Hollywood’s role is to make money. They do that by making movies that appeal to people so that they’ll pay for them, while not alienating their funding. There isn’t some top down directive to portray oligarchs well, it’s just part of the ballance. Another factor is that directors, at least established ones, tend to be rich, so they have that perspective in their work.
The profit motive certainly is a major aspect, maybe even the largest, but there’s more going on than just that. For instance, the US military-intelligence-industrial complex gets directly & indirectly involved, and this is well documented.
Through money. They don’t let people film with their equipment unless they have some say in the outpout. But again, it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s factors and pressures that sometimes effect the output.
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.
To the extent that it has been exposed, yes, it is now publicly known, and to the extent that it hasn’t been, it’s not.
I pointed you to some of the seminal and most often cited works on the theory and practice and history of propaganda. Instead of telling us that you question the very validity of the term “propaganda” out of ignorance, how about engaging with the literature, or the Wikipedia entries about the literature, or the YouTube explainers about the literature?
I’m trying to nail down what propaganda is so we can talk about it. It’s not much use taking about it if we mean different things.
I’d define propaganda as misconstruing the truth towards political ends. If it’s commercial ends rather than political, it’s false advertising. If it’s not misconstruing, then it’s advertising or public communications. Just to set a baseline.
I can’t find what your sources are defining as propaganda from a brief look, so let’s compare to my definition.
You define it wrong. Propaganda is the same thing as public relations. Public relations is literally the American name for it per Bernays who coined both terms. He believed propaganda is a good thing but the term became loaded so he renamed it in a classic public relations style.
Hollywood’s role is to make money. They do that by making movies that appeal to people so that they’ll pay for them, while not alienating their funding. There isn’t some top down directive to portray oligarchs well, it’s just part of the ballance. Another factor is that directors, at least established ones, tend to be rich, so they have that perspective in their work.
The profit motive certainly is a major aspect, maybe even the largest, but there’s more going on than just that. For instance, the US military-intelligence-industrial complex gets directly & indirectly involved, and this is well documented.
Through money. They don’t let people film with their equipment unless they have some say in the outpout. But again, it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s factors and pressures that sometimes effect the output.
Okay sure, they conspired, but again, it’s not a conspiracy 😂
It seems like you’re jumping through hoops to maintain some kind of Panglossian, high school civics worldview.
Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths:
Conspiracy I take as being secretive. I think this strategy is publicized.
To the extent that it has been exposed, yes, it is now publicly known, and to the extent that it hasn’t been, it’s not.
I pointed you to some of the seminal and most often cited works on the theory and practice and history of propaganda. Instead of telling us that you question the very validity of the term “propaganda” out of ignorance, how about engaging with the literature, or the Wikipedia entries about the literature, or the YouTube explainers about the literature?
I’m trying to nail down what propaganda is so we can talk about it. It’s not much use taking about it if we mean different things.
I’d define propaganda as misconstruing the truth towards political ends. If it’s commercial ends rather than political, it’s false advertising. If it’s not misconstruing, then it’s advertising or public communications. Just to set a baseline.
I can’t find what your sources are defining as propaganda from a brief look, so let’s compare to my definition.
You define it wrong. Propaganda is the same thing as public relations. Public relations is literally the American name for it per Bernays who coined both terms. He believed propaganda is a good thing but the term became loaded so he renamed it in a classic public relations style.
Okay cool, so your definition of propaganda is any communication for political ends?
That’s how censorship works in practice… Profit motive and ownership structure is just the American way of doing it.