Lose the Label
A Student Activist Community

Is political information inherently propaganda? No, it's not, but this is. You can inform people very well, even in a format like this, without making your message into propaganda. So, why is this propaganda?

Well, one, it is totally unbalanced. If your intent is to be "Informative" you have to present both sides of the issue (Even if you rationally refute all of the opposition arguments). You have to do this without mocking the other side, and, though you can still favor one, both sides must be presented. Political information is giving people the knowledge to make an informed choice, propaganda is making that choice for them.

Second, it demonizes the other side of the debate. As stated above, you must be fair, and this is not. It makes those who have problems with environmentalism seem either idiotic or evil. This is blatantly false. There are some people who are foolish in their stance, but there are some who have rational responses, such as the solutions being too expensive and the science too theoretical (Which, though I disagree, are valid arguments). If you portray one side as good and the other as evil, or one side as intelligent and the other as foolish, you are again forcing your opinions on the viewers.

However, you are going to see A LOT more propaganda than true information, for two reasons. One, political information is less fun to watch than propaganda. There is no "bad guy" even in slanted information, here there is a definitive villain (Those opposed to environmental reform) creating the conflict that drives the story. Two, political information is less effective than propaganda. Giving people balanced information and letting them choose is clearly going to put fewer people in your camp than telling them what the "Truth" is.

To see what I mean by information, as opposed to what I call propaganda, look at "An Inconvenient Truth" next to, say ANYTHING by Michael Moore. "An Inconvenient Truth" though it pushes one side heavily, does not demonize the other side, and actually looks at counterarguments, though it answers them immediately. Michael Moore goes out of his way to demonize, mock, humiliate, or (If none of the others are possible) simply ignore those who express differing opinions.

So, why should we seek information over propaganda? Well, it enhances our freedom. If we choose for ourselves, that denies others the chance to choose for us, and therefore liberates us. Also, it enhances the political atmosphere, since the more informed participants there are, the better the collective decisions become. Lastly, propaganda does not inform people as to what the situation is, only what the authors opinion of it is.

Now, propaganda has a place, it can pull people to your side, and serve to rally and inspire those who already support that side. However, it should never be used as a replacement for real information, which, boring as it can be, needs to be the basis of our choices.

Paix et amour,
Joe!

PS- I didn't like the clip, because it was propaganda, and you should never aim that sort of thing at kids, whether from the left like this, or the right like the evangelical churches' programming.

Hi Joe,

Thanks so much for your considered criticism. I genuinely appreciate the feedback.

I agree that solving the problem of global warming will require input from many sources and that the solutions we try have to be varied. What I hope Heartwood is able to do is to marginalize the people who aren't interested in being part
of the solution.

The professional denier community isn't interested in engaging with greens, left or right, in coming up with solutions. Here's Myron Ebell, the director of global warming and international environmental programs for the Competitive
Enterprise Institute:

"The fact is the climate is changing all the time. At the rate it seems to be changing, it should be easy to adapt and have few onsequences for humankind. It isn't much to worry about." 16 December, 2003

A columnist for the Washington Post described their world view nicely:

"It is a planet where global warming isn't happening -- or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we
can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt."

As I noted in the blog post, these guys are succeeding. The debate is over in the scientific community. But not in the larger sphere. Here's a recent example:

The Heartland Institute, an Exxon funded think tank that denies global warming, put out a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Global Warming Scares." The list got plenty of pick up, especially in the right wing blogosphere.

DeSmogBlog did the job of the 4th estate and actually started contacting folks on the list. They emailed 122 of the scientists and in less than 24 hours more than 35 scientists responded in outrage. Here's
a sample:

"I think it is very offensive and wrong to include my name in this list of ‘coauthors’ of a paper with which I disagree profoundly without even checking with me first.”

Whoops! Later, they even found dead people on the list. In other words, the Heartland Institute lied. And they knew they were lying. And when they were caught, they denied they lied.

The Heartland Institute and Myron Ebell - those are the kinds of villains we're trying to ridicule. Frankly, I don't think they deserve equal time.

In a 4-minute pilot, one that needs a beginning, a middle and an end, along with at least a few laughs, we can't do it all. But I assure you that Heartwood USA plans to be broad and inclusive of different view points. Shamus, the villain, will struggle with his "Inner Greenpeace." Carson, the heroine, will realize that it's not just"big bad Dummkopf Industries," that her (and by extension our) consumption patterns contribute to the problem. I hope we get to make more, and I hope the series, in totality, will speak to the kind of environmentalism you support.

Thanks again. Shane

Hi Shane,

Let's quote that same article you sent me (I really liked it, by the by, it proved very informative, nicely laid out both arguements, thanks for the information):

LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything. Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing.

"What I hope Heartwood is able to do is to marginalize the people who aren't interested in being part of the solution" That begins to sound like "With us or against us", the sort of thing the article spoke against.

People who behave the way Heartland did with its list, absolutely, pushed out of the debate. However, there are people there with genuine concerns who you ignore by putting them into a box with Heartland et al. I didn't say there weren't bad guys on the other side, I said it was unfair to demonize the whole other side or to ignore an entire worldview based on the actions of a specific set of its supporters.

When you ignore any opposing viewpoint, especially when you make them all out to be criminals and liars, you are no longer trying to inform people. At that point, it is indoctrination and propaganda, and the type of shouting match attacked by the article you linked to.

I'm not asking you to change sides, I'm not asking you to do anything. In fact, I thought your program was quite an effective piece. If an adult, like myself, wants to watch your show as a reaffirmation or energizer or as part of an analysis of the issue, great, it's perfect for that.

But, I would just prefer it not be viewed by children. It is unfair to give something one sided to individiuals who may not be able to fully analyze an issue. (I'm not dissing kids, just, analyzing issues is a learned skill).

Maybe further on in the series my fears will be resolved, but I can only react to what I see here, which is this teaser. I would be happy to see more episodes later on, and discuss those too.

Paix et amour,
Joe!

I wish it were able to be dumbed down so that the people who need to understand it could. No offense, but the very people who need to understand it, are those that are incapable of understanding it.

To solve global warming we can't be pointing fingers at each other and we need to find some other profitable renewable energy source so big businesses can move away from oil.