Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Scriptgeek Wikipedia - User contributions [en] 2025-06-17T05:17:11Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.45.0-wmf.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_film&diff=463561107 Propaganda film 2011-12-01T21:19:39Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>{{About||the production company|Propaganda Films|the 1999 Turkish comedy film|Propaganda (film)}}<br /> [[File:transmitlies.jpeg|250px|thumb|The ''[[Why We Fight]]'' Series depicts the Nazi propaganda machine.]]<br /> <br /> The term [[propaganda]] can be defined as the ability to produce and spread fertile messages that, once sown, will germinate in large human cultures.”<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 35</ref> However, in the 20th century, a “new” propaganda emerged, which revolved around political organizations and their need to communicate messages that would “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their agendas”.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 32</ref> First developed by the Lumiere brothers in 1896, film provided a unique means of accessing large audiences at once. Film was the first universal mass medium in that it could simultaneously influence viewers as individuals and members of a crowd, which led to it quickly becoming a tool for governments and non-state organizations to project a desired ideological message.<ref>Taylor, Richard. Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. London: Croom Helm Ltd, 1979. 30-31</ref> '''Propaganda films''' may be packaged in numerous ways, but are most often [[documentary film|documentary]]-style productions or fictional screenplays, that are produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of the viewer, often by providing subjective content that may be deliberately misleading.<ref>Bennett, Todd. "The celluloid war: state and studio in Anglo-American propaganda film-making, 1939-1941." The International History Review 24.1 (March 2002): 64(34).</ref> <br /> <br /> ==Film as a propaganda tool==<br /> Film is a unique medium in that it reproduces images, movement, and sound in a life-like manner as it fuses meaning with evolvement as time passes in the story depicted. Unlike many other art forms, film produces a sense of immediacy. <ref>{{cite web|title=The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction|author= Benjamin, Walter|url= http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm|accessdate=7 November 2011}}</ref> Film’s ability to create the illusion of life and reality, opening up new, unknown perspectives on the world, is why films, especially those of unknown cultures or places, are taken to be accurate depictions of life. <br /> <br /> Some film academics have noted film’s great illusory abilities. [[Dziga Vertov]] claimed in his 1924 manifesto, “The Birth of Kino-Eye” that “the cinema-eye is cinema-truth.”<ref>{{cite web|title= Historical discourse and the propaganda film: Reporting in Barcelona |author= Resina, Joan|url= http://search.proquest.com/docview/221441317?accountid=81568|accessdate=7 November 2011}} </ref> To paraphrase Hilmar Hoffman, this means that in film, only what the camera ‘sees’ exists, and the viewer, lacking alternative perspectives, conventionally takes the image for reality.<br /> <br /> Films are effective propaganda tools because they establish visual icons of historical reality and consciousness, define public attitudes of the time they’re depicting or that at which they were filmed, mobilize people for a common cause, or bring attention to an unknown cause. Political and historical films represent, influence, and create historical consciousness and are able to distort events making it a persuasive and possibly untrustworthy medium.<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> At the turn of the 20th century, films emerged as the new cultural agents, depicting events and showing foreign images to mass audiences in European and American cities. Politics and film began to intertwine with the reconstruction of the [[Boer War]] for a film audience and recordings of war in the Balkans. The new medium proved very useful for political and military interests when it came to reaching a broad segment of the population and creating consent or encouraging rejection of the real or imagined enemy. They also provided a forceful voice for independent critics of contemporary events.<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> The earliest known propaganda film was a series of short silent films made during the Spanish American War in 1898 created by Vitagraph Studios. One of the early fictional films to be used for propaganda was ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'', although it was not produced for the purposes of indoctrination. <br /> <br /> ====[[World War I]]====<br /> {{Main|World War I film propaganda}}<br /> <br /> Film was still relatively new to urban audiences with the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. Governments’ use of film as propaganda reflected this. The [[British propaganda during World War I|British]] and Americans’ initial struggles in the official use of film led to eventual success in their use of the medium. The Germans were off to a faster start in recognizing film’s value as a tool of perpetuating pro-German sentiment in the US through the The American Correspondent Film Company as well as on the front lines with their mobile cinemas, which showed feature films and newsreels.<br /> <br /> Though the Allied governments were slow to use film as a medium for conveying a desired position and set of beliefs, individuals, such as [[Charlie Chaplin]] were considerably more successful with ''[[The Bond]]'' and ''Zepped''.<br /> <br /> ====Interwar Period====<br /> [[Image:odessastepsbaby.jpg|thumb|40|right|A baby in a carriage falling down the "Odessa Steps" in the iconic scene of ''[[The Battleship Potemkin]]'']]<br /> In the years following the [[October Revolution]] of 1917, the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] government sponsored the [[Russia]]n film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films. The development of Russian cinema in the 1920s by such [[filmmaker]]s as [[Dziga Vertov]] and [[Sergei Eisenstein]] saw considerable progress in the use of the motion picture as a propaganda tool, yet it also served to develop the art of moviemaking. Eisenstein's films, in particular 1925's ''[[The Battleship Potemkin]]'', are seen as masterworks of the cinema, even as they glorify Eisenstein's [[Communist]] ideals. In depicting the 1905 Russian Revolution ''Potemkin'' sought to create a new history for Russia, one led and triumphed over by the formerly oppressed masses. Eisenstein was heavily influenced by the ideology of the [[October Revolution|1917 Bolshevik revolution]], which results in it providing better insight into the mindset of the later revolution than that which it depicted. Its dual purpose beyond forging a national Russian identity was to bring its revolutionary Communist message to the West. Its influence was feared in Germany to the extent that the government banned the film when it was released in the late 1920s.<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref> Another of Eisenstein's films, 1927's ''[[October: Ten Days That Shook the World|October]]'', depicted the Bolshevik perspective on the October Revolution, culminating in the storming of the Winter Palace which provided Soviet viewers with the victory that the workers and peasants lacked in ''Battleship Potemkin'', ending with Lenin (as played by an unknown worker) declaring that the [[Russian Provisional Government|government]] is overthrown. Because no documentary material existed of the storming of the palace, Eistenstein's re-creation of the event has become the source material for historians and filmmakers, giving it further legitimacy as the accepted historical record, which illustrates its success as a propaganda film.<ref>Taylor, Richard. ''Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany''. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1979. 92-94, 101.</ref><br /> <br /> Between the Great Wars Amerivan films velebrated the bravery of the American soldiers while depicting war as an existential nightmare. Films such as [[The Big Parade]] depicted the horrors of trench warfare, the brutal destruction of villages, and the lack of provisions.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Gregory Black. ''Hollywood Goes to War''. New York: THe Free Press, 1987. 67</ref> Films advocating national policies received negative attention from the American population.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile, Nazi filmmakers produced highly emotional films about the suffering of the German minority in [[Czechoslovakia]] and [[Poland]], which were crucial towards creating popular support for occupying the [[Sudetenland]] and attacking Poland. Films like the 1941 ''[[Heimkehr]]'' (Homecoming) depicted the plight of homesick ethnic Germans in Poland longing to return to the Reich which in turn set the psychological conditions for the real attack and acceptance of the German policy, ''[[Lebensraum]]'' (living space).<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|accessdate=11 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> ====[[World War II]]====<br /> <br /> [[File:Dictator charlie4.jpg|thumb|right|Charlie Chaplin in the film ''The Great Dictator'']]<br /> The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of [[totalitarian]] states and the [[Second World War]], are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Nazi control of the German film industry is the most extreme example of the use of film in the service of a fascist national program and, in 1933, Hitler created the Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda and appointed the youthful [[Joseph Goebbels]] as its head.<ref>{{cite web|last=Shelton|first=Dinah L|title=Film as Propaganda|url=http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/ film-propaganda|work=Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|publisher=eNotes.com|accessdate=21 September 2011}}</ref> [[Fritz Hippler]], producer of one of the most powerful propaganda films of the time, 1940's ''[[The Eternal Jew (1940 film)|The Wandering Jew]]'', ran the film department under Goebbels. ''The Wandering Jew'' purported to be a documentary depicting the Jewish world, insinuating that the Jewish population was comprised of avaricious barbarians putting on a front for civilized European society, remaining indifferent and unaffected by the war.<ref>Taylor, Richard. ''Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany''. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1979. 190-191.</ref> During this time [[Leni Riefenstahl]], a filmmaker working in [[Nazi Germany]], created one of the best-known propaganda movies, ''[[Triumph of the Will]]'', a film commissioned by [[Hitler]] to chronicle the 1934 [[Nazi Party]] rally in [[Nuremberg]]. Despite its controversial subject, the film is still recognized for its [[Films that have been considered the greatest ever|revolutionary approach]] to using [[music]] and [[cinematography]]. Another of Riefenstahl’s films, 1938’s ''[[Olympia]]'', was meant to prove that the Reichstag was a democratic and open society under Nazi rule. It had the perfect venue, the 1936 Berlin Olympics in which to showcase [[Adolf Hitler|Adolf Hitler’s]] Aryan ideals and prowess. One of the most notable shots in the film is Hitler congratulating the African American [[Jesse Owens]] on his four gold medals, whose successes spoiled Hitler’s wish to depict those of African descent as racially inferior. The film won a number of prestigious film awards but fell from grace, particularly in the United States when, in November 1938, the world learned of the pogrom against the Jews. <ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref> Riefenstahl’s cinematic masterpiece, though temporarily effective propaganda, was unable to mitigate the growing awareness of the political realities in Nazi Germany.<br /> <br /> In the United States during [[World War II]], President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] recognized that the direct style of propaganda would not win over the American public. He assigned [[Lowell Mellett]] to the post of coordinator of government film. Although he had no jurisdiction over Hollywood films, he prssured the industry into helping the war effort. On January 13, 1945 Mellett stated in then-confidential testimony that he was assigned to persuade the movie industry to "insert morale-building and citizenry arousing themes in its films by all means possible."<ref>Culbert, David. Verbatim Testimony. 1945. New York, Washington.</ref> Luckily, many directors recognized the necessity(and likely the commercial success they would reap) of supporting the battle against fascism as public opinion lay with the war effort.<ref>Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell. ''Film History: An Introduction''. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 313.</ref> One such filmmaker, [[Frank Capra]], created a seven-part U.S. government-sponsored series of films to support the war effort entitled ''[[Why We Fight]].'' This series is considered a highlight of the propaganda film genre. Other propaganda movies, such as ''[[Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo]]'' and ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'', have become so well-loved by film viewers that they can stand on their own as dramatic films, apart from their original role as propaganda vehicles.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/casablanca/bmp_report_casablanca.cfm | title=Casablanca | publisher=[[Digital History]] |year= 2006 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref> [[Charlie Chaplin]] once again joined the U.S. war effort, creating [[The Great Dictator]] (1940), in which he played the Hitler-like character of 'Adenoid Hynkel.' [[File:Ducknazi.jpg|''Der Fueher's Face'' (1940)|thumb]]<br /> <br /> [[American Animation in World War II|Animation]] became popular, especially for winning over youthful audiences. [[Walt Disney's World War II propaganda production|Walt Disney]] and [[Looney Tunes]] were among those that actively aided the U.S. war effort through their cartoons which provided training and instructions for viewers as well as a political commentary on the times. One of the most popular, ''[[Der Fuehrer's Face]]'' was a means of relieving the aggression against Hitler by making him a somewhat comical figure while showcasing the freedom America offered. Also popular in the Soviet Union, the government produced such animated shorts as ''What Hitler Wants'', which depicts a devilish Hitler giving Russian factories to capitalists, enslaving and riding once-free Soviet citizens, but shows that the U.S.S.R. will be prepared to fight, paying the Germans back in triplicate, ready to beat the 'fascist pirates.'<ref>{{cite web|title= What Hitler Wants|url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRcBt904OJ0|accessdate=20 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> Many of the dramatic [[war film]]s in the early 1940s in the [[United States]] were designed to create a [[patriotic]] mindset and [[consensus|convince]] viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat "the enemy." Despite fears that too much propaganda could diminish Hollywood’s entertainment appeal, reducing its targeted audience and decreasing profits, military enlistment increased and morale was considered to be higher, in part attributed to America's innovative propaganda.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987. </ref><ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 54</ref> One of the conventions of the [[genre]] was to depict a [[Race (classification of human beings)|racial]] and [[socioeconomic]] [[Cross-sectional data|cross-section]] of the United States, either a [[platoon]] on the front lines or soldiers training on a [[Military base|base]], which come together to fight for the good of the country. In [[Italy]], at the same time, [[film director]]s like [[Roberto Rossellini]] produced propaganda films for similar purposes.<br /> <br /> Similar to Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R. prepared its citizens for war by releasing dramas, such as ''[[Alexander Nevsky (film)|Alexander Nevsky]]'', by [[Sergei Eisenstein]]. The U.S.S.R also screened films depicting partisan activity and the suffering inflicted by the Nazis, such as [[Girl No. 217]], which showed a Russian girl enslaved by an inhumane German family. Films were shown on propaganda trains while newsreels were screened in subway stations to reach those who were unable to pay to see films in the theater.<ref>Rhodes, Anthony. ''Propaganda: The art of persuasion: World War II''. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1976. p. 214, 219</ref><br /> <br /> ====Cold War====<br /> When describing life in Communist countries, western propaganda sought to depict an image of a brainwashed citizenry which was then held captive by their government. The [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA's]] Office of Policy Coordination adapted [[George Orwell| George Orwell's]] ''[[Animal Farm]]'' into an animated movie in 1954 that was released in England as production costs were considerably lower.<ref>{{cite web|title=The cartoon that came in from the cold|author= Cohen, Karl|url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2003/mar/07/artsfeatures.georgeorwell=9 November 2011}}. The film additionally has the distinction of being the first animated film produced in England. The entire movie is available through the Internet Movie Database at [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047834/ Animal Farm (1954)].</ref><br /> <br /> During the 1960s, the United States produced propaganda films that cheerily instructed civilians how to build homemade [[fallout shelter]]s, to protect themselves in the event of [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}}<br /> <br /> 1984's [[Red Dawn]] depicts an alternate 1980s in which the United States is invaded by the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other Latin American allies of the U.S.S.R. and a group of small-town high school students engage in [[guerrilla warfare]] in their resistance of the occupation, eventually beating the communists. It has been considered to be right-wing propaganda.