Michael Moore Versus Authority: The Media's Dual 'Propaganda' Thresholds

July 2 2004
Counterbias.com
Robert Furs

There seems to be two different thresholds for use of the word “propaganda” when it comes to the work of Michael Moore compared to, well, anyone or anything else.

As one of the most connotatively negative words in social history, the word is a grim one. The term alone brings up images of Stalin brainwashing the masses through totalitarian thought-control, Hitleristic mass-murder, and the loss of free human thought in general. Propaganda, in its classical meaning, does not correlate with happy imagery.

Yet, strangely, the media has been quick to label Michael Moore’s new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, as just that: propaganda. Whereas journalists and media figures are usually shy about using the term—especially towards where it applies most effectively, the government—they seem to have saved it for government enemies, in this case Michael Moore.

Slate Magazine’s review of the movie is titled “Proper Propaganda”, going on to say that “Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary for the ages, it is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force. It is, all in all, a legitimate abuse of power.”

An MSNBC entertainment story states that “Moore’s latest work can fairly be classified as propaganda”. A Los Angeles Times review states that Fahrenheit 9/11 “is propaganda, no doubt about it”. The Wall Street Journal calls Moore’s work “propaganda”, as does the New York Press. A Canadian Press article suggests that we “just call Fahrenheit 9/11 a piece of cinematic propaganda and leave it at that.”

A New York Post editorial calls Moore “the very model of the modern propagandist”. Another editorial in the same edition of the same paper calls his film “political propaganda”.

It then went goes further, saying, “For all its clever slickness, Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' does not stack up to such brilliant but evil art as Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda films for Hitler”. This editorial, in fact, uses the word propaganda three times to describe Moore or his work.

Even the usually moderate Aaron Brown, on his CNN show, nonchalantly referred to Fahrenheit as “propaganda”.

Andrea Mitchell, as guest host on MSNBC's Hardball, opines that "I`m not going to say it`s a documentary because it really in some ways is propaganda." Joel Siegel, ABC's Good Morning America entertainment editor, says that "it is polemic, it is propaganda". ABC's Mark Halperin calls it "very well made piece of propaganda".

Even a Google News search on this particular date for the simple, wide-ranging search term “propaganda” brings up a grouping of Fahrenheit 9/11 articles as the first result!

The disturbing thing about this is not the mere fact that Moore’s work is being labeled as propaganda, because, by definition, it is. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

prop·a·gan·da

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

So, labeling Moore’s work as such is not what is bothersome. The problem is the double standard the media applies to the different disseminators of propaganda. When the government is involved in definite propaganda propagation, as they are on most occasions to be sure, the P-word is rarely, if ever, used by the mainstream media.

If far-off, third-world nations are the subject of report, the North American media is safe with using the word “propaganda” in the context of dictatorships and totalitarianism—but propaganda in the western world, such as that so often seen and heard during the Iraq War and election cycle, for example, will never be labeled with the P-tag.

Did you catch the example in the second definition--“wartime propaganda”? How much wartime (9/11, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam, “they hate our freedom”, “war on terror”, “he gassed his own people”, etcetera) propaganda have we endured? A large portion of our lives consist of soaking up propaganda, whether it be from the television, the newspaper, the internet, our mothers, teachers, or buddies—if someone’s trying to influence your opinion and takes determined effort in doing it, they’re peddling propaganda, as far as the definition goes.

And nobody does it better than the US Government, which has elevated the practice to an art form. Unfortunately, their propaganda is not covered as such by the media. Only when someone steps up to challenge the power of a governing authority does the media step in to drop the ‘p-bomb’.

“Propaganda”, they say. Michael Moore is peddling Stalin’s evil, straight to a child near you! Yet when Dick Cheney is telling you that Saddam is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, or Colin Powell is showing you tubes full of Saddam’s non-existent anthrax, or Dick Morris is telling you that the terrorists want Kerry, they’re pushing propaganda. When you read the New York Post or watch Fox News, you’re viewing propaganda. When you read a press release, or a news report regurgitating something a government official said, you’re reading propaganda.

A lot of what the government does on a daily basis, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is propaganda. As is the case with politically motivated activists dedicated to a cause. The same goes for politicians, bloggers, lobbyists, doctors and even columnists such as your humble writer. Any outspoken group or individual with a cause is guilty of dabbling in the Big P.

By telling you about the use of the word “propaganda” and how it is unjustly and unevenly used against enemies of the government—like Michael Moore—I am engaging in the dissemination of propaganda.

But don’t expect it to be termed as such quite yet.

For what I write has no chance of helping undermine a government’s re-election chances, as Fahrenheit 9/11 does. When MSNBC and the New York Post refer to this article as “propaganda”, then I know that what I write is having an effect on the citizenry’s view of the Bush administration.

Now, I’m off to read about why the War In Iraq is going magnificently and why America must stay the course, because the terrorists hate our freedoms and want to kill my family and will do so if America doesn’t elect Bush and dramatically increase military spending so we can shoot every living terrorist in the head for the sake of liberty.

Who needs propaganda, after all?