from a predetermined list assembled by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer."

Although many questions concerning the war in Iraq may have gone unanswered, the limited contact with Bush, made several journalists feel as though the government was attempting to impose fear and intimidation on the media. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer disagrees with many of the comments made from journalists and said:

"The president just thinks it is actually a more orderly news conference, rather than to have the usual cacophony of everybody screaming, where the person who gets called on is the person who has the loudest voice. ... Reporters were called from all over."

Fleischer makes a valid point in stating that the list enables an orderly news conference, especially because of the nature of what was being addressed at the time. I believe there should be some form of moderation between the distribution of information, along with how far the media should push for information. After learning about what can happen from giving too much or too little of something, (i.e. Vietnam war Coverage, Gulf War Coverage) it is a lot more difficult to find a fine line where both sides can come to an agreement.

New Media Presidency

2009-04-30T09:52:00.002-04:00

The YouTube Presidency - Virginia Heffernan

President Barack Obama is the first president to take advantage of the advances in the media. He is president during the times where everything can be found on the Internet and he know the importance of this. President Obama has connected greatly with the younger generation and this is because of his use of the technologies such as YouTube. Virginia Heffernan explains how the Obama presidency has created a new staff devoted to managing President Obama's appearances on the Internet.

Heffernan also explains that President Obama always has a prompter for when he makes any type of speech. Many may find fault in this by thinking that by using the prompter we don't really get to see the real side of President Barack. "He's almost never caught winging it." I believe that it is good that he uses a teleprompter, it leaves no room for mistakes.

President Obama is also the first President to be on a late night television show. President Obama is using all of these as techniques to create a more personable presidency, and it is working. Now when one YouTube's President Obama there are so may videos that come up and this gives the people more access to knowing what our president has to say. He is starting a good trend for leaders to come.

Trying to put it into perspective....

2009-04-28T20:22:00.002-04:00

On April 29th, a representative of Wal-Mart came to SUNY Old Westbury to talk with students about the history and ethics of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, which is one of the biggest corporations in America, has always been under the radar when it comes to their relationship with their employees. It is a job that is not recognized in any labor union, so wages and benefits are extremely limited.

Steven Restivo, the Director of Corporate Affairs in the Northeast Region of Wal-Mart, did a great job describing the history and the overview of Wal-Mart. He was not afraid of telling our class how Wal-Mart operates. Public relations can be an extremely stressful job. He cannot help but feel as if he were "under attack".

Even though he tried to convince our class Wal-Mart is not as bad as it seems, that is his main job. He is basically "selling us" the idea of embracing Wal-Mart. When questions of workers overseas came up, he hesistated and couldn't answer some of our questions. Being in Public Relations has to deal with the public, which can turn against you very quickly.

Wal-Mart: A family company?

2009-04-28T14:44:00.002-04:00

"Big business in America is both admired and instinctively suspected, and the biggest business of all is a natural magnet for criticism. The overwhelming focus lately has been its health-care policy, which covers fewer than half its workers and leaves the government to care for tens of thousands of its em-ployees and their children through programs, like Medicaid, that were created to help poor people." Joshua Green " The new war over Wal-Mart"

Wal-Mart's advertisements depict a sense of well being for families, and taking care of everyday people, yet they do not provide the health care and salaries to support their own employees. Wal-Marts slogan " Saving people money so they can live better" seems to be hypocritical when one looks at the way their employee's have to live. Many of Wal-Marts employees have had to look to the government to seek finacial help "so that they can live better." Their employees cannot even support their own families due to low salaries and lack of benefits, yet they depict an image of family values. Is walmart really a family company if theycannot help their employees support their families, seems a bit hypocritical.

Vail Would Be Proud

2009-04-23T14:04:00.003-04:00

In Michael Barbano's article "Wal-mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign," he investigates how Wal-Mart is feeding information to interested bloggers to present their point of view. In the piece, Barbano explains how Marshall Manson, a senior account supervisor at Wal-Mart's public relations firm Edelman, would seek out bloggers who were against or for Wal-Mart through their online blogs. Through this he would address their articles, either positively or negatively, and offer future correspondence. If they wanted, he would supply them with pro Wal-Mart information for them to use.

While some may see this as a sneaky, underhanded way to create sympathy for the company, I see this merely as a smart company trying to use the latest forms of communication to defend itself. There is a certain authenticity the blogs appear to have, regardless of the factual nature of their content. An air of truth is associated with them because they are able to be started by anyone. This democratic ideal, while answerable to no authority, is often seen as truthful, and any bias associated would at least be a honest bias.

In fact Wal-Mart is doing what any smart company would do now. Using examples such as General Electric and Microsoft, reaching out to bloggers has been shown to be a smart way to disseminate the information about your company and its products. It would also be unfair to consider such tactics as unethical since these companies are merely using the same forum that their criticizers are. The right to blog can only truly be seen as universal if it applies to all and not just those who have no other venue.

In disseminating information to bloggers to help promote the image of their storage, I believe Wal-Mart would make AT&T's Theodore Vail proud.

We Asked for Sweatshops!

2009-04-23T13:41:00.003-04:00

How many of us boycott stores that abuse their workers' rights?

Before you lie and answer "yes I do," let me make on point clear, that most of us, are not concerned about workers' rights, and working conditions when we are shopping. In fact, we boycott stores that are "over-priced." However, tables turn when we work for such companies that abuse workers' rights and do not pay legal minimum wage.

To blame Wal-Mart for opening sweatshops, and not treating their workers right, is not the main issue, for it is a side effect of a larger and a more serious issue.

Lisa Featherstone's "wal-mart P.R War," is a great article, and provides quiet details about the rising accusations about how Wal-Mart is abusing its workers. However, there are several other corporations, such as Wal-Mart, that are establishing sweatshops around the world. This practise cannot be corrected by dealing with these companies' P.R. For they are hired to speak on behalf of the corporation. In fact, many of us attend anti-sweatshops campaigns, and anti-wal-mart seminars, but besides these "feel good about yourself," activities, we don't really sit and analyze the real issue.

The issue is that, our government is taking the concept of laissez faire too literally, and because of this, corporations like Wal-mart are able to do what they want to do. How many of us ever stop and wonder if the item that we are buying at a dollar store, is really worth a dollar? For there are many items in dollar stores whose net value is not really $1.00. However, those items are provided to us, after abusing the rights of a worker in Haiti, India, or china. These workers are paid around $1.00 - $2.00 a day, to mass produce our daily items and materials that we buy and use. If these items are produced in a factory in which workers are paid minimum wage, and their rights are respected, dollar stores would first go out of business, and then of course, the price of the cheap items at Wal-Mart and many other large stores would sharply increase.

We must understand, that fighting with Wal-Mart and its PR, is not the real solution. Even if we fight and correct Wal-mart and convince them to treat their workers in a respected and legal manner, we would still be left with many other companies that abuse their workers. We must go deeper into the issue, and try to eradicate the rising "sweatshops."

"It's obvious that the sweatshop problem has been increasing and expanding in this country since the 1980s, and it's out of control," says Barbara Briggs, senior associate at the New York-based National Labor Committee, which monitors workers' rights in the United States and in U.S. factories overseas. "

The above statement clearly states the rising sweatshops, and to decrease the number, we must return to our government, ask them to install strict regulatory policies for these corporations, in which their net profit, workers' salary and everything else must be monitored. For many conservatives, this will be a shocking and dangerous solution, but for too long have we lived with the "hands-off" theory, and apparently it has not worked from Wall Street to Wal-Mart.

Instead of fighting Wal-mart, we must fight for a congressional solution so that in one campaign we are able to eliminate ALL sweatshops.

Sell the whistleblowers fake whistles

2009-04-23T12:53:00.000-04:00

An article entitled “Wal-Mart’s P.R. War” describes what Wal-Mart is up against. They are being accused of “Violating child labor laws; locking workers into stores overnight; mooching off taxpayers; disregarding local zoning laws; mistreating immigrant janitors; abusing young Bangladeshi women; paying poverty-level wages in the United States; and destroying small-town America”. To say the least, Wall-Mart is up against a lot. (Featherstone, “Wal-Mart’s P.R. War”)

To me, it seems like they are entering a war they cannot win. Any married man would tell Wall-Mart there are some battles just not worth fighting; I think this might be one of them. Wall-Mart needs to save its image and sometimes a simple apology and a promise to make necessary improvements goes a lot further then playing the defensive role.

With all the money they are throwing at defending their image, why not hire someone to make calculated changes that look good to the public but don’t go against Wal-Marts goals. An example might be to give employees a better insurance plan but hire more part time teenage employees that don’t require insurance. They would be giving the public what it wants without actually giving it to them.

The public may become more open to Wal-Mart if they think their opinion is most important to Wal-Mart. Sometimes real change, even if its not really changing is all one needs for their image.

The Problem With Wal--Walmart

2009-04-23T12:36:00.000-04:00

“ One of the most organized, most sophisticated , most expensive corporate campaigns ever launched against a single company.” This was one of the comments that an executive of Wal-Mart said regarding all the negative propaganda about the company. However, the question is whether the executive is telling the truth or not? One of the many articles and documentaries that has been done against Wal-Mart tells a different story. In an article written by Liza Featherstone explain that the company was and is doing the following:
“Firing whistleblowers. Discriminating against women ( and most recently, black truck drivers). Violating child labor laws. Locking workers into stores overnight. Mooching off taxpayers. Disregarding local zoning laws. Mistreating immigrant janitors. Abusing young Bangladeshi women. Paying poverty level wages in the United States. Destroying small—town America. “
Obviously the executive was trying to justify the company that he works for. Many of the things that has been said about Wal—Mart is true. For instance the company is destroying (small town America) of course this is true. When the company opens a huge store in a small town the majority of the business suffer as a result of having a giant company coming into their town. Why ? Well the reason is that most of this small business lose a lot of their client because Wal—Mart has it all. In addition, most of the people decide to go to shop to Wal—Mart because the small owner cannot compete with their prices. Many times, Wal—Mart offers special and lower price product that average consumer is attracted too. And so a lot of this businesses are shot down because it is impossible to compete with this giant corporation.
Another problem with Wal—Mart is that they hired a lot of immigrants and pay them lower wages. The reason for hiring undocumented immigrant is because the company tries to pay this people very low and saved as money as possible. This is clearly an abuse to the immigrant community. This is just two example of the problems with this company. I wonder to myself how far is willing to go in keep abusing their power and if they are going to stop the abuse?

Two sides to Walmart?

2009-04-23T11:16:00.003-04:00

Laura and Jim are a couple who go from Las Vegas to Georgia in an RV and blog about their journey. Being a mobile home, they need somewhere to park their RV when they need a break from driving or want to go to sleep. Walmart allows them to park in their lots for free.

"Every Wal-Mart employee that Laura and Jim run into, from store clerks to photogenic executives, absolutely loves to work at the store" (Pallavi).