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Best Conservative Movies|author= Miller, John J.|url= http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=27 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> ===Post-9/11===<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>Over 100 years since its creation, film continues to resonate with viewers and helps influence or reinforce a particular viewpoint. Following the [[9/11]] attacks, many Americans were split on the success of the government’s response and the ensuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Similar to the Vietnam War, filmmakers expressed their view of the attacks and feelings about the war through films, most notably, ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]''. The film sparked debate across the country, presenting mixed assessments on the role of the U.S. government and its response along with the controversy that normally arises when depicting recent, traumatic events. A classic example of 21st century propaganda, [[Michael Moore|Michael Moore's]] ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]'' is overtly political and never tries to hide the director's anti-war agenda. He omits footage of the planes striking the [[Twin Towers]], cutting directly to the aftermath and destruction. <ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> Alan Petersen’s “Farenhype 9/11” was released in response to ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11| Fahrenheit 9/11’s]]'' success in theaters. Petersen called “Fahrenheit 9/11” "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgment."<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref> It received considerably less press and screentime than Moore's controversial piece.<br /> <br /> [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]] stated that “We are in a media battle for the hearts and minds of our ''umma'' [community] of Muslims.”<ref>{{cite web|title= Abu Reuter and the E-Jihad: Virtual Battlefronts from Iraq to the Horn of Africa |author= Rogan, Hanna|url= http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/publications/journal/82/rogan.pdf |publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011|page=89}}</ref> Towards winning the hearts and minds of the MENA region, [[Al-Qaeda]] and its affiliates have produced propaganda films and documentaries depicting jihadist attacks, last will and testament videos, training, and interviews, all meant to boost morale among supporters. Al-Qaeda established a Media Committee early in its inception to handle traditional Western and Arab media as well as create an online media presence, which was established through the multi-media company [[as-Sahab]] in 2001. The company, which produces documentary-like films and operational videos for Afghanistan is known for its technological sophistication, cinematic effects, and their efforts to reach the west with translations and subtitling. Its operational videos were serialized in ''Pyre for Americans in Khorasan'' [Afghanistan]. Other productions in North Africa include ''Apostate in Hell'', a [[Somalia|Somali]] film produced by al-Fajr Media Center includes interviews with Somali jihadists, training of fighters, preparation for an attack, and actual operations. It along with many other al-Qaeda videos is distributed by Arabic jihadist websites as that community relies on the Internet to a high degree to disseminate information to followers.<ref>{{cite web|title= Abu Reuter and the E-Jihad: Virtual Battlefronts from Iraq to the Horn of Africa |author= Rogan, Hanna|url= http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/publications/journal/82/rogan.pdf |publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011|page=90-91, 93}}</ref><br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of films made in the Third Reich]]<br /> *[[List of Allied propaganda films of World War II]]<br /> *[[List of Holocaust films]]<br /> *[[List of World War II films]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> * ''[http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html Propaganda Filmmaker: Make Your Own Propaganda Film]<br /> * ''[http://www.propagandacritic.com/gallery/index.html Propagandacritic Video Gallery]<br /> * ''[http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=657 Empire-Hollywood: Chronicler of War] - A look at the Pentagon's influence on the film industry (2 videos 15:53 from [[The Real News]])<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Propaganda Film}}<br /> [[Category:Film genres]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda films| ]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda techniques by medium|Films]]<br /> <br /> [[de:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[it:Film propagandistico]]<br /> [[nl:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[ja:プロパガンダ映画]]<br /> [[sr:Пропагандни филм]]<br /> [[fi:Propagandaelokuva]]<br /> [[vi:Phim tuyên truyền]]<br /> {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_film&diff=461483955 Propaganda film 2011-11-19T21:17:03Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>{{About||the production company|Propaganda Films|the 1999 Turkish comedy film|Propaganda (film)}}<br /> [[File:transmitlies.jpeg|250px|thumb|The ''[[Why We Fight]]'' Series depicts the Nazi propaganda machine.]]<br /> <br /> The term [[propaganda]] can be defined as the ability to produce and spread fertile messages that, once sown, will germinate in large human cultures.”<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 35</ref> However, in the 20th century, a “new” propaganda emerged, which revolved around political organizations and their need to communicate messages that would “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their agendas”.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 32</ref> First developed by the Lumiere brothers in 1896, film provided a unique means of accessing large audiences at once. Film was the first universal mass medium in that it could simultaneously influence viewers as individuals and members of a crowd, which led to it quickly becoming a tool for governments and non-state organizations to project a desired ideological message.<ref>Taylor, Richard. Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. London: Croom Helm Ltd, 1979. 30-31</ref> '''Propaganda films''' may be packaged in numerous ways, but are most often [[documentary film|documentary]]-style productions or fictional screenplays, that are produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of the viewer, often by providing subjective content that may be deliberately misleading.<ref>Bennett, Todd. "The celluloid war: state and studio in Anglo-American propaganda film-making, 1939-1941." The International History Review 24.1 (March 2002): 64(34).</ref> <br /> <br /> ==Film as a propaganda tool==<br /> Film is a unique medium in that it reproduces images, movement, and sound in a life-like manner as it fuses meaning with evolvement as time passes in the story depicted. Unlike many other art forms, film produces a sense of immediacy. <ref>{{cite web|title=The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction|author= Benjamin, Walter|url= http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm|accessdate=7 November 2011}}</ref> Film’s ability to create the illusion of life and reality, opening up new, unknown perspectives on the world, is why films, especially those of unknown cultures or places, are taken to be accurate depictions of life. <br /> <br /> Some film academics have noted film’s great illusory abilities. [[Dziga Vertov]] claimed in his 1924 manifesto, “The Birth of Kino-Eye” that “the cinema-eye is cinema-truth.”<ref>{{cite web|title= Historical discourse and the propaganda film: Reporting in Barcelona |author= Resina, Joan|url= http://search.proquest.com/docview/221441317?accountid=81568|accessdate=7 November 2011}} </ref> To paraphrase Hilmar Hoffman, this means that in film, only what the camera ‘sees’ exists, and the viewer, lacking alternative perspectives, conventionally takes the image for reality.<br /> <br /> Films are effective propaganda tools because they establish visual icons of historical reality and consciousness, define public attitudes of the time they’re depicting or that at which they were filmed, mobilize people for a common cause, or bring attention to an unknown cause. Political and historical films represent, influence, and create historical consciousness and are able to distort events making it a persuasive and possibly untrustworthy medium.<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> At the turn of the 20th century, films emerged as the new cultural agents, depicting events and showing foreign images to mass audiences in European and American cities. Politics and film began to intertwine with the reconstruction of the [[Boer War]] for a film audience and recordings of war in the Balkans. The new medium proved very useful for political and military interests when it came to reaching a broad segment of the population and creating consent or encouraging rejection of the real or imagined enemy. They also provided a forceful voice for independent critics of contemporary events.<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref><br /> <br /> The earliest known propaganda film was a series of short silent films made during the Spanish American War in 1898 created by Vitagraph Studios. One of the early fictional films to be used for propaganda was ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'', although it was not produced for the purposes of indoctrination. <br /> <br /> During World War I [[Charlie Chaplin]] produced and starred in multiple pro-US propaganda films. One very rare film, ''Zepped'', which depicted scenes of a Zeppelin raid over London was designed to be used on a morale mission for the troops in Egypt and to defuse the terror inspired by the frequent Zeppelin bombing raids over London. <ref>{{cite web|title= First World War propaganda film starring Charlie Chaplin for sale|author= Hadley, Kathryn|url= http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2011/06/first-world-war-propaganda-film-starring-charlie-chaplin-sale History Today|accessdate=11 November 2011}}</ref> In 1918, Chaplin made, at his own expense, ''[[The Bond]]''. <br /> <br /> Beyond Chaplin, a secret film campaign was brought to the United States. In an effort to maintain U.S. neutrality and spread pro-German sentiments, German officials set up The American Correspondent Film Company. As a front man for this organization, photographer [[Albert K. Dawson]] was attached to the German and Austrian army. Dawson was among the most active and daring film correspondents in the Great War.<br /> <br /> In the years following the [[October Revolution]] of 1917, the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] government sponsored the [[Russia]]n film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films. The development of Russian cinema in the 1920s by such [[filmmaker]]s as [[Dziga Vertov]] and [[Sergei Eisenstein]] saw considerable progress in the use of the motion picture as a propaganda tool, yet it also served to develop the art of moviemaking. Eisenstein's films, in particular 1925's ''[[The Battleship Potemkin]]'', are seen as masterworks of the cinema, even as they glorify Eisenstein's [[Communist]] ideals. In depicting the 1905 Russian Revolution ''Potemkin'' sought to create a new history for Russia, one led and triumphed over by the formerly oppressed masses. Eisenstein was heavily influenced by the ideology of the [[October Revolution|1917 Bolshevik revolution]], which results in it providing better insight into the mindset of the later revolution than that which it depicted. Its dual purpose beyond forging a national Russian identity was to bring its revolutionary Communist message to the West. Its influence was feared in Germany to the extent that the government banned the film when it was released in the late 1920s.<ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref> <br /> <br /> The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of [[totalitarian]] states and the [[Second World War]], are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Nazi control of the German film industry is the most extreme example of the use of film in the service of a fascist national program and, in 1933, Hitler created the Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda and appointed the youthful Joseph Goebbels as its head.<ref>{{cite web|last=Shelton|first=Dinah L|title=Film as Propaganda|url=http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/ film-propaganda|work=Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|publisher=eNotes.com|accessdate=21 September 2011}}</ref> During this time [[Leni Riefenstahl]], a filmmaker working in [[Nazi Germany]], created one of the best-known propaganda movies, ''[[Triumph of the Will]]'', a film commissioned by [[Hitler]] to chronicle the 1934 [[Nazi Party]] rally in [[Nuremberg]]. Despite its controversial subject, the film is still recognized for its [[Films that have been considered the greatest ever|revolutionary approach]] to using [[music]] and [[cinematography]]. Another of Riefenstahl’s films, 1938’s ''[[Olympia]]'', was meant to prove that the Reichstag was a democratic and open society under Nazi rule. It had the perfect venue, the 1936 Berlin Olympics in which to showcase [[Adolf Hitler|Adolf Hitler’s]] Aryan ideals and prowess. One of the most notable shots in the film is Hitler congratulating the African American [[Jesse Owens]] on his four gold medals, whose successes spoiled Hitler’s wish to depict those of African descent as racially inferior. The film won a number of prestigious film awards but fell from grace, particularly in the United States when, in November 1938, the world learned of the pogrom against the Jews. <ref>{{cite web|title= Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention|author= Stern, Frank|url= https://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_sumfal00i.html|publisher=Georgetown Journal of International Affairs|accessdate=5 November 2011}}</ref> Riefenstahl’s cinematic masterpiece, though temporarily effective propaganda, was unable to mitigate the growing awareness of the political realities in Nazi Germany.<br /> <br /> In the United States during [[World War II]], filmmaker [[Frank Capra]] created a seven-part U.S. government-sponsored series of films to support the war effort entitled ''[[Why We Fight]].'' This series is considered a highlight of the propaganda film genre. Other propaganda movies, such as ''[[Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo]]'' and ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'', have become so well-loved by film viewers that they can stand on their own as dramatic films, apart from their original role as propaganda vehicles.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/casablanca/bmp_report_casablanca.cfm | title=Casablanca | publisher=[[Digital History]] |year= 2006 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref><br /> <br /> Many of the dramatic [[war film]]s in the early 1940s in the [[United States]] were designed to create a [[patriotic]] mindset and [[consensus|convince]] viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat "the enemy." One of the conventions of the [[genre]] was to depict a [[Race (classification of human beings)|racial]] and [[socioeconomic]] [[Cross-sectional data|cross-section]] of the United States, either a [[platoon]] on the front lines or soldiers training on a [[Military base|base]], which come together to fight for the good of the country. In [[Italy]], at the same time, [[film director]]s like [[Roberto Rossellini]] produced propaganda films for similar purposes.<br /> <br /> During the 1960s, the United States produced propaganda films that cheerily instructed civilians how to build homemade [[fallout shelter]]s, to protect themselves in the event of [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]].<br /> <br /> ==United States==<br /> In the twentieth century, mass communications became an extremely popular tool for learning. The communications revolution had a large influence on both the political and moral realms. Films became the most popular medium used by the American government to transmit its political and social message.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.63</ref> It marked the first time in history that the American government had the opportunity to directly shape the ideas and perceptions of such a large percentage of its citizens.<br /> <br /> ===World War II===<br /> Between the two World Wars, many war films were released in the United States. While they celebrated the bravery of the American soldiers, they depicted war as an existential nightmare. Films such as [[The Big Parade]] depicted the horrors of trench warfare, the brutal destruction of villages and the lack of provisions.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.67</ref> Films pushing national policy received negative reviews from the American population. <br /> <br /> President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] understood that the direct style of propaganda was not reaching the American public. He assigned [[Lowell Mellett]] as the coordinator of government films. Although he had no jurisdiction over Hollywood films, he pressured the industry into helping the war effort. On January 13, 1945 Mellett stated in confidential testimony that he was assigned to persuade the movie industry to “insert morale-building and citizenry arousing themes in its films by all means possible.”<ref>Culbert, David. Verbatim Testimony. 1945. MS. New York, Washington.</ref>{{Citation needed|date = November 2010}} Additionally, many directors recognized the necessity of supporting the battle against fascism as public opinion lay with the war effort.<ref>Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell. Film History: An Introduction. