Eelam Revolutionary Organization (EROS) is urging the US to ban the "black tiger" film titled, My daughter, the terrorist from a US film festival held in North Carolina on April 4th. The EROS group claims the film is 'blatent propaganda' and glorifying such a lifestyle will have devestating effects on the US because it will urge others to join the terrorist union. The black tigers, or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which is a banned terrorist organization in the E.U. and the US, has apparent links to Al-Queda, and this form of propaganda in favor of suicide bombing and terrorism should be banned, EROS says.
Full artical: http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/10338
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Report claims Army ads 'glamorise war'
This report focuses on how the ads targeting young people to join the military in the UK glamorise the war and the new soldiers don't fully understand what they are getting into. The artical suggests the propaganda omit important information and fail to tell of the risks. It also mentions how the young people arn't informed of laws they will be subjected to and forced to follow as well as the risks and legalities based on unclear information.
Full artical: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/07/narmy107.xml
Full artical: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/07/narmy107.xml
Teachers criticise armed forces 'propaganda'
The teacher's union in the UK has denounced military recruitment propaganda in schools based on the unbalanced vision created by the military. With the propaganda reflecting a more misleading life in the military, the teachers are worried about the impression on such young children. The military in the UK denied this, claiming the ads in schools are important to raising awareness. However, teachers still believe the campaigns should be more balanced, reflecting the unglamorous side as well.
Full artical: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/nrecruit125.xml
Full artical: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/nrecruit125.xml
Hollywood's Latest Anti-War Propaganda Flick 'DOA'
This clearly opinionated artical depicts how America isn't ready for an anti-Iraq war film yet, and the movie will most likely tank due to the fact the movie is anti-war. The writer of this artical beleives because the movie was made to have the characters not wanting to return to Iraq instead of being 'brave' and fighting, the American public won't see it.
Full Artical: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191997.php
Full Artical: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191997.php
Monday, February 11, 2008
Al Qaeda's Top Terrorist Is A Techie
The 23 year old son of a foreign diplomat, an IT student in London, and Al Quaeda's top cyber terrorist has been put in jail for 16 years by the London courts for promoting murder over the internet. Yunes Tsouli helped Islamic extremeists wage the propaganda war against the western countries through gruesome videos, messages from bin Laden, and images of kidnapping and murdering of hostages in Iraq. I thought this article was really interesting because it not only shows the power of propaganda able to recruit a 23 year old educated man with a powerful family into such a job, but also the lengths some will take to use such disturbing and violent images as propaganda.
Full article: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Internet_/Al_Qaedas_top_terrorist_is_a_techie/rssarticleshow/2708225.cms
Full article: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Internet_/Al_Qaedas_top_terrorist_is_a_techie/rssarticleshow/2708225.cms
VOA news - US Ambassador Calls Kenyan Government Charges 'Propaganda'
The Kenyan governenment and President Mwai Kibaki placed print and broadcast advertisements accusing the US, and other countries, of contributing to the violence which has escalated in the country after the recent presidential election. Outlash has been growing between the government and the oppostition rebals since the election. The US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger protests this propaganda, calling it "scurrilous propaganda." This article shows how people will use propaganda to further their own agendas. The recently elected Kenyan government is already have outlash and uprising so they use propaganda against other countries blaming them for the violence is their own country.
To view the full article : http://voanews.com/english/2008-01-22-voa21.cfm
Critical Analysis 1-Media, Propaganda, and September 11th
The ongoing war on terror resulting from the September eleventh attacks has put the media in a position to guide and inform the public in a neutral way. Anup Shah attempts to highlight the battle of propaganda coming from the Middle East as well as the U.S.'s retaliation effort. However, Shah gives a clearly bias view on the war and the Bush Administration, using mainly logos examples of negative effects of propaganda and efforts by the U.S. and pathos when referring to the suspected terrorists and Iraqi and Afghan people, appealing to the empathy in people. Shah's appeal is clearly to an anti-war on terror audience or to those on the fence, pushing them over to his side. An article attempting to outline the media and propaganda, he focuses little on the media and mostly on the Bush Administration.
