Propaganda

I know the definition of the word, but because I was in the Submarine service during the cold war, it has a more personal negative meaning to me. I would even go so far as to call it a demeaning term. I do not know why somone would call FYL a communist. To me, a communist in power is all about control and corruption. FYL does not run this site in such a fashion. I am sure in his personal life he is just as responsible. I do not know FYL personally, but I know of him from this site. While there is no doubt in my mind FYL is more left leaning then I am, I am also sure he follows a code of ethics that include helping the people he comes in contact with. I know if any of us contact him asking for advice about Nicaragua, he will reply. He has given me advice and I am grateful. .

In short my impression of him is that of a man trying to make his life and those he encounters a little better. What is wrong with that?

1st Capt. Ron (Title by Miskito Alan)

Let me offer up another data point. In this video, The Real News Network interviews Larry Wilkerson about Vice President Cheney blocking talks with Iran.

He presents "one side" (his) but I don't see what could be considered propaganda in it. Is it "clean"?

If you are wondering why I picked this, it is because some here have labeled TRN programs as "pure propaganda".

The Pilger film is essentially a work of propaganda, and it didn't need to be; the latter is the real story. The fact that one agrees with the "conclusion" shouldn't prevent one from admitting that (I am not sure what film from the other side, tells the other side of the story while addressing these matters, and is reputed to be neutral). It is, in that regard, not a documentary film - or at the very least, not a good one. It is easy to make a technically first-rate film about some facts in the world and yet end up with a miserably bad attempt at history (the Michael Moore school of filmmaking, etc., per comments from the grandfather of the modern documentary, Albert Maysles). After all, Olive Stone's "JFK" is arguably one of the best filmmaking efforts of the last 20 years, but pretty crappy history; the two skills don't go hand-in-hand.

Consider the guy singled out in the initial post, ex-CIA man Duane "Dewey" Clarridge. Per this "expert", Pilger makes no real useful introduction nor does he offer good perspective. He does show the front cover of Clarridge's autobiography ("A Spy for All Seasons: My Life in the CIA", c1997) and inform viewers that Clarridge was in charge of the Latin America Division in the 1980's. Regardless of what one thinks of the CIA or Clarridge, follow closely what Pilger does as he does this sort of thing all the time: Allende committed suicide during the bombing coup in 1973 as the filmmaker has just shown, and Clarridge is brought into the film via a voiceover because he was in charge of Latin American CIA affairs in the 1980's. The viewer is also shown the huge autobiography Clarridge wrote (actually, written for him by Digby Diehl) about his CIA work. A natural assumption for a viewer is that this guy really knows what happened, is responsible for some or much of it, and yet he denies the truth that others have so well documented - implying that the U.S. is still lying about what happened in Chile. All of those things are false though. What Pilger elects not to tell viewers is that no where in that book does Clarridge discuss Allende's Chile. The viewer is left to assume that this CIA man is defending his and his country's actions/decisions, and that he has firsthand knowledge based on his job and book titles, but there is one glaring problem: Clarridge never had anything to do with Chile. Clarridge didn't even enter the Latin world until William Casey brought him into Contra matter nearly a decade later. At the time of the Allende coup, and long before and long after, he was stationed in Turkey and Rome and had nothing to do with Central or South America, period.

So, if one wanted to make an objective film about the murderous fall of Chile, why would one use as the opposition, an uninformed demagogue who hasn't direct access to what really happened, nor the acumen to carry a debate? Clarridge can't even remember Allende's name in the interview. Does anyone really believe Pilger invited him to an interview about the fall of Chile and El Salvador debacle, etc., and that midway through the chat Clarridge forgot Allende's name (maybe the sections used were taken grossly taken out of context?). There are people who legitimately question some Chilean Truth Commission numbers. Pilger doesn't interview these people (they would have access to facts and know them better than him, and such people are never used in this sort of film because even heavy editing might leave viewers wondering if things are as the filmmaker claims they are), and limits himself to a retired idiot.

The only good reason to interview people in a true documentary is that they are either experts (historians, journalists, etc.) on the matter, or were there (witnesses, agents, victims, etc.), or both, and their first-hand knowledge is verified and relevant. Clarridge is none of these things per Chile or the next section, El Salvador. Clarridge has no connection to the Salvadoran matter being discussed; he was never stationed in El Salvador and though his CIA title was eventually tied to "Latin American Division", it was a front-title for later very specific work against the Contras. Not even his critics (and there are countless of them) place him in Chile or El Salvador, or imply he was tied to what happened there. Clarridge's whole life was Nepal, India, Turkey, Rome, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Nicaraguan again. The only legitimate reason to use an expert is, well, because they know the field. Clarridge is not an expert on these matters, and he does not speak for the government, and the U.S. government does not deny the story Pilger is telling (how could they, given that the same government approved the public release of the damning documents via FOIA?).