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 313</ref><br /> <br /> The American government was faced with the challenge that too much propaganda could diminish Hollywood’s entertainment appeal, reducing its targeted audience, while Hollywood feared a decrease in profits. In the six months from December 1941 to July 1942, 72 “war features” were released in the United States.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 54</ref> They usually depicted the Japanese as bloodthirsty barbarians and cast Americans as the outraged innocent nation.<br /> <br /> During the years where film and propaganda went hand in hand, military enlistment increased and an overall feeling of patriotism reigned in the United States. Many commanding officers attributed the high enlistment numbers to America’s innovative propaganda. They noticed an increase in drafted soldiers’ overall morale.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987. </ref><br /> {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> <br /> ===In response to the September 11 attacks===<br /> <br /> Over 100 years since its creation, film continues to resonate with viewers and helps influence or reinforce a particular viewpoint. Following the [[9/11]] attacks, many Americans were split on the success of the government’s response and the ensuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Similar to the Vietnam War, filmmakers expressed their view of the attacks and feelings about the war through films, most notably, ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]''. The film sparked debate across the country, presenting mixed assessments on the role of the U.S. government and its response along with the controversy that normally arises when depicting recent, traumatic events.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s [[Blockbuster (entertainment)|blockbuster]] is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of films made in the Third Reich]]<br /> *[[List of Allied propaganda films of World War II]]<br /> *[[List of Holocaust films]]<br /> *[[List of World War II films]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> * ''[http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html Propaganda Filmmaker: Make Your Own Propaganda Film]<br /> * ''[http://www.propagandacritic.com/gallery/index.html Propagandacritic Video Gallery]<br /> * ''[http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=657 Empire-Hollywood: Chronicler of War] - A look at the Pentagon's influence on the film industry (2 videos 15:53 from [[The Real News]])<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Propaganda Film}}<br /> [[Category:Film genres]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda films| ]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda techniques by medium|Films]]<br /> <br /> [[de:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[it:Film propagandistico]]<br /> [[nl:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[ja:プロパガンダ映画]]<br /> [[sr:Пропагандни филм]]<br /> [[fi:Propagandaelokuva]]<br /> [[vi:Phim tuyên truyền]]</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_in_advertising&diff=459805815 Talk:Gender in advertising 2011-11-09T14:42:33Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Peer Review */</p> <hr /> <div>{{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> <br /> =Peer Review=<br /> Your article had a lot of good information so far. It would be great if you could link some of your words that you have used to other articles in Wikipedia, specifically gender, advertisement, gender roles, femininity and masculinity. This will make it so that if someone doesn’t know the definition of a certain word they can look to those pages for more information. Also you talk about how men and women are portrayed in advertising it would be great if you gave even more specific advertisements in which these portrayals are given. I know the Victoria Secret commercials the women tend to be touching their bodies and such. For men the axe commercials are a good portrayal of how women are drawn to men. I also found an article called, “Sex in Advertising: Gender Differences and the Role of Relationship Commitment” by Dahl, Sengupta and Vohs. It would be really good if you could talk about when the gender roles are specifically put together into one advertisement. Sut Jahlly definitely has a lot of great information on this topic, if you could talk to him I'm sure it would be very beneficially to your end product. [[User:DianeElizabeth66|DianeElizabeth66]] ([[User talk:DianeElizabeth66|talk]]) 20:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I love your article! It’s very in depth to an extent, you provide all of the necessary information needed to understand gender advertisement. You have a ton of great sources and quotes that really sum up and help people gather the information that they are looking for on wikipedia. I don’t have many editing tips because I feel like you have done a great job especially with your references, and “see also” page. Also, with the topic of gender advertisement you definitely do a great job staying neutral as this topic can get controversial and biased. [[User:GirlWithTheMostCake|GirlWithTheMostCake]] ([[User talk:GirlWithTheMostCake|talk]]) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Your article on Gender Advertisement is looking good but you need to expand on the concepts that you have listed in the article. I was thinking that one way you could expand is by showing some examples of these concepts in action in classic ad’s that depict a man or woman’s gender. I believe that if you have an example from the past it will help you tie together all your concepts that you have on Gender Advertisement. Based on everything I said you could probably do a sub section on the history of gender advertisement to give readers a perspective of how the concepts that you listed have come to be. <br /> Here are some examples of Gender Advertisement throughout history:<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBCyPdEIdOA&feature=related<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH_vdiuVVlc<br /> I have also noticed that you have concepts dance around the notion of how all of these ideas come together when creating an advertisement. With this you could attempt to try to describe the technical process that occurs when a creative design team comes together. I found an article by Gloria Moss on this particular subject which might help in developing your article on gender advertisement.<br /> http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Gender_Design_Marketing_Moss_Intro.pdf<br /> Also click on the link provided in the PDF to get the full title of the article.<br /> To sum it up your writing is right on target you just need to work on connecting the flow of the overall article and possibly make a few tweak’s to make sound a tad more encyclopedic. A perfect example of this would be the sentence” Because these images are crafted in a way that mimics real life, many mistake this fantasy world of advertising for the real world.”. You could possibly write it this way “ These images are crafted to mimic real life and many mistake the concepts of fantasy and reality in regards to advertising.” Hopefully this helps you out with the writing of your article on gender advertisement. But over all I look forward to how you article will turn out if you need any more help feel free to send a message to my talk page. [[User:Krimsonshadow|Krimsonshadow]] ([[User talk:Krimsonshadow|talk]]) 15:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Feedback==<br /> <br /> Does gender advertisement work? Do males/females that see these ads believe that if they buy that product they will be like that? Maybe mention how a lot of ads that are designed portray to how buying that product will help you get the girl/guy? (ex: Axe Commercials) ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC))</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexuality_in_music_videos&diff=459804577 Talk:Sexuality in music videos 2011-11-09T14:33:29Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Cleaning up the formatting */</p> <hr /> <div>{{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> {{WikiProject Sexuality|class=C|importance=mid}}<br /> {{WikiProject Media|class=C|importance=mid}}<br /> {{dyktalk|12 September|2009|{{*mp}}... that according to 1996 research into '''[[sexuality in music videos]]''', [[hip-hop]] and [[R&B]] scored highest in an analysis of sexual content?}}<br /> <br /> Suggestions:<br /> <br /> Your article looks like it has a lot of great information and precise details. Reading through it, I can tell you have a deep interest in your topic. I also like the examples you use such as Eminem and Rhianna's music video. For some suggestions, I think that if you include some statics into your article such as the percentage of violence against women in music videos versus actual violence against women live and realistically, I think it would be interesting. Also, maybe if you did some extra research about why viewers and listeners are so into the violence against women and the sexuality in music videos, why MTV is so popular, and why many youths still watch and listen to rap music videos even though they agree that it has too much sexual references, it could add more interesting aspects to your article. Furthermore, this will explain a bit more about our society that we live in today and what our values and norms are and what is important to us. For example, is sexual content in media like on television, really that important to society? Why before, it was so inappropriate to show that much sexual content in the 1920's versus today? And why is it okay for MTV to keep showing these music videos even though it leads to more violence in the real world? Overall, I think you have a very strong article with very supporting and detailed examples. [[User:Jns521|Jns521]] ([[User talk:Jns521|talk]]) 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Cleaning up the formatting ==<br /> <br /> Having a "sexuality in music videos" topic header for a page called "sexuality in music videos" seems redundant. Think about what else that headline could be, so that it can read a bit better. - Also I noted that the citations weren't actually included, they only had [1] or [2] and not proper citations - please ask for help if you are having problems with citations. [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42|talk]]) 14:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Suggestions==<br /> <br /> You have a lot of good insight here. However, sometimes your article can seem sort of biased...for instance: "No adolescent girl should dance around her living room singing 'I'm a slave 4 you.'" Maybe reread it and make sure that what you wrote isn't your opinion? Also, music videos also have an effect on males as well, so maybe add a section about that and not just one regarding females? ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 14:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC))</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_advertising_on_teen_body_image&diff=459803910 Talk:Effects of advertising on teen body image 2011-11-09T14:28:20Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* suggestions */</p> <hr /> <div>{{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> <br /> You have a lot of good information so far. There is a great documentary called, Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women, I think this may help you with your topic. It would be great if you could add a title to your article and possible separate it into more sections such as when you add the oppositional view of women's attitudes due to advertisements.[[User:DianeElizabeth66|DianeElizabeth66]] ([[User talk:DianeElizabeth66|talk]]) 16:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Some comments==<br /> I have looked at your writing in the sandbox and wanted to commend your efforts. It is clear that you are incorporating good practices and endeavor to present information with a neutral bias. To possibly improve on your efforts, consider replacing generic references to a study by directly stating what study produced the fact you are drawing upon. Follow the same principle when presenting any opinion counter to any such position. Consider this sentence, "A 1994 study concluded that there is a positive correlation between amount of exposure ...", positive can be misunderstood as a good thing while I believe you mean to imply a direct relationship. Otherwise some might contend that "A 1994 study concluded that there is a negative correlation between amount of exposure ...". It is good that you have included references to support your claims. See if you can expand the citations to include more information than simply the URL. It helps reduce the occurrence of [[WP:Link rot|link rot]]. All in all, your writing looks good, and I hope some of this advice might help you improve it even more. As always, you are also welcome to ask questions any time you may have a question, or if I've been unclear, Cheers. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 04:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==suggestions==<br /> <br /> after reading your article I have a few suggestions that you could help to improve your work. Although you have clearly done research there are a few more things that could possibly be added into this piece. For instance, for young men you mention that they can feel unsatisfied with their body...what does this lead them to then do? do they go to the gym? protein shakes? Also, you say that advertising has affects on women as well but what does this lead them to do? eating disorders? diets? the way they dress? Lastly, through which type of media does advertising have it's greatest affects on teens? ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 18:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC))<br /> <br /> another thing to keep in mind...in the beginning of the section regarding women you described the "ideal" woman that the market portrays..maybe do the same and describe the "ideal" male? I think there's a lot more that you could say about men too because not only does their "ideal" model hit the gym a lot, but they also feel the need to act tougher. The Jersey Shore and other MTV shows portray a certain type of guy which definitely has an effect on how guy's act - which can even be seen on the UMass campus if you look around (the gelled hair, flipped baseball caps, GTL status on facebook especially when the show first came out). ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 14:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC))<br /> <br /> Your article looks very organized in terms of subtitles and citations/references. The amount of research in your article is evident however, I think that if you elaborated a little more on the "physical attractiveness" of the models in the media such as exactly what young women or men consider "attractive." would be helpful. For example, you can research the average perfect size that young women consider to be "attractive" or the percentage of muscle mass young men in society today to be considered attractive. You can also provide more information like statistics wise about the percentage of young women with eating disorders and how that is rising, etc. When you mention "advertising featuring thin, attractive women," I think you could again, describe in more details about what is considered "thin" in society. Is there a certain weight that women has to be under in order to be considered thin? Maybe if you included more specific details, then readers will have a much clearer vision of what that "thin, attractive woman" in the media would physically look like. Furthermore, I believe that you could mention the types of media that young teens are exposed to with the teen advertising on their body image. For example, like television, magazines, billboards, etc. When you mention the "Teen skepticism toward advertising," you bring up an interesting point but I think elaborating a bit more on that would be helpful to the reader. Maybe include why some teens become skeptical toward the accuracy of those ads but others develop eating disorders because of those same ads. If you compare/contrasted those two issues, I think that would be very interesting and cool to read. Overall, it is a excellent start to a very creative and interesting article and adding in specific details would definitely benefit the article altogether. [[User:Jns521|Jns521]] ([[User talk:Jns521|talk]]) 03:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==feedback==<br /> Thank you so much for your feedback. I changed my grammatical errors that you pointed out, I really appreciate it.