Isn't that a breath of fresh air to see that after reading an article where Liza Fetherstone describes Walmart's conduct to it's employees as,

"Firing whistle blowers. Discriminating against women (and, most recently, black truck drivers). Violating child labor laws. Locking workers into stores overnight. Mooching off tax payers. Disregarding local zoning laws. Mistreating immigrant janitors. Abusing young Bangladeshi women. Paying poverty-level wages in the United States. Destroying small town America".

What are we to believe? The alligations made by Liza Fetherstone are so harsh that we can only think that the story of Jim and Laura is just a stunt conjured up by Walmart. Johnathan Reese goes to saying, "Walmart hired fake people". Truth is that Jim and Laura are indeed real people but the public is being told the HALF truth in their story. Although, it is very cute to think that Walmart helped this couple a great deal and welcomed them with open arms we can't be fooled.

"Wake Up, Walmart" is a website dedicated to changing the company for the better. With Walmart being such a part of the retail economy despite such vicious things being said about the company it is necessary for them to repair it's image greatly.

Sources:

Lisa Featherstone, "Wal-Mart's P.R. war," Salon, 2005.

Pallavi Gogoi, "Wal-Mart's Jim and Laura: The Real Story," BW, 2006.

Wal-Mart Blogs

2009-04-23T10:55:00.014-04:00

Blogging has become one of the best ways to network with other individuals, mainstream or global about the same ideas and interest on topics. Wal-Mart, is one of the largest economic public corporation devoted to meeting the everyday needs of Americans. Walmart has been critized by many community social groups. In its efforts to improve their standing in the eyes of the media, Wal-Mart has made themselves completely accesible to society with a media upgrade, i. e. internet blogging.

Micheal Barbaro says,

"Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters."

Companies of all stripes are using blogs to help shape public opinion. Wal-Mart fears because blogging is based on opinion and rarely facts, social commmunity group opinions would sway the minds of consumers. With blogging Wal-Mart hopes to better the image and to displace themselves of the criticized low wages and health benefits.

Mona Williams, a company spokeswoman, states

Wal-Mart began working with bloggers in late 2005 "as part of our overall effort to tell our story." "As more and more Americans go to the Internet to get information from varied, credible, trusted sources, Wal-Mart is committed to participating in that online conversation," she said.

Wal-Mart: Know What Your Getting Into..

2009-04-23T09:56:00.002-04:00

"On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough"
By Steven Greenhouse and Michael Barbaro

Wal-Mart is the largest, most used establishment of its kind. It plays a huge role in the United States. Although there are many good sides to this establishment, there area a lot of thing that go on behind the scenes that would shock and appall its customers. In this article from the New York Times, the authors exposed some of the true views of management from Wal-Mart. They had access to one of their private websites in which some of the executives would post questions and answers. The only thing about this site is that everyday people do not have access to it.

Greenhouse and Barbaro expose one of the postings from a Wal-Mart representitive, Mr. Scott. In a question about benefits for their hard working retirees Scott's answer was very insensitive. "Quite honestly, this environment isn't for everyone. There are people who would say, 'I'm sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let's see what happens to the company.' If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things."

Companies like Wal-Mart that bring in billions of dollars a year in revenue should not be able to treat their hard working employees like this. This basically shows how much they care about their workers. And though the establishment does alot for communities all over this country, their downside is the mistreatment of their employees. Without their employees there would be no Wal-Mart. So why not show a little appreciation?

Wal-Mart and the Fight For Health-Care

2009-04-23T03:05:00.007-04:00

“The New War Over Wal-Mart” by Joshua Green

As I began reading “The New War Over Wal-Mart,” I assumed that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest company, does not provide health-care benefits to its employees due to corporate greed and a lack of concern for its minimum wage workers. However, as I continued reading I learned that the problem of uninsured workers does not fall on Wal-Mart alone, but rather can be blamed on the escalating costs of health-care, itself, which is hurting workers and businesses alike.

As a leading entity, Wal-Mart has achieved much success by maintaining rigid cost control. Now it holds the power to help balance U.S. inflation. However, because of its massive influence, it is held to a greater standard of accountability and must demonstrate good business practice and ethics. Nonetheless, Wal-Mart is widely criticized for outsourcing U.S. manufacturing jobs which drives down wages and benefits. It is also condemned for its health care policy which covers less than half of its workers, thus forcing the government to carry this financial strain by caring for tens of thousands of its employees and their children who are Medicaid recipients.

Labor unions are a major force of opposition who fight against Wal-mart such as the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and Wal-mart Watch which is funded by Service Employees International Union (SEIU). With a budget of $5 million a year, Wal-Mart Watch has pushed anti-Wal-Mart laws in different states, released damaging internal documents, and exposed its exploitation of government health plans.

Andy Stern, the president of SEIU, describe his reasons of hostility against the company: “Why go after Wal-Mart? Because Wal-Mart is the GM of our era. Whatever business practices they adopt have huge influence across other American business.” He went on to say that “My goal is to get Wal-Mart’s leadership out there in traffic and holler, ‘We can no longer compete in the global economy when health care is factored into the cost of our products.’ If Wal-Mart’s CEO, Lee Scott, were to come out and say, ‘We need a national health-care system that works for everyone,’ then it’s a whole new ball game.”

Sterns main objective is to get Wal-Mart to change its practices and use its economical pull for the good of the people and labor. He wishes to coax Wal-Mart into supporting a national health-care policy. In turn, he hopes that this will incite support from other companies that emulate Wal-Mart and, thus, pressure the federal government to transform health-care. Stern’s drive for national health-care is due to the fact that he is just as impacted by the high price of health-care as are businesses.

During the 20^th century, companies were in favor of employer-provided health benefits in order to compete for workers. However, today businesses such as Wal-Mart can’t afford to provide their workers with health-care and have therefore, resorted to using unethical methods to avoid these costs such as discrimination against hiring “unhealthy” people. In effect, the controversy over the health benefits provided by Wal-Mart needs to be refocused on collaborating with Wal-Mart to help fight against the health-care industry.

My questions for the Wal-Mart spokesperson are:

We are currently facing a huge problem in providing American workers with health-care. What stance and role has Wal-Mart enacted upon to help fix this national crisis?
Should Wal-Mart be responsible in providing health-care to its employees due to the rising cost of health care spending, or should government infringe upon the escalating cost of health-care?

Wal-Blogosphere

2009-04-23T00:31:00.002-04:00

"Firing whistleblowers. Discriminating against women (and, most recently, black truck drivers). Violating child labor laws. Locking workers into stores overnight. Mooching off taxpayers. Disregarding local zoning laws. Mistreating immigrant janitors. Abusing young Bangladeshi women. Paying poverty-level wages in the United States. Destroying small-town America....It's Wal-Mart, of course. "

This line from the New York Times article, "Wal-Mart's P.S. war", Lisa Featherstone gives a few very strong reasons as to why Wal-Mart has such a bad reputation. These few examples can make the average consumer feel as if Wal-Mart is not worthy of their dollars. It is for this reason that I understand why Wal-Mart goes through such great lengths to restore their tarnished image.

In a 2006 New York Times article, "Wal-Mart enlists bloggers in P.R. campaign", Michael Barbaro explains how Wal-Mart uses one of the most influencial technological advances, blogging, to better their image.

"Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters."

Barbaro revealed how Wal-Mart uses bloggers as a means to get the message out that Wal-Mart isn't so bad. From reading Featherstone's article it made me realize why Wal-Mart would go to such great lengths to better their image, because the American public has many reasons as to why they shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart.

Everyday low prices, Everyday low ethics

2009-04-22T16:52:00.002-04:00

During these tough times that many Americans are going through, we have to conserve our money wisely. Families are making sure that they spend their money on neccessities such as groceries and clothes. That is what makes Wal-Mart extremely successful. Wal-Mart sells every item that an individual can image. The prices are so low that it is nearly impossible for any other corporation to compete. This might be a good marketing tool, but Wal-Mart employees are not enjoying the "benefits" of working for one of the largest corporations in America.

"The aim, the activists agree, is to change the company's entire business model. What Wal-Mart's abuses have in common, they say, is a disregard for the public interest in a single-minded pursuit of the bottom line. Low labor costs and a disregard for the law have been central to the company's way of doing business. A Wal-Mart that paid its employees generously, offered decent worker healthcare and was considerate of its community neighbors -- the critics' major demands -- would not be Wal-Mart: It would be, essentially, a bunch of stores. Other than unionized workers, it is possible that no one has ever put such concerted pressure on a single American company, let alone one so large, to so fundamentally change its operations. " (Lisa Featherstone, Wal-Mart's P.R War)

Even the largest corporations need the "little people" for it to function. Without cashiers, grocery clerks, deli workers and retail stock workers, Wal-Mart would not be able to function. Wal-Mart uses its low price policy and convenience to persuade people that Wal-Mart is a "friendly neighborhood friend". American citizens tend to forget that the employees of Wal-Mart are struggling in these tough economic times. If Wal-Mart were to go out of business, it could have effect on both the Wal-Mart employees and the Wal-Mart shoppers.

"I want my Al Jazeera!"

2009-04-21T13:48:00.006-04:00

“If American officials were to claim that Al Jazeera is against them, their Middle Eastern counterparts likely would reply, "Join the club." According to Yousef Al Shouly, a Palestinian senior producer for Al Jazeera, Western leaders are now absorbing the lesson that Arab heads of state learned over the past five years: "Use Al Jazeera to spread your views; use Al Jazeera to your own benefit." When there is controversy in a country, he says, his station allows both "the government and the opposition to give their point of view. Al Jazeera gives both sides a chance. Al Jazeera has not changed its policy. Governments have changed their policy" to adapt to the network, he says.”

Before its popularity and growth Arab leaders were comfortable with state and local broadcasting. But they wanted to give true journalism no matter who they offended. Choosing between satisfying governments or viewers, Al Jazeera chose the promised future and reported the “unstained truth” as they would like to pride themselves on doing.

“When the network aired a program probing Algeria's civil war, the government in Algiers shut off power, prompting Algerians to flood phone lines with cries of "I want my Al Jazeera!"

Al Jazeera put itself into an uninviting position for advertisers who don’t associate with conflict-filled issues. The commercial industry has a tendency to be more opinionated in the Middle East as oppose to other parts of the democratic world.

“Al Ali says that while other Arab stations earn about 90 percent of their revenue from advertising, commercials account for only about 40 percent of Al Jazeera's revenues. The rest comes from renting out equipment, selling programming and videotapes, and cable subscription fees. The station now operates, he says, without government subsidies.”

Since its creation al-Jazeera has been an extremely controversial network, with the goal of broadcasting only the truth and not sugar coating it. The viewers of al-Jazeera find the coverage of the American War on Iraq to be fair displaying both sides of the war. As the only 24 hour Arab station in the world there is no competition. Not only covering the war but Arab life in detail, always on the scene and ready to serve its viewers.

