A Perfect Candidate Wrap-up (Week 6)

So last week I wanted to know whether the editing crew had anything to do with my emotions towards either candidate. As far as I noticed, there wasn't really that much that the editors did to tweak the movie in either direction. The film was different from Bowling for Columbine in the sense that the footage was uncut and raw. However, we still don't always see both sides of the issue in the movie. It's of no fault to the producers; it would just be too difficult to document Senator Robb's side of every issue along with North's. Other than that, all the fallacies and propaganda displayed in the film was expressed directly from the candidates rather than the producers of the film.

This week we wrapped up A Perfect Candidate and discussed more in-depth some of the techniques used by the candidates to gain votes. We also discussed the idea of a real perfect candidate and why they don't exist. The main thing we looked at throughout the week was the principles of political propaganda as we analyzed the final moments of Oliver North's campaign. The main appeal North tried to exert through his entire campaign was the appeal to the common man, or the "plain folks appeal". such is apparent at picnics, in commercials, and in sanctuaries, where North tries to blend in with the average Joe through physical appearance and religious standpoints. Another very common form of propaganda used throughout the film was name calling. Whether it was Robb and North going back and forth at a debate or Robb's spiel at the end of the movie, the candidates often spoke negatively about each other more frequently than they actually talked about the issues.

Less common, but still effective, was the use of transfer. The best example was Robb's campaign tying North to racism because a former Klan leader "like some of his ideas". It sounds ridiculous to tie the two together, but as the polls show, it works. This one stuck out the most for me because it seemed like the least common and the harshest. It's a direct attack on a candidate by linking them to something completely irrelevant. The average American might completely miss the manipulation behind these statements. Although it's not used very often in the movie it can be seen all the time on telivision during a political race. I see Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell use it all the time in their political ads.

As we move forward in our discussion of political propaganda, I'd like to pay more attention to the propaganda that is used by the candidates for governor. How often is it evident? What types of propaganda do they use? Is it effective? My hope is that the project assigned for Friday will help answer some of these questions.

Sources:

A Perfect Candidate Cover. Photograph. Jason O'Mahoney. Web. http://jasonomahony.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/a-perfect-candidate.jpg.

Senator Robb Portrait. Photograph. Salon.com. Web. .

Moore No More (Week 5)

So last week we finished up on our study of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. While wrapping up the blog, the question I wanted to know was whether these techniques would be used in Michael Moore Hates America. Unfortunately, I thought we would be starting that documentary this week, but that wasn't the case. I was too afraid that I would spoil the movie if I went digging around looking for answers to the question, but I did find this interesting video.

Anyways, this week we started looking at the other side of propaganda, through the film A Perfect Candidate. The movie tackles a more conservative view point than what we've been looking at recently, but more interesting is the way the film is presented compared to the works of Michael Moore. It focuses on the way Oliver North uses persuasive techniques on his audiences rather than having a narrator persuade the viewer. The film explicitly uses raw footage, where as Moore would provide commentary, background music, and soundbites to get his point across. The point of A Perfect Candidate is more to document the campaigning process than to persuade the viewer in any direction.

That being said, there is still a variety of fallacies and propaganda to be found throughout the film. Most notable is North's appeal to the common man. He's provided a few examples so far, but most notable is when he hosts a picnic in all casual attire and even shows off his skills with a gun. He's trying to appeal to folks by showing them that he's just like them, which is not the case. Politicians try desperately to relate back to the common man, when in reality, they have very little in common.

Another good example is North's testimony in church. The way he words his testimony makes it sound like he's struggled with difficult obstacles and forced to unjustly serve two years in prison for a what he believed wasn't a crime. His wording created an emotion of pity among his audience, even though he's not this innocent, average American. He lied to the US government and embezzled money, yet he believed that because his intentions were innocent, his actions were justified. Religion also plays a large role in this public facade he puts on. As seen in the political debate as well as the aforementioned testimony, North makes it appear that he holds religion at the forefront of his political campaign. Now I'm not saying that's entirely an act as well, but he certainly makes his religious standpoints clear.

North is also quick to jump on other candidates for hiding parts of their personal lives from the public. He makes Chuck Robb look like an unfit candidate for senator because he's not trustworthy. The irony behind this is that North lied to the entire country and even put lives at stake, but is attacking this man for keeping a mistress a secret. The only viable argument he has in this situation is that the Iran-Contra Scandal was in the past, and we need to move on and look at the present. Does this justify his attacks on Robb? No.

After looking back on it, I realized that I really only paid attention to the fallacies that North was committing. I wasn't paying any attention to any specific editing techniques. This week I'd like to pay a little more attention to see if the editing crew has any effect on the viewers' opinions of North. Is this a legitimate documentary or are there some techniques in the same vein as Michael Moore?

Sources:
Oliver North, Iran-Contra Scandal. Photograph. Scrape TV News. Web. .

Perfect Candidate. Photograph. Actual Reality Pictures. Web. .

Stewart, Jon. The Daily Show Episode #9002 (7/7/04). Television.