<br /> I just read your article and find it very interesting. You definitely have a lot of great information in there. I do have some minor grammar suggestions also, in the quote "They also found that some girls and young women compare themselves to the models that they see in ads, in terms of their physical attractiveness, and then experience lowered self-esteem because they do not look like these models" the end could be changed around a little bit. [[User:GirlWithTheMostCake|GirlWithTheMostCake]] ([[User talk:GirlWithTheMostCake|talk]]) 14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_games_in_education&diff=459803317 Talk:Video games in education 2011-11-09T14:23:14Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Peer Remarks 2 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> <br /> <br /> Please keep in mind that i do have some more sources to include i just haven't gotten to writing them in yet. [[User:Mike Nolan33|Mike Nolan33]] ([[User talk:Mike Nolan33|talk]]) 01:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Peer Remarks 1==<br /> <br /> Hi, After reading your article, you approach the subject with educational models. I guess what you can do now is to find more different perspectives on the subject. Some headers that you can make. it could be History, Social Impact, pros and cons, what is the vision or current project reguarding video games in Education. Good luck finding sources and articles/studies. [[User:Ktlin91|Ktlin91]] ([[User talk:Ktlin91|talk]]) 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91<br /> <br /> ===Peer Remarks 2===<br /> <br /> Hello, I hope my comments and questions can be of use to you, well hopefully. No need to worry though, we're all in the same boat and we understand your article is in continuous working progress just like mines and everyone else in this course. Having said this, here is my feedback. First I made some changes. I changed "now" to "not", "solve and problems" to "solve problems", and "the a" to "the teacher". You had just some minor typos. Good into overall. I think the part where it says, "video games can also be used as an alternate to a classroom setting, while still maintaining levels of difficulty that foster learning in a gamer," could be thought out more. How can this be so, for instance. Explain further throughout your article. My only real question is: why/how would "video game education" really be more effective then our present day educational system? I would suggest you give an present day example of a educational video game that may have affective attributes and then pin point that out as well as their various settings and different levels you mentioned in your article as well. Overall, good clear read. I would suggest more hard core facts to further emphasize your points like the Air Force training you gave. Back that and everything else up with factual reliable references. -Joujoute <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joujoute|Joujoute]] ([[User talk:Joujoute|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joujoute|contribs]]) 01:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small> <br /> <br /> ==Feedback==<br /> <br /> Something you may want to include....Can video games have a negative impact on education? ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 14:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC))</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Youth_marketing&diff=459802923 Talk:Youth marketing 2011-11-09T14:20:12Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Talk: Public Opinion of Youth Marketing */</p> <hr /> <div>{{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }} <br /> <br /> ==Feedback==<br /> <br /> I think you may want to mention MTV briefly because that was a huge factor in youth marketing. I wouldn't mention it in a huge paragraph or anything because it already has it's own WikiPage, but MTV's shows were created to have an influence on this market. ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC))<br /> <br /> == Peer review ==<br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> You have a very interesting topic, and a lot of great information! I really enjoyed reading your article. I made a few minor grammatical edits for you. I also just have a few notes:<br /> <br /> - I think the sentence "Youth Marketing is under increased scrutiny by specific public oriented establishments such as government, academia, and the media. Because of increased commercialism towards kids and marketing in schools, this type of marketing is under scrutiny." might flow better if it were condensed. <br /> <br /> - I was confused by the sentence, "Recently in youth marketing there has been a lot of information and misinformation on this topic despite the issue of youth marketing." as well as the sentence, "As early adopters of new technologies youth in many ways are the defining users of the digital media embracing this new culture."<br /> <br /> - "The research that is done on youth marketing quickly becomes outdated by the time it's published as a result of the growth of digital media as educators and health professionals continue to get a grasp on the situation." seems like a bit of a run-on sentence.<br /> <br /> - In the sentence, "On the other hand, we have some scientists that believe youth marketing is a good thing because it helps to define who they are as a consumer," the "they" you are referring to is unclear.<br /> <br /> - The sentences "Generation Y is very similar to the baby boomer generation especially at different points in life. So it’s essential to see what experiences each generation has experienced while growing up." seem like they would work better if they were combined, and if the meaning of the first sentence was clarified a bit more.<br /> <br /> -- I think you're doing a great job, and would be interested in hearing more about the different ways in which various generations (as you mentioned Generation Y) have been marketed to as youth.<br /> <br /> Keep up the good work,<br /> [[User:Aja99|Aja99]] ([[User talk:Aja99|talk]]) 02:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Aja99<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey jules,<br /> I really think the ideas that you have for the concept of advertising on teens and young adults is really interesting so far. I think for the first part of your opening paragraph you might want to take out or fix the sentence with "for my article" in it because your article doesnt need sentences like that to tell us what we are going to read! Also, I think for the second paragraph when you mention that branding is everything and so is image, I think it would be awesomoe if you could maybe find a company that does target their audiences specifically for that. If you cant think of any I know one that could be helpful iff you're interested and if it ties in with your sources! All in all I think it is looking great so far!<br /> [[User:Daniellecomm375|Daniellecomm375]] ([[User talk:Daniellecomm375|talk]]) 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Peer Review ==<br /> <br /> Hi there, great start to your article. I think you did a a good job flushing out some a bunch of details about marketing. I made a tiny edit to a typo that you had on your page. The typo was in the "Reaching the Market" section and it read "Today young people expect to be able to learn about, interact and be entertained by with brands or services targeting them online". The "by with" part sounded awkward so I changed it to "Today young people expect to be able to learn about, interact and be entertained with brands or services targeting them online". <br /> Also, I really liked your sections on "Public Attitudes Towards Youth Marketing" and "Social Effects of Youth Marketing"! There was a lot of great information there. However, I would suggest rereading those sections and looking for typos and ways to rephrase some sentences so that the paragraphs flow better. Also, maybe you should look into finding some citations for some of the information that you have already written in your article.<br /> Again great start to your article. I look forward to reading the finished copy and learning even more about the world of Youth Marketing. Have an awesome day. [[User:Sjeanbap|Sjeanbap]] ([[User talk:Sjeanbap|talk]]) 21:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Peer Remarks===<br /> <br /> Hello,<br /> I have a few minor questions and comments that I hope will be helpful rather then not. Hopefully.<br /> <br /> Comments:<br /> -I too would like to learn more about the different generations in terms of marketing strategies and their affects, especially in terms of gender and their differencing strategies for little boys and girls.<br /> -I would suggest you find more examples. For instance, find advertisements for toys and examine how a action figure is marketed to a little boy versus how barbie is marketed to a little girl.<br /> -As for writing, I think clarity may be key. I noticed in the other peer reviews they mentioned typos. For me, the lack of clarity more so hindered me form really understanding your points.<br /> -Lastly, you had a lot of references, but not every point was referenced/cited??<br /> Questions:<br /> -What are the main activities being described to youth/teens?<br /> -What are the typical "markets" that they are targeting them for?<br /> -Why is it a difficult market (viewing wise) to connect with and sell to?<br /> -What are the strategies? How are they formed? Where and how do the ideas come about? How is it then executed thoroughly?<br /> -What are the more prominent differences between girls and boys as far as influence?<br /> -Why is it believed that youth marketing is more influential versus, lets say college marketing?<br /> <br /> Overall, great start to a great topic. I do understand this is a working article. Hope I've helped even just a little. -Joujoute <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joujoute|Joujoute]] ([[User talk:Joujoute|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joujoute|contribs]]) 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small> <br /> <br /> == Peer Review ==<br /> <br /> Hey great start to the paper. I pointed out a couple of ways that you could rephrase the questions a little bit in order to get across your points more effectively. For example, maybe you could switch your first paragraph into something more along the lines of this: "Youth marketing is a term used in the marketing and advertising industry to describe activities that are aim to communicate with young people, typically in the age range of 12 to 34. This large age demographic can be broken up into three age groups: Teen Marketing, which targets consumers between the ages 13 to 19, College Marketing, which targets consumer between the ages of 18 to 23, and Young Adult Marketing, which targets consumers age 23 and beyond. "<br /> Also, do you have to include Tween marketing in your first paragraph if it doesn't necessarily fall into the same category of youth marketing? (Youth Marketing: 12-34; Tween Marketing: 8-12).<br /> What you have looks good so far, but I would suggest going back and adding citations to what you have so far. <br /> Some articles that may be of use to you for citations are:<br /> http://joc.sagepub.com/content/4/2/203.full.pdf+html<br /> http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/2/326<br /> http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000707?seq=2<br /> <br /> Also, be sure to go back and read your article through, I am sure you can find more ways to change the words that you already have in order to make the paper flow better. <br /> <br /> Also in terms of the Public Attitude towards marketing section, I stumbled upon a journal data base that seems to have a lot of information on the public policy on marketing. Check it out, I think it can be of great help to you. http://www.jstor.org/<br /> <br /> Also someone seems to have signed the bottom of the social effects of marketing section. Be sure to go back and delete that s you don't confuse the reader. <br /> <br /> Again, great start to the paper, I will try and make time to read this article occasionally and give more constructive feedback! [[User:Sjeanbap|Sjeanbap]] ([[User talk:Sjeanbap|talk]]) 14:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Branded_content&diff=457700693 Talk:Branded content 2011-10-27T18:58:26Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Merge */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback==<br /> <br /> Hey, after reading your article I think you have a lot of good stuff in there. I think that possibly you could expand on what exactly happens at the One Show Entertainment because you only had that thrown in there as like an afterthought/one sentence, so maybe explain what you mean by it gets awarded? What does that mean for that film? Also, in your "risks" section, maybe bring up examples as to how much money a company could lose if they do it wrong or how it may affect the product if the film is receive badly? ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC))<br /> <br /> ==Merge==<br /> I disagree with the notion that branded content should be merged with branded entertainment. (me 2, it's different)<br /> <br /> While branding might further a product's entertainment value, branding in and of itself is not entertainment. ---<br /> <br /> There is some brand-sponsored content which is not entertainment based. It may be ''entertaining'', but it is not entertainment. Think news and documentaries which are funded by companies to engage audiences, spark discussions and position the sponsor as a thought-leader in the particular area of interest.<br /> <br /> CNBC's Questions for the future project is a case in point: http://www.questionsforthefuture.tv/<br /> <br /> [[Special:Contributions/220.255.7.149|220.255.7.149]] ([[User talk:220.255.7.149|talk]]) 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Mark Laudi, CEO, HongBaoMedia.com<br /> <br /> :The articles are short and largely redundant; I don't see why "branded entertainment" can't be a subsection of "branded content."&mdash; [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)<br /> :As it stands now, the [[Branded content]] article is written in a way that only really talks about entertainment; would you be interested in attempting a rewrite to address the other aspects of the concept? Then it may be more clear if [[Branded entertainment]] should stay on its own or become a subsection.&mdash; [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 15:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ---------------------<br /> <br /> I see both branded entertainment and brand utility as being 'types' of branded content. Steve Sponder <br /> [[Media:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3512424299_f45b9455dc_o.png]]<br /> <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stevesponder|Stevesponder]] ([[User talk:Stevesponder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stevesponder|contribs]]) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small> <br /> <br /> :Thanks, [http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3512424299_f45b9455dc_o.png this] is a potentially helpful link; do you know its source by chance? &mdash; [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yes, I created this. Steve Sponder <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.203.24.231|90.203.24.231]] ([[User talk:90.203.24.231|talk]]) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)</span> <br /> <br /> <br /> -----------------------<br /> <br /> Branded Entertainment suggests something entirely different to branded content. Branded entertainment could mean merely cuepoints and logos over ANY content, whereas branded content can mean content that is by a brand rather than merely branded via logo or cuepoint.<br /> <br /> I am Matt, I work for Adjust your set in the UK. We create Branded content, it is not necessarily branded entertainment that we create because it could be edutainment, infotainment and most importantly content with a product marketing theme, hence the disagreement as content that might always resemble entertainment. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.148.44.214|82.148.44.214]] ([[User talk:82.148.44.214|talk]]) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)</span> <br /> <br /> {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> <br /> <br /> I think in order to eliminate this confusion you could better define branded content in your intro and back it up with a source so these confusions won't arise in the future. However, I do think you do a good job of explaining it later within the article. Maybe bring that up and focus on the effects (positive or negative) and specific examples in the body of your article. I think this article has the base of what it needs just a little more clarification and it'll turn out great! [[User:Laural17|Laural17]] ([[User talk:Laural17|talk]]) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_advertising_on_teen_body_image&diff=457699578 Talk:Effects of advertising on teen body image 2011-10-27T18:51:01Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Some comments */</p> <hr /> <div>{{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }}<br /> <br /> You have a lot of good information so far. There is a great documentary called, Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women, I think this may help you with your topic. It would be great if you could add a title to your article and possible separate it into more sections such as when you add the oppositional view of women's attitudes due to advertisements.[[User:DianeElizabeth66|DianeElizabeth66]] ([[User talk:DianeElizabeth66|talk]]) 16:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Some comments==<br /> I have looked at your writing in the sandbox and wanted to commend your efforts. It is clear that you are incorporating good practices and endeavor to present information with a neutral bias. To possibly improve on your efforts, consider replacing generic references to a study by directly stating what study produced the fact you are drawing upon. Follow the same principle when presenting any opinion counter to any such position. Consider this sentence, "A 1994 study concluded that there is a positive correlation between amount of exposure ...", positive can be misunderstood as a good thing while I believe you mean to imply a direct relationship. Otherwise some might contend that "A 1994 study concluded that there is a negative correlation between amount of exposure ...". It is good that you have included references to support your claims. See if you can expand the citations to include more information than simply the URL. It helps reduce the occurrence of [[WP:Link rot|link rot]]. All in all, your writing looks good, and I hope some of this advice might help you improve it even more. As always, you are also welcome to ask questions any time you may have a question, or if I've been unclear, Cheers. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 04:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==suggestions==<br /> <br /> after reading your article I have a few suggestions that you could help to improve your work. Although you have clearly done research there are a few more things that could possibly be added into this piece. For instance, for young men you mention that they can feel unsatisfied with their body...what does this lead them to then do? do they go to the gym? protein shakes? Also, you say that advertising has affects on women as well but what does this lead them to do? eating disorders? diets? the way they dress? Lastly, through which type of media does advertising have it's greatest affects on teens? ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 18:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC))</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZachMcDowell&diff=457217982 User talk:ZachMcDowell 2011-10-24T21:45:30Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Talkback */</p> <hr /> <div>== Welcome! ==<br /> <br /> {| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0"<br /> |style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;"|<br /> {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;"<br /> | <div style="margin:0; background-color:#CEF2E0; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello, Debaser42 and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Debaser42|your contributions]] to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out ''Getting Help'' below, ask me on [[User talk:Cindamuse|my talk page]], or place '''{{tl|helpme}}''' on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on talk pages by using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking [[File:Insert-signature.png]] if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 19:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)<br /> |}<br /> {{Welcomeg/links}}<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Online Ambassador for Writing as Communication Fall 2011==<br /> I have added my user name to the list of online ambassadors for your course. My reasons are two fold, First, I believe I can help with understanding Wikipedia policy regarding collaborative writing, and I am interested in improving my own writing skills. I see this as a win win situation and am glad to assist where I can. I hope I can meet the expectations and needs of the class. I will incorporate my best effort in all regards. With esteem - [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 18:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)<br /> :Added myself as well. I've six years of Wikipedia experience and have contributed to over 40 featured articles and lists. Happy to help. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Hello!==<br /> Hi Zach, welcome to the Global Education Program! [[User:Alin (WMF)|Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation)]] ([[User talk:Alin (WMF)|talk]]) 21:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)<br /> ==Talkback==<br /> {{talkback|My76Strat|ts=01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)}}<br /> [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I hope that medium coffee is not the median for medium. LOL - [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::Apparently Tim Horton's isn't a fan of "American" sized coffee. Unfortunately for me that morning. [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 13:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Comment==<br /> I did notice that you favor the serial comma, as do I. I was struck that you use contractions, and perhaps regard their use as appropriate in writing. It would be contrary to use contractions in the encyclopedia, unless they are part of a quote being cited in its [sic] form. [[WP:MOS]] covers some general specifics, and [[WP:CONTRACTION]] is more specific to the aforementioned. What are your thoughts to this regard? [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 13:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> :You're [sic] completely right - but for my userpage I figured I'd just be more lax. I'll edit that for the students, as that is how I write all academic papers. [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==A question on scope==<br /> Would a precept of international law be within the scope of writing for a participant in your class? I ask because I prepared an article as a stub specifically for a student participant to expand if they were so inclined. It is located at [[General Purpose Criterion]] if it could be of benefit. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> ::Although I think students might be interested in working on an international law article, the scope of a communication studies article would be something that specifically dealt with a communicative event. For example, an article about the Wikileaks and International law would be a good assignment - I would envision something like this as a summary (think: literature review) of the academic literature as well as news coverage of the reaction to Wikileaks from the international legal community. [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> :::I understand your distinction. Thanks - [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]])<br /> ::::Thank you for all your help! [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> :::::No problem at all. I am excited about this whole program, and the wholesome interaction that is generally associated. I did want to thank you for joining the irc classroom as well. I hope you'll return at times, and that I see you when you are there. And of course, if you do see me logged in, which is often, feel free to ping me to say hello. Cheers - [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I logged in earlier today to show students. I saw you and specifically mentioned to them that you are someone to talk to and explained how (!ambassador). So you might get some of them saying hi. They were still a bit hesitant this morning but I think by the end of the class they were feeling at least confident enough to ask for help. [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 16:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}Great!, does that imply your entire class is formed, and if so; where is the consolidated list of students? [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> ::Oh yes - they're all on the main course page [[Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Writing_as_Communication_(Zachary_McDowell)#Students|here]] [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Thanks! ==<br /> <br /> I understand it now I think. Thanks for moving my note![[User:Sabrina.roy|Sabrina.roy]] ([[User talk:Sabrina.roy|talk]]) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> ::No worries - if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask! [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Idea for topic ==<br /> <br /> Hi Zach, I have an idea for a possible topic but there is no Wikipedia page on it already. For this assignment, how do I put it on my page?[[User:Sabrina.roy|Sabrina.roy]] ([[User talk:Sabrina.roy|talk]]) 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> ::Find something similar and link it with the double brackets and the stuff past the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ - for example <nowiki>[[pokemon]]</nowiki> for [[Pokemon]]. Then type a sentence or two about what it is that you'd like to do. By the way - you can always come on over to the chat room and ask for help. The two Online Ambassadors (OAs) and myself are in there now just waiting to help - [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-classroom click here] [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Fixed my Topic's==<br /> <br /> Hi Zach, got your comments on my talk page and just want to let you know that I have fixed it accordingly. [[User:Krimsonshadow|Krimsonshadow]] ([[User talk:Krimsonshadow|talk]]) 02:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Talkback ==<br /> {{tb|Cindamuse|User_talk:Cindamuse#Comm_375_Sjeanbap}}<br /> <br /> ==Question==<br /> <br /> I was trying to put the banner on top of the Propaganda Film page for the "war on terror" section and it's not showing up and I'm not sure why =/ [[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 21:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Project Idea==<br /> Hey! This is steph in your comm375 class...would this be an okay article for me to edit? You mentioned that my other articles may have been too broad earlier... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_film thanks! [[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 19:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> ::Hi Steph - this would be a fine article, but its already pretty fleshed out - do you have a specific sub-topic regarding propaganda films that you'd like to write about? Have you found some research about propaganda films that you'd like to synthesize? [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == "Quick Wikipedia Edit" & Citations ==<br /> <br /> Hi Zach,<br /> This is Brittany from Comm375. I just did the "Quick Wikipedia Edit" assignment, but I had a hard time doing the citation for the article I used. I think I was able to properly cite it, but I just wanted to make sure. My citation is #20 on the [[Body image]] page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aja99 Thank you. [[User:Aja99|Aja99]] ([[User talk:Aja99|talk]]) 02:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Aja99<br /> ::Hi Brittany - looks great! Check the flow of the paragraph you added to, you might want to copy edit a bit as you put your sentence right in the beginning, but otherwise it appears to be a good citation! [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42#top|talk]]) 03:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_film&diff=457217412 Propaganda film 2011-10-24T21:41:50Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* War on Terror */</p> <hr /> <div>{{About||the production company|Propaganda Films|the 1999 Turkish comedy film|Propaganda (film)}}<br /> [[File:transmitlies.jpeg|250px|thumb|The ''[[Why We Fight]]'' Series depicts the Nazi propaganda machine.]]<br /> <br /> The term [[propaganda]] can be defined as the ability to produce and spread fertile messages that, once sown, will germinate in large human cultures.”<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 35</ref> However, in the 20th century, a “new” propaganda emerged, which revolved around political organizations and their need to communicate messages that would “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their agendas”.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 32</ref> A '''propaganda film''' is a [[film]], either a [[documentary film|documentary]]-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, [[propaganda|propagandistic]] content.<ref>Bennett, Todd. "The celluloid war: state and studio in Anglo-American propaganda film-making, 1939-1941." The International History Review 24.1 (March 2002): 64(34).</ref><br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> The earliest known propaganda film was a series of short silent films made during the Spanish American War in 1898 created by Vitagraph Studios. One of the early fictional films to be used for propaganda was ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'', although it was not produced for the purposes of indoctrination. In 1918, [[Charlie Chaplin]] made, at his own expense, ''[[The Bond]]'', a [[comedic]] propaganda film for [[World War I]]. In the years following the [[October Revolution]] of 1917, the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] government sponsored the [[Russia]]n film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films. <br /> <br /> During the First World War a secret film campaign was brought to the United States. In an effort to control public opinion in this important neutral country, German officials set up The American Correspondent Film Company. As a front man for this organization, photographer [[Albert K. Dawson]] was attached to the German and Austrian army. Dawson was among the most active and daring film correspondents in the Great War.<br /> <br /> The development of Russian cinema in the 1920s by such [[filmmaker]]s as [[Dziga Vertov]] and [[Sergei Eisenstein]] saw considerable progress in the use of the motion picture as a propaganda tool, yet it also served to develop the art of moviemaking. Eisenstein's films, in particular ''[[The Battleship Potemkin]]'', are seen as masterworks of the cinema, even as they glorify Eisenstein's [[Communist]] ideals.<br /> <br /> The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of [[totalitarian]] states and the [[Second World War]], are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Nazi control of the German film industry is the most extreme example of the use of film in the service of a fascist national program and, in 1933, Hitler created the Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda and appointed the youthful Joseph Goebbels as its head.<ref>{{cite web|last=Shelton|first=Dinah L|title=Film as Propaganda|url=http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/ film-propaganda|work=Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|publisher=eNotes.com|accessdate=21 September 2011}}</ref> During this time [[Leni Riefenstahl]], a filmmaker working in [[Nazi Germany]], created what is arguably the greatest propaganda movie of all time: ''[[Triumph of the Will]]'', a film commissioned by [[Hitler]] to chronicle the 1934 [[Nazi Party]] rally in [[Nuremberg]]. Despite its controversial subject, the film is still recognized today for its [[Films that have been considered the greatest ever|influential]] revolutionary approaches to using [[music]] and [[cinematography]].<br /> <br /> In the United States during [[World War II]], filmmaker [[Frank Capra]] created a seven-part series of films to support the war effort entitled ''[[Why We Fight]].'' This series is considered a highlight of the propaganda film genre. Other propaganda movies, such as ''[[Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo]]'' and ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'', have become so well-loved by film viewers that they can stand on their own as dramatic films, apart from their original role as propaganda vehicles.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/casablanca/bmp_report_casablanca.cfm | title=Casablanca | publisher=[[Digital History]] |year= 2006 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref><br /> <br /> Many of the dramatic [[war film]]s in the early 1940s in the [[United States]] were designed to create a [[patriotic]] mindset and [[consensus|convince]] viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat "the enemy." One of the conventions of the [[genre]] was to depict a [[Race (classification of human beings)|racial]] and [[socioeconomic]] [[Cross-sectional data|cross-section]] of the United States, either a [[platoon]] on the front lines or soldiers training on a [[Military base|base]], which come together to fight for the good of the country. In [[Italy]], at the same time, [[film director]]s like [[Roberto Rossellini]] produced propaganda films for similar purposes.<br /> <br /> During the 1960s, the United States produced propaganda films that cheerily instructed civilians how to build homemade [[fallout shelter]]s, to protect themselves in the event of [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]].<br /> <br /> ==United States==<br /> In the twentieth century, mass communications became an extremely popular tool for learning. The communications revolution had a large influence on both the political and moral realms. Films became the most popular medium used by the American government to transmit its political and social message.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.63</ref> It marked the first time in history that the American government had the opportunity to directly shape the ideas and perceptions of such a large percentage of its citizens.<br /> <br /> ===World War II===<br /> Between the two World Wars, many war films were released in the United States. While they celebrated the bravery of the American soldiers, they depicted war as an existential nightmare. Films such as [[The Big Parade]] depicted the horrors of trench warfare, the brutal destruction of villages and the lack of provisions.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.67</ref> Films pushing national policy were receiving terrible reviews from the American population. <br /> <br /> President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] understood that the direct style of propaganda was not reaching the American public. He assigned [[Lowell Mellett]] as the coordinator of government films. Although he had no jurisdiction over Hollywood films, he pressured the industry into helping the war effort. On January 13, 1945 Mellett stated in confidential testimony that he was assigned to persuade the movie industry to “insert morale-building and citizenry arousing themes in its films by all means possible.”<ref>Culbert, David. Verbatim Testimony. 1945. MS. New York, Washington.</ref>{{Citation needed|date = November 2010}}<br /> <br /> The American government was faced with the challenge that too much propaganda could wreck Hollywood’s entertainment appeal, which would reduce its targeted audience. Hollywood was faced with the difficult task of incorporating propaganda into its film without hurting profits. In the six months from December 1941 to July 1942, 72 “war features” were released in the United States.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 54</ref> They usually depicted the Japanese as bloodthirsty barbarians and cast Americans as the outraged innocent nation.<br /> <br /> During the years where film and propaganda went hand in hand, military enlistment increased and an overall feeling of patriotism reigned in the United States. Many commanding officers attributed the high enlistment numbers to America’s innovative propaganda. They noticed an increase in drafted soldiers’ overall morale.