Opening with the idea both sides use propaganda, Shah emphasizes how Bin Laden uses propaganda to provoke negativity and hatred against the U.S. and America retaliates with positive American propaganda. Shah continues with the question of whether the war on terror is justified, stating "International Crime or Act of War?" when highlighting the 9/11 attacks, illustrating his clear bias. He furthers this idea when questioning Bush's claim that the terrorism against the U.S. is because they disagree with the freedoms available in the West. Citing instead though granted the attacks were clearly wrong and those responsible should be brought to justice, Bush is producing a "narrow range of discourse," or not looking at the bigger history and forming narrow range of opinions on why and what should be done about it, thus gaining support for his preferred opinion. This leading into propaganda, Shah explains Bush uses his idea that the attacks rose from the misunderstanding of the U.S. policies and freedoms to argue a more assertive campaign of U.S. self-promotion can fix their views. Drawing parallels with the Cold War and anti-communism propaganda by the U.S to secure its prestige and global dominance. Citing many examples, Shah claims the propaganda is "characterized as a remedy for anti-Americanism." The U.S. government is waging a psychological warfare operation, according to Shah, planting pro-American messages in foreign media without revealing the U.S. as its source. Something Shah explains will make the public become more suspicious and distrusting of the open press. Shah closes with the idea of the narrow range of discourse, stating "a narrow range of discourse ... would lack a wider range of discussion and possibilities of both understanding causes and the consequences of carrying out certain actions."
Shah uses mostly logos examples of propaganda when appealing to the audience to prove his point that both sides of America and the Middle East use propaganda to further their battles against each other. Within the parallel of the War on Terror and the Cold War, Shah lists several examples of techniques employed to stress a friendly U.S. such as: posters, newspapers, magazines, foreign aid, and food drops. Shah also emphasizes propaganda from the U.S. towards America itself used to raise support for the war. He effectively and giftedly describes a sense of influence by the U.S. government through a vast realm of access like radio, music, internet, and television. Arguing and defending the American Government’s actions, the U.S. government officials used the distribution and results of opinion polls, such as those on the bombing of Afghanistan; however, emphasis and content in the polls were questionable Shah explains, and the polls narrowed the choices to push the poll in a complimentary result. Also, polls painting a different picture of the U.S. were not published. Shah also offers many examples of fear mongering and warning by U.S. officials of other possible looming attacks by terrorists as propaganda to the American public. For example: Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Meet the Press in May of 2002 and “…claimed that in his opinion he believed that the Al Quaeda terrorist group may attack the U.S. again but did not know if it would be the next day, the next week, or within a year, but that it would happen.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is also quoted saying “…it is ‘inevitable’ terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction.” Using these logos examples of direct quotes, examples, and parallel with another incident, Shah furthers his ethos with the audience, gaining trust as reliable in supporting Shah’s claim in the use of propaganda.
Shah also offers several pathos examples, drawing in the audience through empathy. The highly publicized food drops in Afghanistan were a major supporting point for the U.S.’s war. However, Shah describes how the amount of food being delivered was meager, as well as the receivers who managed to benefit. The suffering of the citizens of Afghanistan was also rarely reported and the importance of the Afghan’s well-being decaying significantly, and Shah, blaming the media, furthermore criticizes the fact the media is supposed to remain critical, yet has failed to question, and in turn supported the U.S.’s pro-war propaganda and manipulation, the world leaders like Bush and Tony Blair in England on their claims and appeals for support. Shah is able to appeal further to his intended audience by using the claims of suffering by the Afghan people, increasing ethos, and increasing his point of the use of propaganda by the U.S. to control pro-war support.
Shah fluently highlights the use of propaganda following the September eleventh attacks against the U.S., but narrowly emphasizes any propaganda against the U.S. by Afghanistan or Iraq, stating only “…Bin Laden’s propaganda was to incite hatred...” Shah could have benefited by providing further examples of anti-American propaganda to shed light on why the U.S. might have retaliated so fervently with pro-war propaganda. Also, though powerfully written and researched, Shah easily shows his bias against the U.S.’s attempts. While criticizing the media for failing to remain impartial, Shah failed to report neutrality. Shah, while maintaining a high degree of ethos as a voice, could have perfected the appeal further.
Through the logos examples and quotes, and pathos appeals to the welfare of the Afghan public, Anup Shah successfully highlights his points of propaganda use after the September eleventh attacks on New York City. Shah focuses mainly on the pro-war propaganda used by the American government to project a friendly country as well as a justified war.