Bowling for Columbine End Credits (Week 4)

Last week I ended the blog asking what the general public's opinion on Michael Moore was. Is he saint? Is he the devil? I've already formed my own opinion on him, so I wanted to see what people outside of the classroom thought of him (those who don't have a teacher pointing out all of his fallacies). I found an online poll that was pretty evenly split down the middle. I decided to ask the same question on yahoo answers. I was hoping that the question would get a few hits. Unfortunately, it looks like if the question isn't about Michael Jackson, nobody on Yahoo! Answers cares. The general consensus seems to be a pretty even split, with political parties not really playing a huge role in opinions. Liberals that have really taken the time to analyze his works have a negative opinion on him, and some conservatives think his movies are clever. When I looked on the internet to get some more opinions, the search was just too vague to yield any usable results.

Okay, so this past week we finally wrapped up Bowling For Columbine. What stuck out the most during the final scenes was Mr. Moore's interview with Charlton Heston. A year after the interview, Heston was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, still prior to the release of the film. During the interview, Moore twists Heston's words in different ways, at one point making Heston looking like a racist pig. The movie fails to state at any point Heston's large involvement in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. The questions asked were mainly rhetorical or worded in such a way to even confuse the most prepared interviewee. After previously answering Moore several times, Heston still finds himself being asked "why we were the only country that kills each other at such a large capacity with guns." Not only is the question a fallacy of a complex question (Moore assumes that Heston agrees that there is a large level of violence because he answered the question), but he also asks it multiple times until he gets a controversial answer.

Another scene that stuck out was when Moore went to K-Mart with two victims of the Columbine Massacre. It was probably one of the most blatant examples of the Guerrilla Interview expressed in the film. Moore and the students entered K-Mart headquarters unannounced demanding to see the president of the company. When a manager stepped in the line of fire, she found herself unprepared to answer any of Moore's questions. Although she handled the situation at hand as logically and as well as she could, the interview still made her look bad, which was Moore's main goal in the first place. A day later, when Moore returns with the media and a van full of ammunition, K-Mart felt obligated to issue a public statement. The vice-president barely started her statement before Moore kept interupting her with ambiguitious statements that were only meant to confuse her and make him look good.

Now that we're done with Michael Moore's side of this study, I'm interested to find out what the opposite side is like. Will the director of Michael Moore Hates America use the same techinques we just witnessed in Bowling for Columbine? Will he fall into the same usage of manipulation that he's pointing out and disproving? Hopefully not, but we'll have to wait to find out.

Sources:

Cooper, Scott. "What do you think of Michael Moore?" Yahoo! Answers - Home. Web. 11 Oct. 2009. .

Michael Moore and Pizza. Photograph. Photobucket. Web. http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20moore%20sucks/Opinionnation/michael-moore-pizza.jpg.

"Poll: What is your opinion on Michael Moore?" City-data.com. Web. http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/92008-poll-what-your-opinion-michael-moore.html.

Week 3 at a glance

So, last week we talked about more media fallacies and the beginning of Bowling for Columbine. The topic got me wonder how many times fallacies lead to civil court cases. Looking at Moore in general, there are quite a few google results. As it turns out, Mr. Moore is a pretty popular regular within the lawsuit community. Michael is pretty infamous for skewing facts and misquoting people, so what you probably don't understand is why he keeps winning these civil cases. The problem is, he's technically not altering anything anyone has said, nor is he lying about information. The reason the cases against Moore never hold up in court is because what he's doing isn't wrong. From a moral standpoint, yes. But from a political standpoint, he hasn't committed any crimes. Every clip he uses has really been spoken by the plaintiffs, but he has been in the business long enough to know how to manipulate what is said into what he wants to be said. Confused? It's simple, because he never changes what is said, only the context, there is no case against him. As far as his bogus statistics go, he always makes them so broad that it could be argued either way.

Michael has set a precedent for other civil suits, including the many civil cases against Sacha Baron Cohen, creator of Borat. Countless people that appeared in his film claimed that he tricked them into believing that he was from Kazakhstan. Although this statement may be true, what saved Cohen from losing these cases was the fact that the plaintiffs had each signed a waver that was cleverly disguised as a Kazakhstan TV show permission form. if the plaintiffs had actually read the paperwork, they would've know what they were in for. There are countless other examples, but I'll spare you the frustration and move on.

This week we focused primarily on one clip of Bowling For Columbine, the Wonderful World montage. At first glance, the U.S. looks like an awful country that hides more from us than we realize. However, when we analyzed each event individually, the class realized that the captions under each clip weren't as truthful as one might think. When first watching it, you don't have enough time to think about one of the captions before he moves on to his next point. This form of manipulation is also prevalent in the segment A Brief History of the United States of America. When we took the time to actually analyze each event in history, they weren't quite the way Moore described them. For example one of the captions states: "U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed." The fallacy in this statement is that the 200,000 civilians were killed within the 4 decades of fascist leadership that followed the overthrow of Arbenz. If you didn't do your research though, you probably would've assumed their deaths were a direct result of the CIA sponsored Coup.

As we discussed the clips in more depth, it seemed to be a very common pattern throughout the montage. In fact, the more time discussing just this segment in class, the less respect I had for Michael Moore. This got me thinking. Even though I lean more towards the right, do any leftists share my opinion? This week I'd like to do some research to see what the general opinion is on this radical liberal. He's won plenty of awards, and a large amount of people go see his films, but what is the general opinion on him? How many people take the time to see through his manipulation?

Sources:

A Brief History of the United States of America. Photograph. YTIMG. Web. .

"Humiliated frat boys sue 'Borat'" USA Today. Web. .

Michael Moore, Captalism: A Love Story. Photograph. BV on Movies. Web. .