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.68</ref><br /> <br /> {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }} <br /> {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }} <br /> <br /> ===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s [[Blockbuster (entertainment)|blockbuster]] is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters [[John McLoughlin]] and [[Will Jimeno]], and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the [[United States]] what they believed. These films were then used as [[propaganda]] for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of films made in the Third Reich]]<br /> *[[List of Allied propaganda films of World War II]]<br /> *[[List of Holocaust films]]<br /> *[[List of World War II films]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> * ''[http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html Propaganda Filmmaker: Make Your Own Propaganda Film]<br /> * ''[http://www.propagandacritic.com/gallery/index.html Propagandacritic Video Gallery]<br /> * ''[http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=657 Empire-Hollywood: Chronicler of War] - A look at the Pentagon's influence on the film industry (2 videos 15:53 from [[The Real News]])<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Propaganda Film}}<br /> [[Category:Film genres]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda films| ]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda techniques by medium|Films]]<br /> <br /> [[de:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[it:Film propagandistico]]<br /> [[nl:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[ja:プロパガンダ映画]]<br /> [[sr:Пропагандни филм]]<br /> [[fi:Propagandaelokuva]]<br /> [[vi:Phim tuyên truyền]]</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_film&diff=457217327 Propaganda film 2011-10-24T21:41:08Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* United States */</p> <hr /> <div>{{About||the production company|Propaganda Films|the 1999 Turkish comedy film|Propaganda (film)}}<br /> [[File:transmitlies.jpeg|250px|thumb|The ''[[Why We Fight]]'' Series depicts the Nazi propaganda machine.]]<br /> <br /> The term [[propaganda]] can be defined as the ability to produce and spread fertile messages that, once sown, will germinate in large human cultures.”<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 35</ref> However, in the 20th century, a “new” propaganda emerged, which revolved around political organizations and their need to communicate messages that would “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their agendas”.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 32</ref> A '''propaganda film''' is a [[film]], either a [[documentary film|documentary]]-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, [[propaganda|propagandistic]] content.<ref>Bennett, Todd. "The celluloid war: state and studio in Anglo-American propaganda film-making, 1939-1941." The International History Review 24.1 (March 2002): 64(34).</ref><br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> The earliest known propaganda film was a series of short silent films made during the Spanish American War in 1898 created by Vitagraph Studios. One of the early fictional films to be used for propaganda was ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'', although it was not produced for the purposes of indoctrination. In 1918, [[Charlie Chaplin]] made, at his own expense, ''[[The Bond]]'', a [[comedic]] propaganda film for [[World War I]]. In the years following the [[October Revolution]] of 1917, the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] government sponsored the [[Russia]]n film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films. <br /> <br /> During the First World War a secret film campaign was brought to the United States. In an effort to control public opinion in this important neutral country, German officials set up The American Correspondent Film Company. As a front man for this organization, photographer [[Albert K. Dawson]] was attached to the German and Austrian army. Dawson was among the most active and daring film correspondents in the Great War.<br /> <br /> The development of Russian cinema in the 1920s by such [[filmmaker]]s as [[Dziga Vertov]] and [[Sergei Eisenstein]] saw considerable progress in the use of the motion picture as a propaganda tool, yet it also served to develop the art of moviemaking. Eisenstein's films, in particular ''[[The Battleship Potemkin]]'', are seen as masterworks of the cinema, even as they glorify Eisenstein's [[Communist]] ideals.<br /> <br /> The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of [[totalitarian]] states and the [[Second World War]], are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Nazi control of the German film industry is the most extreme example of the use of film in the service of a fascist national program and, in 1933, Hitler created the Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda and appointed the youthful Joseph Goebbels as its head.<ref>{{cite web|last=Shelton|first=Dinah L|title=Film as Propaganda|url=http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/ film-propaganda|work=Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|publisher=eNotes.com|accessdate=21 September 2011}}</ref> During this time [[Leni Riefenstahl]], a filmmaker working in [[Nazi Germany]], created what is arguably the greatest propaganda movie of all time: ''[[Triumph of the Will]]'', a film commissioned by [[Hitler]] to chronicle the 1934 [[Nazi Party]] rally in [[Nuremberg]]. Despite its controversial subject, the film is still recognized today for its [[Films that have been considered the greatest ever|influential]] revolutionary approaches to using [[music]] and [[cinematography]].<br /> <br /> In the United States during [[World War II]], filmmaker [[Frank Capra]] created a seven-part series of films to support the war effort entitled ''[[Why We Fight]].'' This series is considered a highlight of the propaganda film genre. Other propaganda movies, such as ''[[Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo]]'' and ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'', have become so well-loved by film viewers that they can stand on their own as dramatic films, apart from their original role as propaganda vehicles.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/casablanca/bmp_report_casablanca.cfm | title=Casablanca | publisher=[[Digital History]] |year= 2006 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref><br /> <br /> Many of the dramatic [[war film]]s in the early 1940s in the [[United States]] were designed to create a [[patriotic]] mindset and [[consensus|convince]] viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat "the enemy." One of the conventions of the [[genre]] was to depict a [[Race (classification of human beings)|racial]] and [[socioeconomic]] [[Cross-sectional data|cross-section]] of the United States, either a [[platoon]] on the front lines or soldiers training on a [[Military base|base]], which come together to fight for the good of the country. In [[Italy]], at the same time, [[film director]]s like [[Roberto Rossellini]] produced propaganda films for similar purposes.<br /> <br /> During the 1960s, the United States produced propaganda films that cheerily instructed civilians how to build homemade [[fallout shelter]]s, to protect themselves in the event of [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]].<br /> <br /> ==United States==<br /> In the twentieth century, mass communications became an extremely popular tool for learning. The communications revolution had a large influence on both the political and moral realms. Films became the most popular medium used by the American government to transmit its political and social message.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.63</ref> It marked the first time in history that the American government had the opportunity to directly shape the ideas and perceptions of such a large percentage of its citizens.<br /> <br /> ===World War II===<br /> Between the two World Wars, many war films were released in the United States. While they celebrated the bravery of the American soldiers, they depicted war as an existential nightmare. Films such as [[The Big Parade]] depicted the horrors of trench warfare, the brutal destruction of villages and the lack of provisions.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.67</ref> Films pushing national policy were receiving terrible reviews from the American population. <br /> <br /> President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] understood that the direct style of propaganda was not reaching the American public. He assigned [[Lowell Mellett]] as the coordinator of government films. Although he had no jurisdiction over Hollywood films, he pressured the industry into helping the war effort. On January 13, 1945 Mellett stated in confidential testimony that he was assigned to persuade the movie industry to “insert morale-building and citizenry arousing themes in its films by all means possible.”<ref>Culbert, David. Verbatim Testimony. 1945. MS. New York, Washington.</ref>{{Citation needed|date = November 2010}}<br /> <br /> The American government was faced with the challenge that too much propaganda could wreck Hollywood’s entertainment appeal, which would reduce its targeted audience. Hollywood was faced with the difficult task of incorporating propaganda into its film without hurting profits. In the six months from December 1941 to July 1942, 72 “war features” were released in the United States.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 54</ref> They usually depicted the Japanese as bloodthirsty barbarians and cast Americans as the outraged innocent nation.<br /> <br /> During the years where film and propaganda went hand in hand, military enlistment increased and an overall feeling of patriotism reigned in the United States. Many commanding officers attributed the high enlistment numbers to America’s innovative propaganda. They noticed an increase in drafted soldiers’ overall morale.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.68</ref><br /> <br /> {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell) | university = University of Massachusetts Amherst | term = 2011 Q3 | project = }} <br /> ===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s [[Blockbuster (entertainment)|blockbuster]] is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters [[John McLoughlin]] and [[Will Jimeno]], and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the [[United States]] what they believed. These films were then used as [[propaganda]] for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of films made in the Third Reich]]<br /> *[[List of Allied propaganda films of World War II]]<br /> *[[List of Holocaust films]]<br /> *[[List of World War II films]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> * ''[http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html Propaganda Filmmaker: Make Your Own Propaganda Film]<br /> * ''[http://www.propagandacritic.com/gallery/index.html Propagandacritic Video Gallery]<br /> * ''[http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=657 Empire-Hollywood: Chronicler of War] - A look at the Pentagon's influence on the film industry (2 videos 15:53 from [[The Real News]])<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Propaganda Film}}<br /> [[Category:Film genres]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda films| ]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda techniques by medium|Films]]<br /> <br /> [[de:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[it:Film propagandistico]]<br /> [[nl:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[ja:プロパガンダ映画]]<br /> [[sr:Пропагандни филм]]<br /> [[fi:Propagandaelokuva]]<br /> [[vi:Phim tuyên truyền]]</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Writing_as_Communication_(Zachary_McDowell)/Articles&diff=457217102 Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell)/Articles 2011-10-24T21:39:42Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Articles */</p> <hr /> <div>==Articles==<br /> This table will list each article that a student is working on, and which other students will be peer reviewers for the article.<br /> <br /> {| class="wikitable"<br /> |-<br /> ! User<br /> ! Article<br /> ! 1st reviewer<br /> ! 2nd reviewer<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Ktlin91]]<br /> | [[Telecommunication_convergence]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:daniellecomm375]]<br /> | [[Sexuality_in_music_videos]] <br /> | jules2013<br /> | Jns521<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:jules2013]]<br /> | [[Youth_marketing]] <br /> | danielle<br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Jns521]]<br /> | [[Alcohol_advertising]] <br /> | Daniellecomm375 <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Aja99]]<br /> | [[Effects_of_teen_advertising_on_body_image]] <br /> | Jns521<br /> | scriptgeek<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Laural17]]<br /> | [[Motivations_for_joining_the_Special_Olympics]] <br /> | Sabrina.roy<br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Sabrina.roy]]<br /> | [[Post-Classical_Editing]] <br /> | Laura L. <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:GirlWithTheMostCake]]<br /> | [[Feminist_Blog]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:DianeElizabeth66]]<br /> | [[Misogyny_and_mass_media]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:richardw8704]]<br /> | [[Little_League_World_Series_on_television]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:scriptgeek]]<br /> | [[propaganda_film]] <br /> | Sabrina.roy <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Kellilivingston]]<br /> | [[Branded_content]] <br /> | Laura L<br /> | scriptgeek<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:krimsonshadow]]<br /> | [[youth_marketing]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Eff Gjeni]]<br /> | [[Gender_Advertisement]] <br /> | Diane <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <noinclude><center><big><br /> ([{{fullurl:{{{page|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} Click to return to your main course page and continue.])<br /> </big></center></noinclude></div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Writing_as_Communication_(Zachary_McDowell)/Articles&diff=456993326 Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing as Communication (Zachary McDowell)/Articles 2011-10-23T15:30:27Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Articles */</p> <hr /> <div>==Articles==<br /> This table will list each article that a student is working on, and which other students will be peer reviewers for the article.<br /> <br /> {| class="wikitable"<br /> |-<br /> ! User<br /> ! Article<br /> ! 1st reviewer<br /> ! 2nd reviewer<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Ktlin91]]<br /> | [[Telecommunication_convergence]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:daniellecomm375]]<br /> | [[Sexuality_in_music_videos]] <br /> | jules2013<br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:jules2013]]<br /> | [[Youth_marketing]] <br /> | danielle<br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Jns521]]<br /> | [[Alcohol_advertising]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Aja99]]<br /> | [[Effects_of_teen_advertising_on_body_image]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Laural17]]<br /> | [[Motivations_for_joining_the_Special_Olympics]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Sabrina.roy]]<br /> | [[Post-Classical_Editing]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:GirlWithTheMostCake]]<br /> | [[Feminist_Blog]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:DianeElizabeth66]]<br /> | [[Misogyny_and_mass_media]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:richardw8704]]<br /> | [[Little_League_World_Series_on_television]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:scriptgeek]]<br /> | [[propaganda_film]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |-<br /> | [[User:Example User]]<br /> | [[Example article]] <br /> | open <br /> | open<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <noinclude><center><big><br /> ([{{fullurl:{{{page|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} Click to return to your main course page and continue.])<br /> </big></center></noinclude></div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_film&diff=456992866 Propaganda film 2011-10-23T15:27:27Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* United States */</p> <hr /> <div>{{About||the production company|Propaganda Films|the 1999 Turkish comedy film|Propaganda (film)}}<br /> [[File:transmitlies.jpeg|250px|thumb|The ''[[Why We Fight]]'' Series depicts the Nazi propaganda machine.]]<br /> <br /> The term [[propaganda]] can be defined as the ability to produce and spread fertile messages that, once sown, will germinate in large human cultures.”<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 35</ref> However, in the 20th century, a “new” propaganda emerged, which revolved around political organizations and their need to communicate messages that would “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their agendas”.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 32</ref> A '''propaganda film''' is a [[film]], either a [[documentary film|documentary]]-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, [[propaganda|propagandistic]] content.<ref>Bennett, Todd. "The celluloid war: state and studio in Anglo-American propaganda film-making, 1939-1941." The International History Review 24.1 (March 2002): 64(34).</ref><br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> The earliest known propaganda film was a series of short silent films made during the Spanish American War in 1898 created by Vitagraph Studios. One of the early fictional films to be used for propaganda was ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'', although it was not produced for the purposes of indoctrination. In 1918, [[Charlie Chaplin]] made, at his own expense, ''[[The Bond]]'', a [[comedic]] propaganda film for [[World War I]]. In the years following the [[October Revolution]] of 1917, the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] government sponsored the [[Russia]]n film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films. <br /> <br /> During the First World War a secret film campaign was brought to the United States. In an effort to control public opinion in this important neutral country, German officials set up The American Correspondent Film Company. As a front man for this organization, photographer [[Albert K. Dawson]] was attached to the German and Austrian army. Dawson was among the most active and daring film correspondents in the Great War.