Are latest political movies propaganda ?

Reporters are now questioning whether the latest spate of political movies are "propaganda" ?? Where have they been for the last 15 years as talk radio, riht-wing cable television, and the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine by a Republican White House destroyed any semblance of fairness on the airwaves and went on a binge of propaganda unseen in American history or perhaps none so dangerous as since the days of Hitler and Goering in heyday of the Nazis. Now they ask about "propaganda"??
=================================================================

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040619&cat=us&st=usliberal_movies_040617&src=abc

<snip>
Filmmaker John Sayles was so angry at the Bush Administration, he didn't write a letter to his congressman - he wrote a movie.

The resulting film, Silver City, to be released on September 17, stars Chris Cooper. Cooper, who most recently won an Academy Award for his performance in Adaptation, performs a new sort of adaptation in the Sayles project, acting out Sayles' take on George W. Bush in his gubernatorial years.

<snip>
"People of liberal ideology have finally found a cultural form that they can embrace the way people of conservative ideology have embraced talk radio," says Robert Thompson, a professor of Television and Popular Culture at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.

<snip>
There are a lot of angry liberals whose voices have been manifesting themselves through various forums - on Moveon.org, the campaign of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, struggling lefty radio network "Air America," and the like. So why not Hollywood, with its famously left-leaning politics?

...more

Ever seen Chinatown? Checked the symbolism? The story is about watergates. WATERGATES. Water flowing in the wrong places because of corruption at the gates. Drought. Semen doing the same. Incest. The corruption of politics and money ruining all nature.

Same time period: Shampoo. A fluffy movie about a hairdresser? Except there is nothing in the world of that film that can't be bought. It's a completely corrupt vision in which the wealthy place a price on everything and value nothing.

Parallax View? Winter Kills?

There are others. It cropped up in film after film, the sense that this society was horribly ill. Corrupt.

Propaganda is "material disseminated by the proselytizers of a doctrine." What is the doctrine here? Is it propaganda to decry corruption?

Or is the accusation of propaganda propaganda itself?

Gotta be on your toes here.

be used when referring to liberal causes. The political movies coming out are propaganda as defined:

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


Note that the word "facts" is part of the definition yet when the word "propaganda" is used the inference is that there are no facts. All political movies are propaganda as are all political speeches, etc.

The Passion was religious "propaganda", espousing a certain religious view yet the word "propaganda" is not used in reference to this movie.

The right is, again, redefining the true definitions of words to insert a "good" or "bad" inflection when the words are used. Isn't it time the democrats redefined a few words of their own? Fight fire with fire?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that. I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America.

These are all user biased words.

Of course it's propaganda. But I believe the definition does not imply any negativity onto the word. It is through specific use in context that it has taken on it's negative implication.

balanced and give equal time to the right wing lie. If you're on the right, you can just lie all you like.