Opening with the idea both sides use propaganda, Shah emphasizes how Bin Laden uses propaganda to provoke negativity and hatred against the U.S. and America retaliates with positive American propaganda. Shah continues with the question of whether the war on terror is justified, stating "International Crime or Act of War?" when highlighting the 9/11 attacks, illustrating his clear bias. He furthers this idea when questioning Bush's claim that the terrorism against the U.S. is because they disagree with the freedoms available in the West. Citing instead though granted the attacks were clearly wrong and those responsible should be brought to justice, Bush is producing a "narrow range of discourse," or not looking at the bigger history and forming narrow range of opinions on why and what should be done about it, thus gaining support for his preferred opinion. This leading into propaganda, Shah explains Bush uses his idea that the attacks rose from the misunderstanding of the U.S. policies and freedoms to argue a more assertive campaign of U.S. self-promotion can fix their views. Drawing parallels with the Cold War and anti-communism propaganda by the U.S to secure its prestige and global dominance. Citing many examples, Shah claims the propaganda is "characterized as a remedy for anti-Americanism." The U.S. government is waging a psychological warfare operation, according to Shah, planting pro-American messages in foreign media without revealing the U.S. as its source. Something Shah explains will make the public become more suspicious and distrusting of the open press. Shah closes with the idea of the narrow range of discourse, stating "a narrow range of discourse ... would lack a wider range of discussion and possibilities of both understanding causes and the consequences of carrying out certain actions."
Shah uses mostly logos examples of propaganda when appealing to the audience to prove his point that both sides of America and the Middle East use propaganda to further their battles against each other. Within the parallel of the War on Terror and the Cold War, Shah lists several examples of techniques employed to stress a friendly U.S. such as: posters, newspapers, magazines, foreign aid, and food drops. Shah also emphasizes propaganda from the U.S. towards America itself used to raise support for the war. He effectively and giftedly describes a sense of influence by the U.S. government through a vast realm of access like radio, music, internet, and television. Arguing and defending the American Government’s actions, the U.S. government officials used the distribution and results of opinion polls, such as those on the bombing of Afghanistan; however, emphasis and content in the polls were questionable Shah explains, and the polls narrowed the choices to push the poll in a complimentary result. Also, polls painting a different picture of the U.S. were not published. Shah also offers many examples of fear mongering and warning by U.S. officials of other possible looming attacks by terrorists as propaganda to the American public. For example: Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Meet the Press in May of 2002 and “…claimed that in his opinion he believed that the Al Quaeda terrorist group may attack the U.S. again but did not know if it would be the next day, the next week, or within a year, but that it would happen.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is also quoted saying “…it is ‘inevitable’ terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction.” Using these logos examples of direct quotes, examples, and parallel with another incident, Shah furthers his ethos with the audience, gaining trust as reliable in supporting Shah’s claim in the use of propaganda.
Shah also offers several pathos examples, drawing in the audience through empathy. The highly publicized food drops in Afghanistan were a major supporting point for the U.S.’s war. However, Shah describes how the amount of food being delivered was meager, as well as the receivers who managed to benefit. The suffering of the citizens of Afghanistan was also rarely reported and the importance of the Afghan’s well-being decaying significantly, and Shah, blaming the media, furthermore criticizes the fact the media is supposed to remain critical, yet has failed to question, and in turn supported the U.S.’s pro-war propaganda and manipulation, the world leaders like Bush and Tony Blair in England on their claims and appeals for support. Shah is able to appeal further to his intended audience by using the claims of suffering by the Afghan people, increasing ethos, and increasing his point of the use of propaganda by the U.S. to control pro-war support.
Shah fluently highlights the use of propaganda following the September eleventh attacks against the U.S., but narrowly emphasizes any propaganda against the U.S. by Afghanistan or Iraq, stating only “…Bin Laden’s propaganda was to incite hatred...” Shah could have benefited by providing further examples of anti-American propaganda to shed light on why the U.S. might have retaliated so fervently with pro-war propaganda. Also, though powerfully written and researched, Shah easily shows his bias against the U.S.’s attempts. While criticizing the media for failing to remain impartial, Shah failed to report neutrality. Shah, while maintaining a high degree of ethos as a voice, could have perfected the appeal further.
Through the logos examples and quotes, and pathos appeals to the welfare of the Afghan public, Anup Shah successfully highlights his points of propaganda use after the September eleventh attacks on New York City. Shah focuses mainly on the pro-war propaganda used by the American government to project a friendly country as well as a justified war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)