<br /> <br /> The development of Russian cinema in the 1920s by such [[filmmaker]]s as [[Dziga Vertov]] and [[Sergei Eisenstein]] saw considerable progress in the use of the motion picture as a propaganda tool, yet it also served to develop the art of moviemaking. Eisenstein's films, in particular ''[[The Battleship Potemkin]]'', are seen as masterworks of the cinema, even as they glorify Eisenstein's [[Communist]] ideals.<br /> <br /> The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of [[totalitarian]] states and the [[Second World War]], are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Nazi control of the German film industry is the most extreme example of the use of film in the service of a fascist national program and, in 1933, Hitler created the Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda and appointed the youthful Joseph Goebbels as its head.<ref>{{cite web|last=Shelton|first=Dinah L|title=Film as Propaganda|url=http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/ film-propaganda|work=Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|publisher=eNotes.com|accessdate=21 September 2011}}</ref> During this time [[Leni Riefenstahl]], a filmmaker working in [[Nazi Germany]], created what is arguably the greatest propaganda movie of all time: ''[[Triumph of the Will]]'', a film commissioned by [[Hitler]] to chronicle the 1934 [[Nazi Party]] rally in [[Nuremberg]]. Despite its controversial subject, the film is still recognized today for its [[Films that have been considered the greatest ever|influential]] revolutionary approaches to using [[music]] and [[cinematography]].<br /> <br /> In the United States during [[World War II]], filmmaker [[Frank Capra]] created a seven-part series of films to support the war effort entitled ''[[Why We Fight]].'' This series is considered a highlight of the propaganda film genre. Other propaganda movies, such as ''[[Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo]]'' and ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'', have become so well-loved by film viewers that they can stand on their own as dramatic films, apart from their original role as propaganda vehicles.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/casablanca/bmp_report_casablanca.cfm | title=Casablanca | publisher=[[Digital History]] |year= 2006 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref><br /> <br /> Many of the dramatic [[war film]]s in the early 1940s in the [[United States]] were designed to create a [[patriotic]] mindset and [[consensus|convince]] viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat "the enemy." One of the conventions of the [[genre]] was to depict a [[Race (classification of human beings)|racial]] and [[socioeconomic]] [[Cross-sectional data|cross-section]] of the United States, either a [[platoon]] on the front lines or soldiers training on a [[Military base|base]], which come together to fight for the good of the country. In [[Italy]], at the same time, [[film director]]s like [[Roberto Rossellini]] produced propaganda films for similar purposes.<br /> <br /> During the 1960s, the United States produced propaganda films that cheerily instructed civilians how to build homemade [[fallout shelter]]s, to protect themselves in the event of [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]].<br /> <br /> ==United States==<br /> In the twentieth century, mass communications became an extremely popular tool for learning. The communications revolution had a large influence on both the political and moral realms. Films became the most popular medium used by the American government to transmit its political and social message.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.63</ref> It marked the first time in history that the American government had the opportunity to directly shape the ideas and perceptions of such a large percentage of its citizens.<br /> <br /> ===World War II===<br /> Between the two World Wars, many war films were released in the United States. While they celebrated the bravery of the American soldiers, they depicted war as an existential nightmare. Films such as [[The Big Parade]] depicted the horrors of trench warfare, the brutal destruction of villages and the lack of provisions.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.67</ref> Films pushing national policy were receiving terrible reviews from the American population. <br /> <br /> President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] understood that the direct style of propaganda was not reaching the American public. He assigned [[Lowell Mellett]] as the coordinator of government films. Although he had no jurisdiction over Hollywood films, he pressured the industry into helping the war effort. On January 13, 1945 Mellett stated in confidential testimony that he was assigned to persuade the movie industry to “insert morale-building and citizenry arousing themes in its films by all means possible.”<ref>Culbert, David. Verbatim Testimony. 1945. MS. New York, Washington.</ref>{{Citation needed|date = November 2010}}<br /> <br /> The American government was faced with the challenge that too much propaganda could wreck Hollywood’s entertainment appeal, which would reduce its targeted audience. Hollywood was faced with the difficult task of incorporating propaganda into its film without hurting profits. In the six months from December 1941 to July 1942, 72 “war features” were released in the United States.<ref>Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. 54</ref> They usually depicted the Japanese as bloodthirsty barbarians and cast Americans as the outraged innocent nation.<br /> <br /> During the years where film and propaganda went hand in hand, military enlistment increased and an overall feeling of patriotism reigned in the United States. Many commanding officers attributed the high enlistment numbers to America’s innovative propaganda. They noticed an increase in drafted soldiers’ overall morale.<ref>Koppes, Clayton, and Black Gregory. Hollywood Goes to War. New York: The Free Press, 1987.68</ref><br /> <br /> ===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s [[Blockbuster (entertainment)|blockbuster]] is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters [[John McLoughlin]] and [[Will Jimeno]], and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the [[United States]] what they believed. These films were then used as [[propaganda]] for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of films made in the Third Reich]]<br /> *[[List of Allied propaganda films of World War II]]<br /> *[[List of Holocaust films]]<br /> *[[List of World War II films]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> * ''[http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html Propaganda Filmmaker: Make Your Own Propaganda Film]<br /> * ''[http://www.propagandacritic.com/gallery/index.html Propagandacritic Video Gallery]<br /> * ''[http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=657 Empire-Hollywood: Chronicler of War] - A look at the Pentagon's influence on the film industry (2 videos 15:53 from [[The Real News]])<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Propaganda Film}}<br /> [[Category:Film genres]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda films| ]]<br /> [[Category:Propaganda techniques by medium|Films]]<br /> <br /> [[de:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[it:Film propagandistico]]<br /> [[nl:Propagandafilm]]<br /> [[ja:プロパガンダ映画]]<br /> [[sr:Пропагандни филм]]<br /> [[fi:Propagandaelokuva]]<br /> [[vi:Phim tuyên truyền]]</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456350724 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:50:49Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* War on Terror */</p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s [[Blockbuster (entertainment)|blockbuster]] is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters [[John McLoughlin]] and [[Will Jimeno]], and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the [[United States]] what they believed. These films were then used as [[propaganda]] for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456350413 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:48:28Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* War on Terror */</p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, [[propaganda]] "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters [[John McLoughlin]] and [[Will Jimeno]], and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the [[United States]] what they believed. These films were then used as [[propaganda]] for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456350160 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:46:31Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* War on Terror */</p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456350070 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:45:52Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* War on Terror */</p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]' film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456349494 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:41:43Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456349435 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:41:09Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> {{Reflist}}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456349397 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:40:49Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.<br /> <br /> {Reflist}</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456349006 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:37:40Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Also, just as in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," "[[World Trade Center]]" also decided to omit the footage of the planes hitting the "[[Twin Towers]]." When asked about this, the film makers stated that they didn't feel the need to add it in because it wouldn't add anything new to the story since it's been seen by the nation multiple times<ref>{{cite web|last=Halbfinger|first=David|title=Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' Seeks Truth in the Rubble|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/movies/02halb.html?pagewanted=all|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>. However, just like in "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," an omission such as this helps to create a certain emotion for the viewer on the way that they view the attack and the events that followed in the film. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456347974 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:29:47Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. This is especially true when one makes a film and markets it as being a true story, when this happens, sometimes people can forget that the director may have taken some creative liberty in creating his masterpiece.<br /> <br /> In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456347711 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:27:33Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." Although the film is based on the true story of firefighters John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456347045 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:22:14Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]]," released by [[Paramount]], was showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456346810 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-19T13:20:30Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were "[[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456007275 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:51:22Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* War on Terror */</p> <hr /> <div>===War on Terror===<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456007239 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:51:00Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>=War on Terror=<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456006908 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:48:30Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>==War on Terror==<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans wanted to voice their opinions regarding what they thought the attitudes and actions of the [[United States]] should be. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456005632 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:38:10Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>==War on Terror==<br /> <br /> After the events of [[9/11]], many Americans had thoughts regarding the actions that occurred on that day and in the days that followed. During this time period, numerous propaganda films appeared that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456004488 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:29:06Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>==War on Terror==<br /> <br /> After [[9/11]] numerous propaganda films started appearing that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456004409 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:28:14Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous propaganda films started appearing that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> In a means of counter-attack, after "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], was being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building may have deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, omissions such as these make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was originally titled "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when there was a creative decision to change it<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. Also, for this movie in particular, the families of those on board gave their approval for this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Since the families of those are board gave their approval, it is inevitable that the screenplay for "[[United 93]]" will favor the opinion of those who lost a loved one on "[[9/11]]." Therefore, even before the production process of the film has begun, the message of the film is already biased and skewed. <br /> <br /> One thing to keep in mind when viewing "[[United 93]]," is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery. Because no one is exactly sure as to what happened on board, a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative reenactment as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. Although the audience is watching this film thinking that it is based on a true story, especially since the families are advocating it and because the events that happened surround this film are both true and happened relatively recent, the audience may be being misled to believe that what they are watching on screen is incredibly truthful and an accurate account of the events on that fateful day.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative geniuses, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=456003091 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-17T13:16:53Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous propaganda films started appearing that were either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate across the country and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is unaware that they are being persuaded to form a viewpoint one way. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," is among one of the films that critics consider propaganda for this time period. [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques [[Michael Moore|Moore]] uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to create a certain feeling within the viewers. For example, he omitted the footage of the planes hitting the [[Twin Towers]], instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, [[Michael Moore|Moore]] is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of [[9/11]] in whichever way he chooses because he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that [[Michael Moore|Moore]] filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded in portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, [[Michael Moore|Moore]]'s blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building maybe deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, it's omissions such as these, that make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was set to be released as "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when the producers decided otherwise<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. One thing that makes this movie particularly interesting is that the families of those on board gave their approval to this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. However, one thing to keep in mind while viewing this film, is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery, so a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative recreation as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative genius, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Nolan33&diff=455600327 User talk:Mike Nolan33 2011-10-14T22:04:58Z