(“Inside Al Jazeera”:The World's Most Controversial TV Station Rick Zednik)

-EF

New Technology leads to New Propaganda

2009-04-21T13:11:00.002-04:00

With the outlet of new television stations springing up all over the globe it is much easier to spread a single message to thousands of viewers. Al Jazerra "Claims a global audience of 35 Million Arabic-speaking viewers, may not officially be the Osama bin Laden Channel -- but he is clearly the star" (Ajami 1). This television station which means "the Peninsula" has spread propaganda all throughout the land. Anti-Americanism along with it has become a dangerous weapon to dismantle the coalition objective and influences young Arabic citizens to rise up against the western way of life. These messages of propaganda can and are being used to influence Afghanis as well as other radical middle eastern people to join against the crusade known as Jihad. Their messages of anti-Americanism is a powerful recruiting tool and this network has no doubt been an outlet for many radicals to shift or sway public opinion in their own direction.

This is not an old trick, and this is being done in our country as well. Many would say fox news is geared toward Republican viewers more so than democratic because of Rupert Murdoch's influence he too can play the part in shifting public opinion geared towards American viewers as we see below he is even quoted as saying that he "tried" to shift public opinion about the war

"Al Jazeera's reporters are similarly adept at riling up the viewer. A fiercely opinionated group, most are either pan-Arabists -- nationalists of a leftist bent committed to the idea of a single nation across the many frontiers of the Arab world." This is not so much a war but a war on ideas as Ajami puts it shifting public opinion takes skill and most importantly evidence. Evidence that people can hear and see for themselves. It is a lot different when someone receives news through another person, as opposed to actually seeing pictures and hearing the horrible sounds that war brings to any nation.

The World's News Leader

2009-04-21T09:12:00.000-04:00

I choose the article, ''The Monopoly is A Memory", because being an avid watcher of CNN its interesting to see how they have grown into the most watched international news network. Stomping there way pass the other news giants such as, CBS, ABC, and NBC and overseas competition Al Jazeera.

After our discussions of the novel, "Second Front, Censorship and Propaganda, In The Gulf War,'' by John MacArthur this article shows that however the use of censorship was mandatory, but it did keep CNN from revealing the truths of the Gulf War.

" Iraqi government and CNN used each other during the Gulf War in 1991 to the mutual benefit of both''. (Elisabeth Jenson, LATimes)

CNN's ratings sky rocketed with millions of viewers tuning in on the war. Years later CNN still hold its ground breaking ratings especially during the 2008 election. CNN earned the 68th prestigious Peabody Award for political coverage in 2008.

Painting 2 very different pictures of the same war

2009-04-16T15:14:00.004-04:00

"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denounced the network for showing video footage of American prisoners of war, and British military commander Brian Burridge called al-Jazeera's close-up videos of two dead British soldiers "shocking" and "disgraceful.
Is this footage shocking and disgraceful because they are showing violent images or because they are showing footage that will loose support for the war in the US. The footage al-Jazeera is showing is propaganda to support the Iraqi's position on the war.The US uses propaganda to gain support for the war, why can't Iraq?
Mirazi disagrees. An Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who worked for the Voice of America in Washington for 12 years and for BBC radio for two years before joining al-Jazeera in 2000, he defends his network's policy of showing gruesome footage of dead soldiers and civilians.

"There is a feeling in our newsroom that you need to be as realistic as possible and carry the images of war and the effect that war has on people," he says. "If you are in a war, your population shouldn't just eat their dinner and watch sanitized images on TV and video games produced by the technological whizzes in the Pentagon and say, 'This is war.' No. You really need to show every family what your men and women are going through. That's important because the families [of dead soldiers] are going to be the only ones who see those gruesome images when they get the bodies. How about the rest of the American population? How are they going to appreciate their sacrifices? . . . If you leave it to politicians, you won't see anything." Peter Carlson, “In the Line of Fire,” 2003.
I would have to agree that the Iraqi's have the right to see what is really going on in the war. The US does not show the footage of the war as it is happening which gives the American public a sense of distance from the war. Many times people forget how gruesome war can be because we are not exposed to what is really happening. We do not see people being killed or bombs being dropped, or actual combat making the war seem clean and somewhat unreal. If the public was exposed to the war as al-Jazeera presents it, the Americans would rise against the war. Sanitized and censored images of the war keep the American public distant and quiet.I feel that the public has the right and should see these images and form their opinion on the war. I do not feel that the al-Jazeera station is not wrong for exposing the gruesome footage.

Al Jazeera Will Evoke the Fear in Ya

2009-04-16T14:54:00.007-04:00

Al Jazeera, the independent news station based in Doha, Qatar, which broadcasts in over 20 Arab countries, is not only doing more than it's fair share of frightening people, but is also relentlessly adding "fuel to the fire." As portrayed by the New York Times article on November 18th, 2001, entitled "What the Muslim World Is Watching" by Fouad Ajami, Al Jazeera emphasizes war, death and corpses to the Arab world more than anything else. From tuning in to this 24 hour news channel, an "anti-Americanist/ anti-Zionist" (New York Times) sentiment can be powerfully felt through the despicable speech used and programming shown to the public.

In terms of the level of propaganda, or amount of one-sided information and images that Al Jazeera uses in their news broadcasts and shows, it is safe to say that they go to the extreme. Not only does their programming aim to and accomplish horrifying the Arab world with their bloody, as well as devastated lands and people, but they also continually frame the "enemies," (mainly those whom are not Muslims), to anger the public and gain support in their practice and preaching of hatred.

Furthermore, in this quote from "What the Muslim World Is Watching," it is made blatantly clear the way in which Al Jazeera keeps Arabs in tune with their beliefs, as well as maintains the Arab world's feelings of sympathy in the anti-American struggle, as Ajami details a highlighted feature on Al Jazeera; an attack in 1983 by "a young man in a Mercedes truck loaded with TNT who struck the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans":

"The segment revisited the horror of that day -- the wailing of the wounded, the soot and ruin everywhere. The images were far more horrible than any I had ever seen of the tragedy. There was no sympathy in the narration, and a feeling of indifference, even menace, hung over this dark moment of remembrance. The message was clear: the Middle East was, and is, a region of heartbreak for the foreign power."

This quote helps to identify the prime example of what Al Jazeera stands for and represents to an astounding 35 million Arabs globally (Ajami): the magnification of the idea that Muslims are the most oppressed people in the world and this is mainly the fault of Americans or Zionists. If they are not airing their own civilians and children dying at the hands of American or Israeli soldiers, they will surely be found lending playtime to celebrate the killings of the Americans or Zionists who do not believe in their fundamentalist religious ideas. The Arab world, however can not be blamed for the propaganda that keeps them in fear of and in check by their religious leaders; they are simply keeping faith in Al Jazeera, their trusted news source, as there is not many other outlets by which Arabs can receive full and accurate information. Therefore, what they are allowed to know and traumatized by with gruesome images and despicable words, unfortunately is that which leads their way in terms of opinions, beliefs and ultimately, hatred.

Nintendo News

2009-04-16T14:12:00.000-04:00

In Macarthur’s “Second Front” Jonathan Alter, a media writer, warned that “before long more television viewers may come to realize that for all the spooky network music, theatrical correspondents, and Nintendo military briefings, they have little real information about the progress of the war” (Macarthur 89).

Jonathan Alter was right and viewers lost interest in televised news, at the time, causing networks to lose millions of dollars during the Gulf War. “It became acceptable for graphics to tell most of the story” which was the only option the networks had during the war. The media, simply, did not have interesting enough footage do to censorship.

The government was successful with their censorship campaign and it helped them maintain a specific image of the war. They were able to tell the public about the victories against the “evil” forces of Iraq without showing the ugly face of war. All this was done in order to keep the public in a state that backed the war effort.

The Problem Of Objectivity ?

2009-04-16T13:42:00.002-04:00

I enjoyed reading the long article regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the article there are a lot of things that is worth mentioning. One of the things that I noticed is that the people that were interviewed were mostly reporters. The whole purpose of the article was to show how the media reported the war in Iraq. Also this article showed how some of the reporters did their job. One of the examples that I found very interesting is that all of the information that some reporters, report back to the United States was not always true. The reason was simply because they could not check whether their information had substance. In additions the reporters seem to have a lot of difficulty finding what happen in the battlefield. They could not interview the people in Iraq because they had no knowledge of the Iraqi language. They had to rely on interpreters which were pretty difficult to find. The whole article is very interesting because it has extended my knowledge of how a reporter can have a difficult job to find information.
There are a lot of question that came to my mind when I finished reading the entire article. First I wonder how can people keep asking if the media has been objective about the news that they report every night? The reason for asking is simply because in the case of the war in Iraq it was pretty difficult to check the facts. Also, another problem that most of the reporters face is that some of the information was not allow to them or they did not have access to. This is because the military did not allow the media to report this information because they do not want to show the public about the real action that happens in Iraq. I also wonder if the picture that the media used during the report of the war was the correct one. This question falls under media representation. How correct was the media in putting a certain picture and how effective was it? Overall the article was a picture of the pro—and –cons of the whole media.

Al Jazeera or America? Who is telling the truth?

2009-04-16T12:21:00.002-04:00

"No matter how hard we try, we cannot beat Al Jazeera at it's own game. But one thing is sure: there is no need to reward a channel that has made a name for itself through stridency and anti-Americanism. There is a war on the battlefield, and that is America's to win."

This quote from an article in the New York Times, by Fouad Ajami, expresses a lot of nationalism and a negative tone toward the Arabic news station Al Jazeera. When reading the article I had to remind myself that it was written in November of 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks. So at this time many Americans did feel very negatively toward people of the Arabic cultures. Also during this time Al Jazeera was known for playing videos sent to them by America's number 1 enemy, Osama Bin Laden. So there are many reasons as to why this article seemed so bias.

What I got from the article is that Al Jazeera was reporting their side of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan as they saw it. They are station that was made for Arabic speaking Muslims in the Middle East, so their news is going to favor their views, not the views of Americans. What Ajami's article seemed like it was doing was basically bashing Al Jazeera in presenting the news to their people in a "anti-Americanism" way. But why would a news station, located in a country that were fighting in a war against, report news supporting the American way? American news stations weren't uplifting Al Jazeera at this time (as we can see in this article), so why should Al Jazeera uplift us in their news?

This article didn't seem objective at all. I'm guessing it was a review of the news station Al Jazeera in itself. But even the background history that Ajami provided about Al Jazeera seemed negative as well. The whole article was based on making Al Jazeera seem like an Osama Bin Laden supporter and a huge enemy of American liberty. I don't feel like this is what American journalism should be based on. Journalists have a job at being non bias in thier reporting, and I don't think this was practiced in this article.

Such an outrage it is

2009-04-16T10:28:00.005-04:00

"...newspapers reported a U.S air assault that Iraqi officials said killed 58 people at a vegetable market in Baghdad..."

It can give you such anxiety and make you paranoid to hear such things as to one moment someone can be enjoying their day and the next be dead.

"The popular Al-Jazeera satellite television network broadcast the funerals of those killed at the market. It repeatedly showed pictures of severed body parts and wounded toddlers bandaged and crying in hospital beds".