Per Pinochet, Pilger doesn't interview any significant Chilean who might disagree with some element of his thesis. Without notice or linkage -other than a claim that elites are again rescued by fascism- an unnamed woman appears onscreen, stating that a country needs to be well-run, and denying that torture occurred in her Chile; she can be seen with an autographed picture of Pinochet, a man who made sure things were well run, she claims. Her point is naive to say the least (she maintains there was no torture in Chile as it was unnecessary since people could just be killed; she apparently doesn't grasp the fact that people are tortured for information, then killed), but her amorality serves Pilger well. But, unlike Clarridge, who came with a misleading voiceover, this woman just appears out of nowhere. Who is she? Why should anyone care what she believes as she sits there smoking at her dinner table? If she had any firsthand or verifiable information she would have come with an introduction (if she had facts that went against Pilger's thesis, does anyone believe she would have been seen in the film?). Viewers are left to believe she represents that average pro-Pinochet Chilean: a rich, fat, white, English-speaking, lying, know-nothing. This is perhaps easy to believe if the viewer has never been to Chile and knows nothing of the history of the country - and most viewers wouldn't. The problem is that it is remarkably easy to find pro-Pinochet Chileans; all one needs to do is look in bars, cars, businesses, hotels, city parks, the market, bus stops, etc. In fact, they are everywhere, but the only one Pilger found was this woman? Where did that footage come from and why is it in the film? Pilger is never seen interviewing her as he does with most other people. Why not? Is that footage he made or out-of-context stock footage he is using?

Pilger doesn't bother pressing Clarridge on the claim that Pinochet MADE Chile; he doesn't want to address that idea (he probably, regrettably, admits it as a fact, as many critics do); his concern is at what price did this happen. It is a legitimate concern, obviously, but you cannot very well have a means-ends argument if you don't want to discuss the ends. The means were, and Clarridge admits this when he acknowledges Pinochet's crimes and that ugly thing are sometimes necessary, mass murder. This gets right into the Chilean Truth Commission numbers, but they cannot be adequately addressed in a 2-minute section of a video on a larger issue, just as the loss of life in El Salvador cannot either. Pilger edits the film so tightly that one cannot be sure what question prompted some of the claims or denials from Clarridge; good documentarians do not do this. Clarridge, provoked and looking every bit a bitter, possibly senile old man, looks like an even bigger fool that he is (that takes some doing) when his claims are seen in only partial context. There are easily 500 people in the world who know more about these matters than Dewey Clarridge, yet none of them are used in the film. Why? Refuting a dumb person is easier than refuting a smart person - and therein lies the answer. Pilger needs a "useful idiot" and it wouldn't be easy for someone on the left to find someone more useful or more idiotic than Clarridge - especially if you get to edit his answers.

Almost the entire film is made in this same pick-and-chose, to-my-advantage-and-their-disadvantage fashion. It is very well done, because Pilger is very good at what he does; what he is doing though, it not necessarily what goes into the making of good documentaries. Regardless of what is in Wikipedia, a useful starting point is that good documentaries are neutral, and bad ones are propaganda. This is not to say Pilger's conclusions are incorrect, only that his films are not actually proving those conclusions - and that is what a documentarian, making this sort of film, is supposed to be doing. The truly sad part is that this sort of thing is unnecessary. Not just in the sense that he is preaching to the choir (every good and bad documentary almost always attract legions of true believers, etc.), but that you do not need to take things out of context, segue into topics as if they were linked, allow viewers to infer what seems intuitive when you know it is unconnected, use fools as experts, etc., etc., etc., to show that the U.S. has an unbelievably shady foreign policy history in the Latin world. What is gained by exaggerating a bad thing or, better yet, why give people a mediocre or bad reason to believe what is true if you could give them a good reason for doing the same? The answer might be that the person doing so believes the means justify the ends, so deception doesn't matter if the end is true. That might be what Pinochet's diehard followers claimed, too.

From now on please indicate as "propaganda" those reports you post that are one sided. My beef is not the content, but the attempt to portray biased reporting as objective fact.

did this post take a strange twist? I was reading along following the Propaganda definition, which by the way I found interesting, then came the, State can mandate, side of abortion...? Dan Polley