<p>Scriptgeek: /* Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center" style="width:100%; border:2px solid silver; background:#f0f0f0; text-align:center; font-family:Georgia, serif;"<br /> |-<br /> |colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#F8EABA; border-bottom:1.5px dotted silver;" |<br /> <span style="font-size:180%; font-family:Tahoma, sans-serif;">Welcome to Wikipedia! </span><br /> |-<br /> |align="center" colspan="2" style="font-family:Tahoma, sans-serif; padding:15px 2% 5px 2%;" valign="middle"|<br /> {{col-begin}}<br /> <br /> ''Welcome!''&nbsp;My name is [[User:Cindamuse|Cindamuse]], and I'm an [[Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors|Online Ambassador]]. We are a group of experienced Wikipedians who offer assistance, support, and mentorship for newcomers. You don't need to read anything; you can just jump right in and try to improve Wikipedia. If you need help, you can [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-classroom talk with us right now], or you can leave me a message on my [[User talk:Cindamuse|user talk page]]. Have fun! <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 16:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> {{col-end}}<br /> </div><br /> |-<br /> <br /> <br /> | align="center" style="width:50%; padding:15px 2% 5px 2%;" valign="top"|<br /> <span style="font-size: 140%;">[[WP:Cheatsheet|Editing cheatsheet]] [[File:Document-open Gion.svg|25px]]</span><br /><br /> Forgot how that code worked?<br /> <br /> | align="center" style="width:50%; padding:15px 2% 5px 2%;" valign="top" |<br /> <span style="font-size: 140%;">[[WP:Simplified ruleset|Summary of policies and guidelines]] [[File:Nuvola apps kdict.svg|25px]]</span><br /><br /> A quick reference for Wikipedia's "rules"<br /> |-<br /> <br /> <br /> | align="center" style="width:50%; padding:5px 2%;" valign="top"|<br /> <span style="font-size: 140%;">[[Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses|Find the page for your course]] [[File:Crystal Clear app kghostview.png|25px]]</span><br /><br /> Forgot the link to your course's page?<br /> <br /> | align="center" style="width:50%; padding:5px 2%;" valign="top" |<br /> <span style="font-size: 140%;">[[Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors|Choose a mentor]] [[File:Vista-messenger.png|25px]]</span><br /><br /> Contact an ambassador to work with<br /> |-<br /> <br /> <br /> | align="center" colspan="1" style="padding:5px 2%;" valign="top"|<br /> <span style="font-size: 140%;">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment|Help with article assessment]] [[File:Vista-advancedsettings.png|25px]]</span><br /><br /> Help us assess these articles!<br /> <br /> | align="center" colspan="1" style="padding:5px 2%;" valign="top"|<br /> <span style="font-size: 140%;">[[Wikipedia:Starting an article|Starting an article]] [[Image:Isimple system icons app edit.png|25px]] </span><br /><br /> Guide to starting your first article<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | align="center" colspan="2" style="padding:10px 2% 3px 2%;"|<br /> |-<br /> | class="plainlinks" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-top:1px solid #cedff2; padding:0px 2% 3px 2%;" |<br /> ''Chat with us: [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-classroom Ask a question on the classroom IRC channel] or on the [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help regular help chat]'' [[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|25px]].<br><br /> ''Are you on Facebook? Like [http://www.facebook.com/WikipediaOnCampus Wikipedia on Campus] for the latest news, photos, videos, and helpful tips.''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ====Student Page====<br /> Thanks for adding yourself to the Student page! [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42|talk]]) 16:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey it's steph from comm375..I'm just posting this on your wall for the homework! ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 22:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC))<br /> <br /> == Project Links ==<br /> <br /> Hey - you've got some good directions for your project but you should pare it down pretty soon. 1) Ensure that your project is about a communicative event. 2) Make sure you're authoring something new or expanding a stub. Long articles don't need help. A history of superbowl advertising is not communication studies - its a history and a set of facts. However, you might find some good articles regarding hypercommercialization or some other subtopic that you could add to it. Check out scholar.google.com and search around a bit. For example, I pulled [http://php.scripts.psu.edu/users/m/p/mpm15/SuperBowl.pdf this up immediately], which is obviously within the communication studies arena. [[User:Debaser42|Debaser42]] ([[User talk:Debaser42|talk]]) 23:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Feedback==<br /> Hello Mike Nolan33. I reviewed your edit to [[Super Bowl advertising]] and found it to be a rather good inclusion to the article. There was one word that the context did not support, so I took liberty to correct it to what I believe was your intention. Otherwise, my only advice is to avoid using what we call [[WP:WEASEL|weasel words]] because they are normally impossible to substantiate with the given sources. In the specific case of your edit, where you attribute the phenomena to "many" companies, many is generally an opinion and should not be use to describe an activity that "some" companies participate in. For the most part, your edit was constructive, supported by a reference, and an overall improvement to the article. Good job. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey, I looked at your sandbox page, and one thing I was thinking that you could possibly add would be the harmful effects of video games on education? Just a thought! ([[User:Scriptgeek|Scriptgeek]] ([[User talk:Scriptgeek|talk]]) 22:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC))</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455090538 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:51:02Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building maybe deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, it's omissions such as these, that make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was set to be released as "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when the producers decided otherwise<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. One thing that makes this movie particularly interesting is that the families of those on board gave their approval to this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. However, one thing to keep in mind while viewing this film, is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery, so a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative recreation as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>.<br /> <br /> After the attacks of [[9/11]] many filmmakers and storytellers rose up to state their opinions, emotions, and reactions to the events that followed regarding the [[War on Terror]]. Among these creative genius, [[Michael Moore]], [[Oliver Stone]], and [[Paul Greengrass]] created their masterpieces to tell the nation of the United States what they believed. These films were then used as propaganda for leading the nation to feel one way or another about the attack that happened and the debates that followed.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455090194 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:48:59Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building maybe deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, it's omissions such as these, that make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was set to be released as "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when the producers decided otherwise<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. One thing that makes this movie particularly interesting is that the families of those on board gave their approval to this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. However, one thing to keep in mind while viewing this film, is that what happened on board this flight is mostly a mystery, so a lot of what is seen on screen is a creative recreation as to what possibly could have happened<ref>{{cite web|last=Dargis|first=Manohla|title=Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass's Harrowing 'United 93'|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455088980 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:41:13Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building maybe deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, it's omissions such as these, that make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> [[Paul Greengrass]]'s film "[[United 93]]" is yet another film that was released regarding the attacks of [[9/11]]. "[[United 93]]" was set to be released as "Flight 93" up until a last minute change when the producers decided otherwise<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. By changing the title to "[[United 93]]," the film is given a more sympathetic reflection as to the events that happened in this airplane during the chaos of [[9/11]]. One thing that makes this movie particularly interesting is that the families of those on board gave their approval to this film being made and produced, but, one thing to keep in mind, is that the families of those terrorists' did not have any say in this production process<ref>{{cite web|last=Uhlich|first=Keith|title=United 93|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/united-93/2123|publisher=Slant Magazine|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455087082 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:29:03Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>." However, just because the film is not as blatantly political as [[Michael Moore]]'s, that doesn't mean that it is not a propaganda film revolving around [[9/11]] because "in a hidden society, such as the U.S., the hidden and integrated nature of the propaganda best convinces people that they are not being manipulated"<ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref>. In [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, he portrays that the victims of [[9/11]] were all loved by their families so that it was a devastating loss. He does not touch upon the idea that perhaps some of those people in the building maybe deserved to die, committed some horrible crimes in their lives, or, in fact, were not loved by their families and that no one missed them<ref>{{cite web|last=Dale|first=Alan|title=Movie Review: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center|url=http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-oliver-stones-world-trade/page-2/|publisher=blogcritics|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>. As horrible as it may be to contemplate this idea, it's omissions such as these, that make "[[World Trade Center]]" a propaganda film for the [[War on Terror]].</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455084008 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:08:13Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>."</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455083857 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:07:13Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." {{Reflist}}{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}{{Reflist}} [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>."</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455083526 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:05:21Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After [[9/11]] numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the [[War on Terror]]. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the [[United States]]’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>."</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455083356 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:04:17Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As [[Nancy Show]] stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> [[Michael Moore]], in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in [[Michael Moore]]’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the [[War on Terror]]. Since [[Michael Moore]] succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the [[War on Terror]].<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what [[Michael Moore]] tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. [[Alan Petersen]], among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have [[Oliver Stone]]'s "[[World Trade Center]], released by [[Paramount]], being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike [[Michael Moore]]'s blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, [[Oliver Stone]]'s mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the [[Twin Towers]] to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>."</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455082990 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T19:01:51Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the War on Terror. Since Michael Moore succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the War on Terror.<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what Michael Moore tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. Alan Petersen, among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.<br /> <br /> You also then have Oliver Stone's "[[World Trade Center]], released by Paramount, being showcased in theaters as well. However, unlike Michael Moore's blockbuster, Stone's movie is not portrayed as upfront and political as Moore's. According to some film critics, Oliver Stone's mosive "depicts few events that blatantly contradict official explanations of what caused the Twin Towers to come down<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoffman|first=Jim|title=World Trade Center: A Film Directed by Oliver Stone|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html|accessdate=11 October 2011}}</ref>."</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455081430 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T18:51:16Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the War on Terror. Since Michael Moore succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the War on Terror.<br /> <br /> After "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was released, "[[Fahrenhype 9/11]]" was then released by director [[Alan Petersen]]. Although this film did not receive nearly as much press as "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," it was created in an attempt to fight back on what Michael Moore tried to persuade his audience to believe<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. Alan Petersen, among others, believed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" to be a film that was "the Road Runner of manipulation...removing all avenues of thought through over-determination...leaving no room for the viewer's own judgement"<ref>{{cite book|last=MIchalski|first=Milena|title=War, Image and Legitimacy|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|pages=99}}</ref>. However, other critics will view Moore's film as a cinematic masterpiece.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455080639 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T18:45:29Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion"<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Jeremy|title=9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11|url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/9-propaganda-techniques-in-michael.php|work=PsyBlog|publisher=Jeremy Dean|accessdate=29 September 2011}}</ref> . However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the War on Terror. Since Michael Moore succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the War on Terror.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455080279 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T18:42:58Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda. Moore is often criticized for using "techniques of persuasion" (CITE) in this blockbuster. For instance, one of the techniques Moore uses in his film is omitting some of the truth so as to develop a feeling of anguish within the viewers. An example, would be omitting when planes hit the towers, instead he just shows the aftermath. Because he films it this way, he fills the audience with anguish rather than with feelings of revenge. (CITE) However, Moore is a the filmmaker and he reserves the right to present the effects of 9/11 in whichever way he chooses since he has the creative right. But, on the other side, the way that Moore filmed "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" was done in a way for the audience to feel compassion towards the attack and to be against the War on Terror. Since Michael Moore succeeded to portraying his opinion in such a passive way that the audience isn't using an objective lens when viewing the material, Moore's blockbuster is considered a propaganda film against the War on Terror.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455078766 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T18:31:28Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]" is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455078653 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T18:30:37Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[United 93 (film)|United 93]],”“[[Fahrenheit 9/11]],” and “[[World Trade Center]].” These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film [["Fahrenheit 9/11"]] is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In "[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]," many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda.</div>

Scriptgeek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox&diff=455078384 User:Scriptgeek/Sandbox 2011-10-11T18:28:50Z

<p>Scriptgeek: </p> <hr /> <div>After 9/11 numerous films started appearing that were propaganda either for or against the War on Terror. Among them were [[“United 93,”]][[“Fahrenheit 9/11,”]] and [[“World Trade Center.”]] These three films sparked debate among Americans and helped to shape and form opinions of what the United States’ government was doing in regards to the events that occurred.<br /> <br /> Propaganda films are created in such a way that the audience is not aware that what they are watching is intended to persuade them to think one way or another. As Nancy Show stated in her book, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." <ref>{{cite book|last=Snow|first=Nancy|title=Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11|year=2003|publisher=Seven Stories Press|location=New York|pages=22}}</ref> Michael Moore, in regards to his film [["Fahrenheit 9/11"]] is among one of the films that is up for debate regarding this issue. In [["Fahrenheit 9/11,"]] many critics claim that this film is completely propaganda.</div>

Scriptgeek