Television ratings and movie ratings are usually there for a purpose, right? Who decides these ratings? Usually that is upon the government . For years in the United States, it was extremely rare to come across a picture of the solider that had deceased or was wounded as a result of the war. Although those images can be gruesome, bloody and morbid; the showing of those images shows the progress America has made. Reality is told in the numbers broadcasted for the death tolls of both civilians and soilders. The sad part is that it isn't until we hear those numbers or see those real and raw pictures is when we realize something is terribly wrong.

Al Jazeera...The Fox News of The East

2009-04-16T10:05:00.020-04:00

In the document that I chose out of the packet entitled "What the Muslim World Is Watching" by Fouad Ajami, I was intrigued by the efforts that Al Jazeera has made over its short history to craft their own version of the the world as well as facilitating the ideals of Terrorist factions. In the document Ajami begins by using the example of a documentary televised on the Al Jazeera network which chronicled Che Guevara's "last stand" before his capture and ultimate execution. This "Romanticism" of a legendary "rebel" as Ajami would call him, would also make the comparison that Che Guevara is to Bolivian people as Osama Bin Laden is to the people of Afghanistan. Ajami would later in the document make the comparison between Al Jazeera and the American networks such as Fox News in how they both are the extremes of a media, but also noting that Al Jazeera takes their rhetoric to another extreme all together:

"On Al-Jazeera the Hollywoodization of news is indulged with an abandon that would make the Fox News Channel blush. The channel's promos are particularly shameless. One clip juxtaposes a scowling George Bush with a poised, almost dreamy bin Laden; between them is an image of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames"

I felt that this was interesting because when I watch networks such as Fox News and CNBC, I can see the depths that they take everyday to stay on either side of the aisle. I feel when covering news your covering some critical material which ultimately will play into the fears and the safety of the audience. As an American watching the constant videos released by Bin Laden after 9/11, you can only be worried about the future of the country in respects to the anti-American sentiment promoted on this network:

"The channel's numerous call-in shows welcomes viewers to express opinions that in the United States would be considered hate speech. And, of course, there is the matter of Al-Jazeera's "exclusive bin Laden videotape....Dressed in a camouflage jacket over a traditional thoub, bin Laden spoke in ornate Arabic, claiming that the terror attacks of Sept. 11 should be applauded by Muslims".

Although I do not promote the acts of terrorism at no time, it is important to note that this country has their own skeletons which they have seemed to try to hide themselves which makes these networks that much more harder to dissect. Before the war began their was already an attempt to create an "Anti-Muslim sentiment" to fuel the need for war by not only the Bush administration but the media alike. We as people also took on the job of adding to these feelings and still remain in a anti-Muslim country, no matter if we want to believe it or not.

You Choose the War You Want to See

2009-04-16T09:33:00.002-04:00

Neil MacFarquhar, “Arabic Stations Compete for Attention,” 2003.

For the majority of the war in Iraq, the American citizens have been forced to watch footage that was appropriate to see (as by our government's standards). We never really saw what was really going on in Iraq where our loved ones are risking their lives everyday. Although the people deserve to see what was going on networks did not show the real footage. We saw a diluted war. If anything our networks should have done things like in Iraq.

Al Jazeera is a station locaedt in Iraq that shows actual footage from the war. However the only problem with this is that they are biased. The people in Iraq have access to this station and also to the American stations so if any thing they can watch both to get a complete understanding of the war.

"Sawsan Shair, a renowned Bahraini columnist, is among the critics of Al Jazeera's presentation. She tunes into the pro-American Kuwait channel when she wants to drown out harsh reality — 'everything is always O.K. — the allies are going through smoothly, there is no resistance, the Iraqi government will fall down soon," she said. "But if I want my blood pressure to go up, I watch Al Jazeera. They always insert their point of view'."

If we had access to information from both points of view, we would have been able to choose what we wanted to see. I think we should have been able to know what was really going on and what the Iraqis thought about us as well. Instead of being fed images of a false war we could have been seeing the truth, of a semi-diluted version of the truth.

Is The News "Too" Real?

2009-04-16T01:52:00.010-04:00

“In the Line of Fire” by Peter Carlson, Washington Post Staff Writer

Since its creation in 1996, al-Jazeera has been a highly controversial Arab TV news network. In effort to broadcast objective and balanced news programming, Al-Jazeera airs daring images and news coverage which ruptured the domination of government controlled political propaganda on Arabic television. According to author Mohammed Nawawy, al-Jazeera “opened up freedom of speech in the Arab world.” However, al-Jazeera is constantly criticized by countries such as America, Great Britain, Iraq, and Baghdad for being too explicit . For instance, Arabs have accused the network of being a tool for Zionists and the CIA after airing interviews with Israeli and American officials whereas Israelis and Americans condemned the network for publishing tapes by Islamic radicals such as Osama bin Laden. In addition, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield denounced the network for showing video footage of American prisoners of war while British military Brian Burridge described the videos of dead British soldiers as “shocking” and “disgraceful.”

On the other hand, Hafez Mirazi, the Washington bureau chief of al-Jazeera, defends their blunt portrayal of news saying:

“There is a feeling in our newsroom that you need to be as realistic as possible and carry the images of war and the effect that war has on people. If you are in a war, your population shouldn’t just eat their dinner and watch sanitized images on TV and video games produced by the technological whizzes in the Pentagon and say ‘This is war.’ No. You really need to show every family what your men and women are going through….If you leave it to politicians, you won’t see anything.”

Furthermore, supporting viewers of al-Jazeera find their coverage of the American War on Iraq to be fair and unbiased being that they portray both sides of the war. Unlike American news channels, Al-Jazeera covered Pentagon and Centcom briefings as well as briefings by the Iraqi defense minister. In effect, Mirazi declares that their news coverage is more balanced than American media sources.

The World News coming from Al Jazeera

2009-04-15T22:46:00.002-04:00

Al Jazeera started out as an unpopular source for news. If you compared Al Jazeera newsroom to an American newsroom, you cannot help but notice the difference in size of the two media outlets. During the Gulf War, many citizens wanted to know what was going on overseas. They turned to such stations as CNN and BBC. Al Jazeera struggled to attract an audience. But that seemed to change when Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani came into power.

"Al Jazeera, which translates as "the Peninsula," was established by emiri decree in February 1996. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who seized power in 1995 from his father, created Al Jazeera as part of an effort to modernize and democratize Qatar. He allocated $137 million to Al Jazeera with the goal that the station would be self-sustaining within five years of its November 1, 1996, debut." (Rick Zednik, Inside Al Jazeera)

Al Jazeera quickly became a popular news station. It is the only 24 hour Arab station in the world. Al Jazeera was delivering the news to its thirty-five million viewers. It was not only covering the war; it became an important player in the global battle for public opinion. American media can be credited for the success of Al Jazeera.

Media Coverage of the Gulf War

2009-04-14T13:21:00.002-04:00

“The American mainstream news during combat has been much like the hired bards of medieval monarchs: when war has come, our journalists have become propagandists.” J.MacArthur, "Second Front"

Having access to information during wartime is crucial for the media as this creates the transparency and accountability of both sides during the conflict. Without the presence of a neutral mediator the atrocities which were seen in wars of the past will be repeated, while the presence of a respectable media ensures that information is provided to the rest of the world. In the long run this allows for those responsible to be held accountable for their actions and limit senseless destruction and actions against the civilian population.
However, not all responsibility for incomplete and misleading coverage of the war rests with the military. Journalists themselves failed to cope with their own technology. Instant news puts additional burdens on journalists to introduce their craft into the process. Journalism is the act of choosing from competing information that which most accurately and completely reflects an event. This includes editing for balance and accuracy. It means presenting information in context, relating it to other facts and events.

"we can do it"

2009-04-12T08:01:00.002-04:00

During world War II , the United States used the rosie the rivetor poster to entice women into working in the 1940s. The picture conveys rosie with her sleeves rolled up to 3/4 length with muscles, a red bandana and a blue jean button-up. Rosie the Rivetor wasnt a real person, but she conveyed to the women in this period that "we can do it". This enabled women to think they they were able to do what the men were able to do. also to get more women working in the factories. This was a powerful propaganda weapon to encourage women to fill-in for the men while they were fighting World War II at war working really hard.
Women were to take on the roles of men and do factory work. rather than their usual task that were cosidered a women job such as staying at home and taking care of the children and the family, cleaning up the home and having the food ready after a hard long day for the hardworking men.
Prior to World War II women werent able to work in factories or do the "Mans Job" it was frowwned upon. Women were viewed as weak and dainty. This ws the big opportunity so they can prove theirselves since the men were hard at work.

Hustling For The Story

2009-04-07T14:36:00.003-04:00

In our daily viewing of television, our opinions about the media can vary from minute to minute. Whether it is the media discussing the legal problems that Chris Brown is dealing with or the analyzing and scrutinizing of the economic plan being pushed by Timothy Geithner, the media serves an important role as the chief disseminator of information for the public. One question that we as the public should ask is what are lengths would the media go to secure a story and would they try to push the line of authority.
We recognize that when it comes to news stories involving governments especially the U.S. Government, the media does what every takes to get information especially when they're being blocked. The following from the book, Second Front, illustrates the media response to being blocked from getting information for the U.S. Government:

"Just two bureau chiefs saw fit to lodge serious objections to the Pentagon's new restrictions. Chuck Lewis of Hearst Newspapers wrote to Williams that Phase III was an "oxymoron," and Howell Raines of The New York Times complained that it "flies in the face" of the "agreement" reached at the meeting on November 28. As for "security review," Lewis said he was "sorry" to see it and Raines sarcastically called it "an innovation to which no one agreed" (29).

This snippet shows how defiant the media can be all in the name of a news story. However the media might do more harm than good trying to get the information. I understand the need for transparency when it comes to our government but they should make sure that their actions do not enrage the government in which they might consider some forms of censorship.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

2009-04-02T14:05:00.002-04:00

In the weeks leading up to the first Gulf War in January 1991, the media found themselves at an incredibly weak position in terms of accessibility. As explained in chapter 1 of John MacArthur's Second Front, news outlets were at the mercy of foreign and domestic governments to try to cover the impending conflict.

The Saudi Arabian government has been one of the strictest when it comes to issues of journalist freedom. When it seemed that war was imminent after Saddam's Iraqi forces invaded the neighboring nation of Kuwait, the news outlets tried to petition the Saudi government to issue more Visa's. This was crucial because Saudi Arabia would become a major staging ground for U.S. forces. The media met hard resistant to these requests.

As you would expect they should, the media then petitioned the U.S. government to intervene on their behalf to try to secure more access. What they failed to realize was that the U.S. government was of a similar mindset as the Saudi's. They had learned valuable lessons steaming from conflicts such as Vietnam and were looking for ways to contain and monitor coverage of this new war. As such, the Saudi government's denials provided them a means to this end as well as the grounds to claim innocence. The domestic government wasn't censoring the press; a foreign sovereign nation was.

Another critical disadvantage of the media's position was the supportive popularity of the upcoming war. By this time the news market had become as crowded as ever. With such high competition, media corporations could not afford to fight this censorship and lose. The marketing money would simply switch channels to the next of many news stations.

Because of these factors, news outlets had to submit to extremely restrictive practices such as media pools which would control their movement and in effect, content. Many journalistic principles had to be compromised in order to get the story.

Desert Shield

2009-04-02T13:20:00.001-04:00

In chapter one of Macarthur’s “Second Front” we learn that the United States finally learned from its mistakes in previous wars. This is not to say the new learning’s would prevent causalities or make use of new fighting techniques, rather, it would restrict media coverage in an attempt to prevent unpopular opinion of the war from the public. These new policies were put forth to “manage the information flow in a way that supported the operation’s political goals and avoided the perceived mistakes of Vietnam” (Macarthur 7).

Annex Foxtrot and Operation Desert Shield would become some of these policies which made restrictions such as “news media representatives will be escorted at all times, repeat all times”. The government also went as far as to limit the amount of reporters allowed access to Saudi Arabia and did so in a way that convinced the news corporations that the government was on their side, willing to help in any way it could. The games being played by the pentagon entailed putting the blame on the Saudis saying they would only allow one visa per news organization while the Saudis proclaimed that they did not have a problem with it and it was the pentagon making the restrictions.

The restrictions of news coverage by the military would prove to be “a devastating and immoral victory for military censorship and a crushing defeat for the press and the First Amendment”. It seems to me that if the government is afraid of what the media might report then it must be hiding something.

"Beg the Saudi Prince."

2009-04-02T10:42:00.002-04:00

"Second Front"
by John R. MacArthur

If the citizens of a civilized nation are shown the real picture of how and what the war exactly is, most likely, they all would call to disarm all military sectors, and take allegiance to never talk about war again. However, the governments cannot allow such notions to rest in the minds of all citizens, for if all citizens believe in "peace" and "no war," how will the government mobilise its citizens to rage a war against the enemy?

As Mr.MacArthur mentions in his book, that the Vietnam war was a war of its time. Fought far away from home, but allowed the press and journalist to bring back explicit war pictures, that showed dead American soldiers and laid out almost every dirty feature of the war. These War paparazzi did not hesitate to expose the truths of how the war is fought. Many claim that such news reports contributed to the failed military operation in Vietnam. So basically, the government learned from the Vietnam war, that journalists cannot be left alone to roam around the battlegrounds free of any protocols.

When the first Gulf War was authorized, the war specialists replayed the Vietnam war video, and captured the flaws, in which journalists were not controlled. This called for a system in which the government would "mobilise" the journalists. The government organized a system, in which "selected" journalists would be allowed at "selected" location to interview the "selected" troops. Besides this "pool system," getting into the Gulf area required the American journalist a visa, which the American government claimed that "they cannot do anything about." Especially at that time Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said that "Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, with its own rules," and that we cannot interfere in their visa system. (It is quiet fascinating how the government officials can at times call a nation "sovereign," and after a while, call for a social and political reform within that "sovereign" nation.) The journalists were now left at the grace of the Saudi prince, Bandar. They would visit his mansion in Virginia, only to beg for a visa to visit the gulf in order to inform the American citizens about what exactly was happening there.

The great informers (journalists) to the most democratic society decided to set their foot on the door step of a figure, who did not believe in a well-informed citizens theory. The irony was that a piece of democracy was being begged from a dictator or a royal figure who did not fully understand the concept of democracy. The directors and the orchestrator behind these scenes were the government officials of senior Bush. They purposely wanted the journalists to struggle with the visa system, for two reasons, one being that it would make it hard for them to reach the Gulf area, and second reason that MacArthur mentions is,

"it initiated a program of playing off the various media companies against
one another - newspaper against newspaper, network against network, and
television against print - all of whom were competing for the meager
carefully doled out table scarps to be known thereafter as access."
We have read several World War I and World War II readings, including the Spanish-American war, in which the government would use the journalist to mobilise the American citizens, and portray "journalism" as a way of informing citizens with the information they need. However, during the Gulf War era, the government used leaders of opposite ideals and principals to blockade an access to "information" for the same American journalists and news reporters.

Do Your Best....And Be At Your Best

2009-04-02T10:19:00.005-04:00

During World War II it was important for men, women, and children to be strong and healthy. There were two magazine articles named Do Your Best.....And Be At your Best from the Cosmopolitan magazine in 1943. Both of these articles advertised Listerine antiseptic for oral hygiene.

"On the production line, or in the home, wherever your serve, today you have an added obligation to "Do your best...Be at your best." America needs you to be strong as well. Now, of all times, it's your duty to care for yourself......for your country!!! Yes, America needs you healthy....but she also needs you cheerful, friendly, cooperative. So put on a smile."

The Lambert Pharmacal Company in St. Louis, Mo is using the war to help them advertise Listerine antiseptic for oral hygiene. Both of the articles puts emphasis on being healthy, strong, and cheerful. The article states "That putting a smile on your face will help you make new friends and cultivate your old friends." One of the pictures from the article shows a women smiling with four men surrounding her who are also smiling. It is obvious that all of the people advertised in that photo seem to be happy and look healthy with clean white teeth.

The article also states that" It is important to always have trustworthy antiseptic and germicide for prompt use in the thousand minor emergencies that continually arise." The message that they are trying to convey is that not only will this product keep your teeth clean and breath smelling fresh. It can possible save your life in regards to minor emergencies that may take place in and out of your household.

The article also states that " In the later years it has established a truly impressive record against America's No. 1 health problem. The ordinary cold, and its frequent attribute, sore throat." Having a bottle of Listerine antiseptic will keep people healthy, happy, and strong. The article made a small notice to the public stating that " Because of wartime restrictions you may not always be able to get Listerine antiseptic in your favorite size. However, we will make every effort to see that this trustworthy antiseptic is always available in some size at your drug store." They made sure that everyone regardless of their situation will have access to a bottle of Listerine antiseptic. It is obvious that the war was used to advertise Listerine antiseptic.

Attack attack IRAQ

2009-04-02T02:14:00.004-04:00

«We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy’s side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.»
— Walter Lippmann

The Gulf War was perhaps the most efficient war in American History, at least when considering the cost in American lives. It proved that U.S. technology and U.S. military doctrine is a potent force when applied to the world stage.

The Gulf War was given greater media coverage than any war ever before. There were twenty-four hour news coverage on some stations, regularly extended news bulletins on others, news which, unlike during the Vietnam War, was not a day old, but a couple of hours only, even just a few minutes. But the US authorities had learnt their lesson from Vietnam, in which television reporting and photographs of body bags was widely held to have turned public opinion against the war.

In the Gulf, the authorities adopted the 'pool system' which had been developed by the British for coverage of the Falklands conflict. There may have been over two thousand journalists in the Gulf, but only a few were selected by the military every day to visit selected positions under carefully controlled conditions, on their return 'pooling' their story with the others who had not been selected.

______
In the second chapter in John MacArthur's book Second Front, it says that the invading Iraqis ripped babies from their incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and left them to die. The story was a complete fabrication by the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, who were paid by the Kuwaitis to improve their image. The truth eventually became known, but by then Congress had held its vote.

Women's Movement and their influence on Propaganda

2009-04-01T22:44:00.003-04:00

While America was fighting overseas during the World War II, the only people that could work were the women. This was the beginning of what would become the Women's Movement. They took jobs that were once considered to be men's jobs. Women were foind in factories and steel mills. But would this have a negative effect on the country? Would we be considered weak if other countries realized that women were doing mens jobs?

"The campaign for women workers, therefore, was framed by a larger effort to persuade the civilian population that what happened on the home front was crucial for victory overseas. Given the relative isolation of Americans from battle and the fact that their country had not been bombed or invaded, the government feared the connection would not be made without clear, persistant, emotional appeals by the media for collective action and personal sacrifice." (Remembering Rosie, page 84)

During a time of war, Americans do not want the image of being cowardly. We did not want propaganda to say that women were capable of doing mens jobs. At that time, it was not proper for women to go back to work. But during World War II, women had no choice. The character of Rosie the Riveter was created. It will always be known as a symbol of women's rights.

Atrocities on the Innocent = Ratings.

2009-03-27T11:05:00.013-04:00

John R. Macarthur’s “Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War” mentions the corrupt behavior imposed on innocent civilians during wars. Women were mutilated, or raped like Belgian girls.

Al though it is no secret that being an innocent bystander can still put someone in danger, it is ethically incorrect for a journalist to not write stories from sources who do not give important details including last names, contact information, and an address. As a journalist, one must stick to several key principles in order to not lose credibility as a source of informing the public.

At the time of the Gulf War, a 15 year old volunteer in Kuwait known as “Nayirah,” told the press that Iraqi soldiers were pulling infants out of incubators, and then letting them die on the floor. (Page 58) The severity of the story, made it important to not forget any details that could lead to chaos, and possibly cost the career of the journalist, and reputation of the newspaper or publication company.

As several had speculated, it turns out that the story was fabricated, and the hospital volunteer worker was actually the daughter of Kuwait Royalty.

Chapter 2 of Macarthur's book also mentions how one reporter wrote a story that lists a source who went by the name "Cindy" and did not give away any other information including their last name, age, or address.

As a student whose written for journalism courses, I was always advised not to use sources or quote individuals that were not willing to give out their last name or contact information (to check accuracy of their story or arrange a future interview) because it is difficult to determine the "truth" behind their story.

No matter how much attention a story may receive for the content it contains, one should not focus solely on the "newsworthyness" of a story, because it will give them special recognition. It is worse to later find out that a previous controversial story was nothing but a series of lies or speculation, written for the purpose of making the "bad guy" appear much worse than they already do to the enemy overseas.

Defeating Barbarism with Dehumanization

2009-03-26T14:57:00.001-04:00

In Paul Fussell’s Wartime, Fussell notes that Americans were involved in some very shameful and inhumane practices during World War II. Besides a dirty war of words and imagery demonstrated through propaganda, American acts during the war proved that we were also fighting an extremely-foul war in the most literal sense; some soldiers were using body parts as souvenirs, and acceptably so, as “Japs” were not considered a human, or in other words a worthy “white man.” Fussell demonstrates this point, as well as the exact reasoning for dehumanization of the Japanese in the following quote:

“The Japs are like animals…They take to the jungle as if they had been bred there, and like some beasts you never see them until they are dead…What harm, then, in cleaning, polishing and sending home their animal skulls as souvenirs …(pg.116 - 117).”

For Americans, this point of definition of the enemy is a dangerous place to have arrived. As Americans, our mission more or less, was and still is, to save the world from inhumane politics and practices in societies of which we have been handed or rather, taken the “burden”. Yet, the example that the U.S. had set, especially at this most despicable moment of cruelty, by exploiting, dismembering and defiling other human beings, is not one of honorability and rationality, but of filth and brutality. The dehumanization of the Japanese went too far beyond persuasive words and catch-phrases, when soldiers sent home body parts as keep-sakes and this, speaks volumes about the malice of war where in the trenches, almost anything goes.

Women of America: Your Country Needs You

2009-03-26T13:44:00.003-04:00

Rosie the Riveter is an icon, representing American women who worked in war factories during World War II, these women took new jobs and sometimes the places of the male workers who were in the military. Conditions were sometimes harsh and pay was not always equal. Rosie the Riveter was a classic hero who helped set in motion the popular image of women in the work force during World War II. The surfacing of women doing a “man's” jobs led ultimately to the Women's Movement. There were huge campaigns of propaganda posters and flyers that went around supporting the idea of women entering the work place while men were away in the war.

The United States government initiated a nationwide propaganda campaign to assist in persuading people at home to do anything they could to help in the war effort; from buying war bonds to actually joining the military. The propaganda material included songs, films, flyers, and many posters. All these things gave emphasis to the importance to be nationalistic being positive towards the war. People developed hate toward the enemy; while the government was conveying messages of patriotism as well as suspicion, they were also transferring messages to women to take the place of the men who had left to help fight the war.

This image gave incite to so much interest in the women's labor force, that about six million women joined the work force and military while the war was going on. Even though there were many women in the work force, many jobs were chosen as "women jobs" such as secretaries’ clerks and teaching. The government then launched a campaign that, stressed the need for women to leave the work force and go back and tend to the home when the men returned. This was so the men could regain their jobs to avoid a depression. Although women were encouraged to give their jobs up they now knew and had the confidence to pursue careers outside the home.

-EF

Wartime Blunders

2009-03-26T13:12:00.000-04:00

In chapter three of Fussell’s “Wartime” the careless, ignorant, and embarrassing mistakes of world war two are discussed. Known as blunders, Fussell discusses the damaging and traumatic effects of friendly fire and fire on civilians. He states “the world survives only by assuming that error is not going to launch the rockets or detonate the hydrogen bomb” but in this chapter it is evident that there were tremendous and catastrophic errors. (Fussell, Wartime p. 26)

Arthur T. Hadley, who fought in a infantry unite, talks of how they “had shot down so many of our own planes that its antiaircraft machine guns all had little tags on their triggers saying: this gun will only be fired under command of an officer” (Fussell 22). It went beyond just the error of shooting down allied plains though; soldiers shot allies on the battle field, civilian cruise liners were sunk, insufficient technologies were being relied upon, and training errors resulted in mass causalities.

A majority of these errors resulting in death were simply written off as “killed in action”, Covered up to some degree and hushed by the military. Although in some cases it may have been necessary to cover up an accident that could reveal training tactics and war strategies, it is wrong to conceal an incident to save oneself of embarrassment. It makes you think how many more incidents caused by error occurred that were never revealed?

The "Good Life" in Post War America

2009-03-26T13:07:00.001-04:00

Chapter 15 of PR!, “Public Ultimatums” by Stuart Ewen discusses wartime advertising propaganda which depicted a product-defined vision of the American future. In October 1943, NAM leaders formed the Committee for Economic Development (CED) which designed “a post-war chart for American industry” (Ewen, 342). In effect, they worked to find jobs for former soldiers and help manufacturers sustain the highest level of employment and production as possible. To safeguard American business, NAM began to focus on lower class immigrant, instead of the middle class, since they were soldiers who would be returning to America from the war.

Businesses addressed these groups through wartime advertising. Companies produced public relations ads which emphasized corporate participation in the war effort and depicted pictures of postwar America as a society where modern appliances such as TV’s, washing machines, were the birthright of all Americans (Ewen, 343). Ads also used family images to promote consumption as the “good life” which would be easily attainable for all citizens after the war.

"The Remote-Controlled War"

2009-03-26T11:34:00.003-04:00

"Wartime"
Paul Fussell

The book "Wartime" by Paul Fussell, is a collection of the psychological behaviors of the second World War. In it, he discusses the initial mission and notion of the war, both from the American perspective and the British. He furthermore, discusses how the war transforms from "light to heavy duty." There is no doubt, that the government always likes to project war, as a quick and easy job, so that they can easily mobilize the citizens, who would go into the battlefields and fight the actual war. However, this campaign of "easy war" was strongly used in the Second World War. For example:

"At first everyone hoped, and many believed, that the war would be
fast-moving, mechanized, remote-controlled, and perhaps even rather easy. In 1940 Colonel William J. Donovan, later head of the American Office of Strategic Services, was persuaded, as he wrote in a pamphlet Should Men of Fifty Fight Out Wars?, that, instead of marching to war,
today's soldier rides to war on wheels." - Fussell, Pg. 3
This above paragraph quoted directly from Fussel's book, puts forth the initial
notion of what World War II would be like. The recruiting line was not just
"fight for your country," but rather "fight this war, for it is an easy job."
The entire campaign underestimated the complexity of the war. However, as time
went on, the Defense Department realized the seriousness of the war, as Fussel
explains:
"Still hidden in the future were Bataan and Guadalcanal, Saipan and Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Dieppe, Normandy, Cassino, and the virtual trench warfare of
the European Winter of 1944 - 45."
If one compares how the war strategies have changed during the American history, it would be quiet intriguing to see how the tactic of painting the war as "easy and quick," has been the paramount of the War strategists. The Vietnam were was also portrayed as a "quick and easy" job. Also, the current war in Iraq, was continually illustrated as a war that would be "easy." Furthermore, the government convinced the people, that America will be greeted as the "liberators." Unfortunately, just like any other previous wars, the government was dead wrong on selling both notions to the American people. In conclusion, it is significant to understand the phases of the war, and how propaganda plays a vital role in molding the minds of the citizens, for no war is "easy and quick." The government will always put it an "easy and quick" label on every war, for they are not the ones who fight on the grounds, it is the blood of young men and civilians that sheds throughout the war.

ENDING DISASTROUSLY !

2009-03-26T10:32:00.001-04:00

“ . . . . military bright ideas have a way of ending disastrously. “

This quote is certainly a true quote based on some of the examples in the chapter. For instance I recall the poorly made undersea pipeline to bring fuel to Normandy. It was a great idea but no one thought about what they should do if it had to be repaired underwater. This was very difficult to do in those days especially in the middle of a war! Even foolish little personal mistakes could end in disaster. It was very stupid for the young soldier written about in the article to put on an enemy uniform in the middle of a battlefield and then wave to his friends . . . from a distance! It is not surprising to the reader that he ended up being shot dead by the same friends he was joking around with and the pilot who used live bullets during a practice exercise almost killed friendly soldiers.

I was very interested in the poem at the beginning of the chapter. The book gives many reasons for disasters happening in the military like recognition problems, fear and bad planning. The last verse of the poem seems to identify the main reason why so many bright ideas end up disastrously:

Carentan O Carentan
Before we met you
We never yet had lost a man
Or known what death can do.

This is the way it is with wars in history everywhere in the world. The people who fight them are young and inexperienced. They have no practice at fighting a real war. Before their first battle they have never lost one of their group. Today, for instance, a young man’s only experience with combat may be in video games where the dead guys get up and fight again the next time you play the game and the hero kills a hundred men without ever getting hurt themselves. When this mindset is carried over by inexperienced soldiers into battle they surely are in danger of turning bright ideas into disasters! The young soldier who put on an enemy uniform in the middle of a battlefield is an excellent example of the consequences of the lack of experience that most soldiers bring into the real war they are fighting. Not every military situation can be resolved so easy as they are solved in video games and the movies.

Emotional War Copy

2009-03-26T10:22:00.005-04:00

During World War II, there were different techniques that were created to help fund the war. One technique that was developed was the use of War bonds. War bonds were what the people could buy that would help with the expenses of the war. These too, like any other product, needed advertisements.

There was language used in many of these advertisements that could make one wonder whether the company was pushing the use of emotional language to get the attention of the reader. In EMOTIONAL WAR COPY (based on an interview by G. A. Nicolas with Clyde Bedell, sales manager, The Fair, Chicago), the author describes why the company used such language in their advertisements. “If emotional advertising copy is not very -good it is very bad. It either grabs right hold of the heart and impresses the mind – or is sickly, sloppy of mawkish” (EMOTIONAL WAR COPY).

An organization was created in Chicago to regulate the advertisements used in their media. They were called the Chicago Retail Merchants Association. They decided the type of language that should be used in these ads. They also decided the most effective set up for these advertisements. The ads would start off with a very moving story such as a letter from a soldier to his mother while he was away at war. This took up about ¾ of the page and then towards the bottom would be where they would ask for the support of the people. The Chicago Retail Merchants Association thought “readers who didn’t care to finish the copy after starting it, might logically, after wondering what it was all about, glance toward the bottom and see another starting point and thus get the burden of the message there.”

Clyde Bedell, who was the Chairman of the Chicago Retail Merchants Association, was also the author of How to Write Advertising That Sells. “After two advertisements had appeared, an agency principal saw Mr. Bedell at a country club and belligerently said the copy was entirely counter to all the theories expounded in his book” (EMOTIONAL WAR COPY).

Is it that the war causes the public to be viewed differently? Would everyone be moved by these sad emotional stories and would this lead them to automatically purchase these bonds? These advertisements were basically insulting the intelligence of the public. Bedell wrote a book on advertising so he knew how to approach the public, “It is far more important to know your prospect than your product. If you know human nature you can sell anywhere and almost anything” (Bedell, How to Write Advertising That Sells). However, he went against his beliefs to get a sale. Though the campaign was success there is no way to measure if it was because of these adds.

"Precision Bombing," what an Oxymoron

2009-03-24T12:23:00.002-04:00

Fussell opens up chapter 2, of Wartime, with saying it was a natural thing to believe in a panacea for the war, when in actuality, there is none except for more men to be killed. Though, Americans believed that the "technological expedients" would be a remedy for winning the war. The introduction of the B-17 the Flying Fortress, a precision instrument, was "the mightiest bomber ever built" and was "equipped with the incredible acurate Norden bomb sight, which hits a 25 foot circle from 20,000 feet."

However, this precision instrument could have been more precise. The whole notion of these planes being able to fly great altitudes during the day, would "make daylight raids with a greater margin of safety than any other bombin plane" but Americans couldn't have been more wrong. These planes had "the poorest target yet developed." The fact that these bombings proved to be entirely inaccurate.

"Precision bombing" became to be known as an oxymoron within the the air force, as well as humorous. But the humor was not seen nor undestood by the people at home reading in Life or The Saturday Evening Post.

The Allies and the Germans were both horrible at precision bombing, however, the Germans were the first to propagate the belief that they could hit any target they set forth. The American air forces were slow into catching on to this propaganda, up until the practicing of "area bombing."

After the introduction of "area bombing" more and more targets were hit, such as Buckingham Palace, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Area Bombing Will Win the War

2009-03-24T10:50:00.002-04:00

In chapter 2 of Paul Fussell's Wartime!, he explores how B-17's and their precision bombing was immediately tailored to the masses as the ultimate weapon that would win the war and prove that American ingenuity and technology would prevail. Amongst it's proposed merits was "the incredibly accurate Norden bomb sight, which hits a 25-foot circle from 20,000 feet." Unfortunately, this was not always the case.

In actuality, high altitude bombers, both Allied and Axis aircraft had been terribly varied in their accuracy. Ironically, media and survivors had more to do with keeping up the idea of the accuracy of the bombers than the pilots and bombardiers themselves. Many stray bombs were labeled direct hits by the victims of the blunders.

While many military officials, as told by Fussell, refused to believe the reports that were contrary to the operational claims, the inaccuracy of bombers and the cold, hard facts were not lost on an important few: Robert Oppenheimer, William "Deak" Parsons, and the Ordnance Division at the Los Alamos Labs.

In an article called The Rules of Civilized Warfare, Sean L. Malloy traces the development of the atomic bomb. From the very beginning, the issue of targeting ability was addressed, if not by Washington then by engineers. While various delivery methods were explored at first, a high altitude bomber at 30,000 feet was eventually decided on. The bomber, a B-29, was allowed 10,000 extra feet in order to give it a chance to escape the air-burst weapon that would be the most powerful ever seen.

The actual target itself was also determined by factors of the high altitudes bombing shortcomings. While a strictly military target would have been ethically advantageous, it was decided that in order to ensure success of the 2 billion dollar (in 1940's dollars!) top secret project, a large target needed to be used: cities that surrounded military interests with the center of the city being the ground zero.

Lastly, Fussell reminds us that even though rationalist praised the accuracy of the bombers, he also states that "man did not control wind direction and force." A testament to this is the fact that the city of Kokura has been sparingly forgotten in history. On August 9, 1945, pilot Charles Sweeney of the B-29 'Bock's Car' proceeded on his bombing run with Kokura as the primary target. By luck of fate, fires in the nearby town of Yawata had lingered across the land and obscured the city, forcing Sweeney and his atomic payload 'Fat Man' to proceed to the secondary target:

Nagasaki.

Negative Profiling

2009-03-22T14:22:00.002-04:00

All stereotypes are bad, there is no such thing as a negative stereotype. Even if someone would say that an ethnic group is smart, it is profiling the individual before you know anything about them. This practice has been going on for too long. Even today, racial slurs are being uttered. Some believe that we do this to separate race and religion.

While America was at war with Japan during the second World War, American soldiers put everyone into categories, even American civilians. Civilians couldn't understand what the soldiers were going through, so they were "foreigners". The Japanese, or Japs, were looked at as an animal. This type of propaganda was used to make the American soldiers to hate the Japanese enemies and have one common goal.

"Because they were animals, Japanese troops had certain advantages over Americans. They could see in the dark, it was believed, and survive on diet of roots. The very tiny-ness of the Japanese was another reason for contempt. They were little the way insects and rodents are little--little but nasty." (Paul Fussell, Wartime, page 119)

While at war, we had similar feelings toward the Germans. Although we weren't directly at war with them, the Americans were alittle more passive with them. They were human beings, but a cold and sinister type of person. We knew they could not be trusted because they were in alliance with the "rodent-like" Japanese.

Type-casting is somewhat childish. America was one little kid, Japan was another and the world was the playground. By using this type of propaganda that Japan was of another species, it raised American morale. We even do this today. Because of the trouble we are having in the Middle East, we are quick to judge someone of that heritage. This is an ongoing problem that I do not see ever getting resolved.

The Politics of War

2009-03-19T13:58:00.012-04:00

In the reading Remembering Rosie: Advertising Images of Women in World War II, Author Maureen Honey describes her take on the War and what inspired the propaganda that became the machinery of WWII. During WWII, America was faced with a conflict at home and abroad. To launch an attack against Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, America needed to mass produce war material in order to effectively head into a war. The problem that the country would face was the need for bodies to produce these materials during a time of "labor shortages". With this conflict at hand, the nation would then go into "full propaganda mode" to play off the emotions of the American people and create a space for everyday Americans to contribute to the war effort.

"It was thought that propaganda could help the government control public responses"

With major social factors such as segregation looming over the American culture in many aspects of American life (military, restaurants, schools, neighborhoods as well as women's roles in the culture), Honey points out how It became a challenge for the nation to sell this war to the population of the nation that were considered left out. The government used their power of persuasion to persuade Americans to support the war not only through the loss of lives in battle, but by standing up and sharing the burden on American soil.

What was interesting to me is how before the war, Certain segments were unaccepted in American society but when it came to finding people ready to sacrifice their lives, the nation called for these individuals aid. Especially when looking at women and their already subordinate roles in the culture as mothers and wives, now being instrumental parts of the war movement at home. Their contribution during this war may be forgotten by many when put in context of the war itself but history cannot forget their story.

What Are You Gonna Buy When You Get Home?

2009-03-19T13:58:00.005-04:00

War affects consumer trends greatly. The advent of the radio, subsequent advertising, and possibly the modern era of consumer communication stemmed from returning G.I.'s from WWI and the technology they had used. Spam, the famous mystery meat, held a special place in the hearts of the boys that got used to eating it in the trenches. When the soldiers of the 20th century came home, they kept some of their uniform items with. Such is the birth of the popularity of the plain white t-shirt.

In WWII though, companies and advertisers had a unique dilemma: how do you sell something which you can't make to people who can't buy it?

You advertise the intention. In this respect, advertisers we're not only advertising a product to buy, but a vision of America that the G.I.'s were fighting for and the rest of the country was sacrificing for. As Stuart Ewen explains in chapter 15 of his book PR!, the "shortage of consumer goods ... made product advertising pointless." Instead advertisers choose to advertise themselves as an intracle part of what would be post-war America.

Speaking from personal experience, I can attest to the stories of service members and one of their great past times being speaking about what they will do when they get home. As a member of the USS Enterprise, I knew well in advance what the first things I would do, eat, and buy would be when I returned to home port.

This assertion by corporations to sell themselves as essential and deserved pieces of American life would be effective both to the American public and on an international level. Nearly a decade and a half later, this "wondrous and critical" technologies would take center stage in the famed "Kitchen Debate" between then Vice-President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. In it, modern conveniences such as dishwashers and Cadillac were on display, prompting the Russian head of state to grow angry at the display of American consumer technology dominance.

The Role of Advertising During War

2009-03-19T13:29:00.002-04:00

Opportunity! By W. J. Weir 1942

In W. J. Weir's Opportunity!, he describe ed the importance of advertising especially during war time. According to Weir, there are many uses for war and he believed that advertising could be used to help win the war. Winning the war would help boost people's belief in the American dream. At that time the most important thing was winning the war. Weir felt that advertising was as important as all the raw materials that are used during war time.

"Advertising has become a skilled worker out of a job. Oh, certain jobs
have been created for him, jobs to help keep himself fed, to give him something
to do. They're called "institutional" jobs."
Although Weir saw how important advertising was, he felt as though it wasn't being taken advantage of as it should have been. Weir explains that if anything the country can sell victory. This would boost the spirits of the society.

World War New

2009-03-19T12:01:00.000-04:00

In Chapter one of Paul Fussel’s “Wartime” he talks of the Second World War and how it marked the era of a new type of war. One that inevitably forced the old trends and old ways of thinking out no matter how reluctant both civilians and military personal were in letting go of their image of war. This change did not come right away though. “Wars are all alike in the beginning. The reason is psychological and compensatory: no one wants to foresee or contemplate the horror, the inevitable ruin of civilized usages, which will entail. Hence the defensive exercise of the optimistic imagination” (Fussel, Wartime p. 10)

This “optimistic imagination” played a huge role in how people viewed the war both strategically and insightfully. Looking back on the war one would almost laugh at the fact that in 1942 a colonel “pounded the table” and said “Goddam it, they’ll never retake a square foot until they get our men down there on horses and donkeys”. This quote seems like it was taken from the civil war rather than the Second World War which ended up relying on technical advances over anything else.

On the opposite end of the spectrum there was also people questioning whether those over fifty should fight since “instead of marching to war, today’s soldier rides to war on wheels”. Eventually those whose thoughts were naive were forced to rap there head around a new type of war. The military was required to change their tactics, strategies, and in some cases even their morality. If anything was proven from the war it was that war is unpredictable, one cannot rely on old ways of thinking in a new war.

Esquire's Blonde Bombshells; the True War Heroes

2009-03-19T11:51:00.002-04:00

In a 1943 Esquire Magazine advertisement the wording is very manipulative in how it works to persuade females that they need to look like the women in their magazine, in order to be patriotic.

"For the faces once seen in Esquire become a part of the dream-stuff of our fighting foes, all over the world. And what more natural, than that fighting men should dream of fair women, as they always have and will? And what finer role for an American girl than to go along, in the good companionship of the mind, to share with a million men the ardors and endurances of histories greatest ordeal?"

This quote can make the average young female feel like they need to buy Esquire Magazine in order to see what the "dream look" is. It also makes them feel like they need to look the part of these Esquire pin up girls in order to please the troops fighting over seas. It makes females feel like they shuold look good for the men that are out there risking their lives ( It's the least they could do).

This advertisement does a good job of picking at the insecurities of females and making them feel like they need to look better. What better way to get females to buy your magazine than making them feel like they're being patriotic by doing it?

"This face will be seen, remembered, evoked and evolved into an ideal, by boys in base hospitals, on lonely watches, on far-off outposts, in deserts and jungles, and on unfamiliar oceans. For this girl's imagined approval, a million braver deeds will be done."

They use examples of distant and lonely places to gain the sympathy of these emotional females. Im guessing that Esquire wanted females to send in their pictures for the troops overseas because they're making it seem as if the troops are the only ones looking at these magazines. They use wording that states by the females looking the part a million braver deeds will be done by the troops.

It amazes me how one could think that by them being a little sex kitten their troops will fight harder. But I guess when you're trying to target a certain audience you will use any techniques you can find. This ad places great emphasis on how their magazine is read by fighting troops, and they are the best men. So women should want to look good for the best men.

Fighting troops have the right to dream about beautiful women, so a woman should feel honored to take on this role (sarcasm ends here).

"Triump of the Will"

2009-03-19T11:06:00.002-04:00

"Triumph of the Will."
An Extraordinarily directed movie!

The movie that we watched in class "Triumph of the Will," deserves a brief analysis, for evey second of the movie consisted of a large message not only for the Germans, but for the entire world. The movie starts with Hitler on a plane flying up in the sky, this symbolized how Adolf Hitler was coming down from the heavens to save Nuremberg and the entire nation of Germany.

Later in the movie, the most emotional and thought provoking scenes were the speeches given by prominent leaders, including Hitler. After viewing the whole movie and the speeches given by the leaders and watching the young men of Germany standing firm to the words of Hitler, it brings back the question of "Did Hitler really brain-wash the Germans?" - Many reply "that Hitler in fact led a campaign in which he brainwashed the entire German public, and that he somehow just hypnotized the entire nation, and made them into some sort of robots who blindly followed him."

The entire above answer, completely underestimates Hitler's campaign and it diminishes the complexity of the whole tactic. For Hitler did not brainwash the Germans, and the movie itself shows that: Throughout the movie all Hitler did was give speeches and speeches, that provoked almost even young men and women. He laid out the entire plan in his speeches for Germany and the German people. There was no hypnotizing nor any sort of brainwashing in which through which he acquired the consent of the Germans.

Therefore, the movie is a great propaganda that the Nazi party used. However, the movie indirectly shows how each and every German was also part of this campaign. They knew what they were going into. The cheers and screaming of the German people after very sentence that Hitler uttered, gave evidence to the very fact, that ALL GERMANS were ready to move forth with the Nazi Party.

In conclusion, the movie leaves no aspect untouched, for it was inundated with patriotic speeches and symbolism - that promised each and every German, a bright and prosperous future!

"Do Your Best... Be At Your Best".

2009-03-19T02:07:00.006-04:00

There were three primary ways that women contributed to the war efforts, and which media promoted through advertisements, handbills and movie shorts. The first was in association with the military when women filled military jobs left open by the draft.

The second was the farm women and housewives who fought the war from their kitchens and gardens. Labour that was promoted especially with the Victory posters.

The third way that women contributed was their work in the heavy industries. The media embodied women in the famous illustration: "Rosie the Riveter''. Although women had worked in factories since they had been founded in the early nineteenth century, a gender-segregated labor market channeled women into jobs then considered more appropriate to their presumed skills.

As an international student, I'd like to compare it with Russian war propaganda. In Soviet advertising, women were shown fighting side by side with the men. And there were also many images of women, doing men's jobs, while the men where out in war. One could say that it was comparable to feminism – the thought that women should have the same rights and not only be stuck in the kitchen.

Thus, during World War II, «…women become the chief iconographic deliverers of this exhortation, and the woman war worker, in particular, was the principal symbol of national unity and industrial mobilization» (Remembering Rosie: Advertising Images of women in WWII, Maureen Honey).

THE SAME STORY IS REPEATING ITSELF!

2009-03-18T00:12:00.001-04:00

The “Greater Good” was an interesting document to read for a number of reasons. Chapter 12 is almost a parallel of the current economic disaster that the United States is facing. Now as back then financial leaders are taking an arrogant attitude toward the public. For instance I read in Chapter 12:

“…Edgerton confided to the National Association Of Manufacturers (NAM) member that homeless and jobless Americans had only themselves to blame for their predicament. Their cruel conditions he instructed, were simply the result of their not having dutifully practiced ‘habits of thrift and conservation.’ “

This is exactly the current problem of the United States when big banks began to sell houses to the people that could not afford to buy one. Most of these companies wanted to make more money and so they were willing to sell as many houses as possible to anybody who wanted one. For that reason a lot of people are having problems making the payments for their house. In most cases the majority of the people are loosing their houses and there is nothing the government can do about it. The banks are saying the borrowers are to blame but no matter how unrealistic the borrowers were in what they thought they could afford, it was the banks that gave them the money even though the banks had the possibility to find out if a borrower could afford to pay. The banks could have stopped this from happening but were more interested in making money than in the “ public good “.

Then Stuart Ewen added:

“Amid widespread economic distress, pronouncements such as this only quickened the spread of anti-business feeling…”

This is a case where the public turned against big business because of its arrogance. We see the same things happening today not because of what business is saying but because of what it is doing. The current uproar over the AIG bonuses is only one part of the reaction against the crazy amount of money financial executives are trying to take for themselves even when they are ruining their companies. The public is very angry!

Once again the public is so untrusting of business that the public does not want to be involved in business. People were hurt in 1929 and they are being hurt again today. The author said:

“ Beneath the surface of these statistical catastrophes, the human toll is enormous. “

This quote has a very contemporary sound in a year when people are loosing their homes, retirement and life savings because of greedy businessmen, horribly incompetent CEOs and the government, which was not paying attention.

BOMBS AWAY!!

2009-03-15T11:04:00.002-04:00

Technological advances have been made over the course of time. Telephones, computers, televisions and radio are a few examples of what we have accomplished. But we have invented alot of bad and evil inventions over this period. Bombs were created to take a large portion of a country or an enemy "off the gridlock."

Precision bombing became a tool for the ultimate weapon. But this tactic wasn't perfected for a long time. They started by flying over seven miles, but it was a poor target for bombing populated areas. Flying of the planes were incorrect and it even cost many lives.

"One memorable ironic action occured on May 10, 1940, when a Luftwaffe squadron, setting out to bomb Dijon, by some error dropped its load on its own civilians in Freiburg-im-Breisqua killing fifty seven of them. (Faswell, Wartime, page 14)

Propagandists had a different theory. They believed that it was not an accident. Bombers could precisely hit wherever they aimed at. Weather, wind and other natural cause could not alter the position of the bomb. So was this a plot to raise morale for ones country?

Like many people say, "Countries come together in a time of crisis." During 9/11, Americans were in disbelief about what was happening. But the day after, there were flags on everyones house. If we could use these bombs in our advantage, the Americans would waste no time. And thats exactly what we did.

"Vogue's Eye View"

2009-03-12T16:46:00.005-04:00

Vogue Magazine was published in 1892 by Arthur B. Turnure. For years Vogue's consumer population was very low. However, things changed during WWII, because ads placed in newspapers and magazines, such as Vogue were needed to support the war and to change the lifestyles of women from every area in America.

Vogue being well known by upper-class women, for their elite taste on fashion and lifestyle in order to create that Vogue woman; WWII was a great opportune time to spread their knowledge of media propaganda to upper-class women to support the war, take care of home, and look good while doing it!

In the article entitled "Vogue's Eye View Of A Woman's Weapons", really showed the lifestyles of how women should live during the war. What I liked about the article was that the Vogue's ideal woman had weapons of her own at the time.

"I am a woman, and I have two major weapons. I have my hands. I have my heart." ( Condenast Publications, Vogue 1942)

With these two weapons she could do it all, cook, clean, fix a car, take out the garbage, and be a good wife, while her husband was at war. This article also showed a sense of equality towards women because, their role of being a stay at home mom had changed. Vogue's ideal woman took on the manly duties because no one else could.

This article was issued to utilize media propaganda to have the Vogue woman support the war and to mold them into a new lifestyle of independence.

Todays Freedom

2009-03-12T14:53:00.002-04:00

This ad, struck me in a way where i felt offended. I don't think his was a powerful ad. Maybe it had a mark around the time it was first produced, however if this ad was put in one of today's magazines or newspapers. I don't think it would have a pleasant response from the citizen's of today's America.

Hopefully, I wouldn't see a list of dead ad wounded soilder, because that's an intimate subject among their family members however, if I were to see one, my prayers go out to them, their family and friends.

...You may think i take my "freedom" for granted, I don't. I do realize and understand people from all over the world fight to come and reside in America. But I also know that since we live in America other Americans, who aren't "at the front" have no business asking me "what did [I] do for freedom?" knowing well off that they sure didn't commit a Nobel Prize to save a life, or start up any "Citizens Service Corp."

A Crises Is A Terrible Thing to Waste

2009-03-12T14:06:00.003-04:00

In David Boaz's article "Obama's Shock Doctrine," he likens the current activity of government spending and expansion over the market to what Naomi Klein described in her book of the same name as Shock Doctrine. In her book, she claims that government conservatives have successfully used times of war and economic crises to ram through policies of free market. In Boaz's article he claims that same strategy is being used by democrats and liberals in the current economic crises. He ultimatly contends that Obama is using this crises to "ram through a progressive agenda."

As this modern day depression carries on, the current administration has passed a stimulus bill for over 700 billion dollars, have nationalized some of the countries largest financial institutions and made wards out of large corporations. As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stated, "You never want a serious crises to go to waste." This administrations attempts to expand the government is not without precedent.

Historian Rick Perlstein said that during FDR's first hundred days he "hurled down executive orders and legislative proposals like thunderbolts." He also noted that Roosevelt did not stop for almost four years. As the attempts to solve the crises carry on, Obama's administration has already exceeded that of New Deal spending and although a confident front is being provided by President Obama, a skeptical public is anxious to see the results of the spending and the reform they expect, even when both were said to be slow to show.

Obama has faced almost unanimous opposition from the Republican Party on his plans making it even more essential that he be able to keep a worried public calm, and more importantly patient if his plans have any chance to succeed.

War-time advertising

2009-03-12T14:05:00.006-04:00

Advertisement is considered to be one of the greatest inventions of the United States, that undoubtedly changed the whole world. The famous sociologist Andrew Hacker called advertisement 'the most important instrument in the country' (Hacker, 1997). In general, advertisement is considered to be a phenomenon of the 20th, century.

Having fought in the 1930's with the consumer movement, the advertisement industry saw new beginnings with the start of the Second World War. Due to the lack of products available on the consumer market, the government decided to the help of the advertisement industry. The setup of an advertisement agency, participation of government in the development of advertising companies, and other measures taken at this time, all helped in the creation of a successful PR campaign aimed at the formation of a stronger advertisement industry within the United States. The advertisement agency is considered the most successful instrument of this PR campaign, as with its help the advertisement industry was able to reduce its tax burden, create a positive image of it, and hide its deficiencies from the public, while as create a strong connection with both the politicians and the general public.

The work of the Advertisement companies during the years of the war helped in the creation of a patriotic image of the advertisement industry in the eyes of the populous. Thanks to the Advertisement Comity, the Second World War strengthened the position of the advertisement industry both in politics and in the hearts of the population.

King Consumer

2009-03-12T13:50:00.002-04:00

In Ewen's PR!, Public Ultimatums describes the renewed found confidence in American Business . There was a sense of cautious optimism, similar to the First World War; there was a significant amount using the propaganda campaign with writers, broadcasters, moviemakers, publicists and other media experts. During the postwar era businesses wanted to wake the American people. They addressed people by using wartime advertising. They needed to gain the loyalty of workers was very important in Big businesses while regaining the control and direction of American society. Without a doubt the strength of America’s corporate economy in the late forties created welfare capitalist programs health care privately. There was an attack on the New Deals principals America experienced an economic explosion which supported big business and have the ability to provide meaningful business opportunity and government funded programs. The shift was evident in the forties, private builders and real estate interest crafted a big PR campaign against federally sponsored housing programs. During the post war period great change had taken place class conflict had become out dated.

“People in “moderate income families” the magazine tooted, had radios; electric sewing machines; refrigerators; vacuum cleaners; automobiles; insurance; medical, dental, surgical, and hospital care; and so forth….it is perfectly evident from the above list, that it is not the capitalist who are using the people, but the people who are using the capitalists.” (p. 372 PR!)

Corporations focused on financial gains, “American consumers had become kings and queens and corporations, their humble servants.” (p.372 PR!)
-EF