" The War Made easy" A MUST SEE FILM FOR EVERY AMERICAN

In the film “The war made easy” the director emphasizes on addressing the media’s prominent role in executing foreign policy through the relationship between media coverage and Top U.S officials. Furthermore explaining through a grand variety of sources how such democratic rhetoric has managed to enforce our societies general perceptions of war. As WWI came to an end U.S government officials sought for successful strategies justifying war by withholding information from the public in order of protecting their diplomatic alliances. In subsequent all this use of media enabled the people to not only encourage a war agenda but believe the mere illusion that they played no major role in “formulating” foreign policy, so in other words the president was no longer a channel of administrative policies but a prominent figure in determining what is best for the people.

            Moreover, What I found very interesting was how the director successfully compares the dynamic between each war, the correlation between the media’s role of retaining a constant storyline in order of maintaining encouragement for the war, which in turn leaving society as a subject submitted to propaganda. Although the documentary sets time in the Vietnam War we need to comprehend that just as the documentary conveys, we still remain exposed to similar propagandistic strategies and political jargon, As years pass by we have become quite numb to the idea of even questioning if what is seen on TV is true. The segment portraying the paradox of war was quite interesting as well since it exposes a terminology that is constantly aggressively conveyed as the American theology, and that is “to spread freedom and democracy”

            Although through history it is quite evident that none of the U.S interventions are based on such rhetoric, conversely most of these particular phrases are used in order of increasing economical profit or protecting U.S political interests and doing no other but placing a veil on their people by retaining the idea of selflessness and serving others. War is not only portrayed as an act of kindness and patriotism but it has been generated to become an embodiment of morality, and this in particular is what I find quite disturbing. 

I don’t know about you but I find the leftist/ liberal individuals much more ethical than the so-called “objective” pro-war individuals. Furthermore, how can Arnett be portrayed as unpatriotic when he was actually comparing both sides and enabling to bring upon objective news?, Or Donahue’s attempts of challenging the U.S officials by questioning the perpetual promotion of war seen as unpatriotic? Shouldn’t it be the other war around?  In conclusion this film was an eye-opener on a variety of subjects but specifically on the U.S government political agenda.

"Outfoxed"

In the Film Outfoxed we encounter a grand variety of information explaining what the media really is, specifically focusing on Fox channel’s prominent role. Furthermore it depicts Rupert Murdoch as a biased politician whom uses the media sources as a means of embedding his Republican ideologies in order of persuading his political agenda. By portraying the subjectivity by using opinions based on reliable sources that exist within the core of Fox news, we can infer that the director is turning the veil that exists within the audience and Fox; with facts and evidence he successfully enables us to comprehend the compositional techniques that are repeatedly used in order of persuading the audience into propagandistic journalism. What I found interesting was that the director also implemented marketing maneuvers that are used, for example music specialists explain how music tunes can bring a sense of urgency which in turn subconsciously delivers a reaction.          

  furthermore they explain how such techniques are now being used in matters that are quite unimportant or better yet irrelevant news. But why would they do this? In my opinion it is quite clear that these techniques are being used in order of distracting viewers from important political issues and clearly a technique which leaves the viewer believing assumptions, so in other words the viewer is not deciding on what information to take but rather being subject to biased opinion. Not only are concepts and ideas biased but also at times facts are fabricated in order of projecting and representing an idea. The “some people say” is a perfect example of how anchors represent ideologies without professional sourcing in order of conveying an idea that has no credible facts. Although nationwide Fox is portrayed as an objective news channel this reality is far from being true, Bob Mchesney’s quotation clearly depicts our position as an audience and explains why such techniques have been quite successful” Is not that people think that they are being subject to propaganda, if people don’t think that, they aren’t looking for that, they are much easier to propagandize, and that’s the genius of our media system” Outfoxed (2004). In the preceding quotation Mchesney states and successfully compares the Soviet Unions authoritarian regimen to the corporate controlled media.

             

In subsequent this corporate control over the media is not only a major political matter but it has lead the media industry into the hands of a few corporate elites who not only control the influx of information but determine what we see on TV, read on the newspaper, internet, and magazines. As a society it is time to comprehend that nothing of what we see on Fox or a vast amount of other Channels is truly objective or true, since most of the information is subjective. Knowing that the media is controlled by a 1-3% of the corporate elite we should realize that most of the evidence produced or inferred is no other but mere opinion and based on a particular political agenda. 

"Presidential Debate" Analysis

 Throughout history we have repeatedly encountered a grand variety of patterns that are used in order of persuading individuals, there is a combination of corporal language frontal and vertical perspectives concerning the camera angles and perhaps objectivity, however taking all of these into consideration subjectivity plays by far the most prominent role when it comes to shifting an individuals point of view or and their belief system. Subjectivity is used repeatedly both within the social media and presidential debates since it persuades emotional responses, which in turn disables an audience from thinking analytically. However in the first Presidential debate we come across various strategies used by both candidates such as hand, facial gestures, tones, wording, ethos, pathos, logos and the use of wedge issues in order of creating an illusion of empathy or appeal. In the following paragraphs I will be addressing in depth with examples how each candidate used such strategies and furthermore explaining my opinion concerning their ideas, counter attacks, corporal language and all other subjects used on most of the segments.

Moreover, as the presidential debate starts we encounter Romney’s prominent use of ethos in order of appealing the audience’s emotions, he begins by illustrating a experience he encountered while campaigning, he speaks of a woman having a baby and a husband without a job thus, creating an emotional and psychological relationship between us and this individual, not only does he constantly use fragments of similar experiences of others throughout the entire debate but he finishes each segment by implementing a phrase such as “I can help ” or “for America”  I will restore the vitality of America” again using this idea of “freedom” in order of portraying his “ideology” which in fact contradicts most of the evidence he gives. Conversely when asked how Obama can create jobs, Obama clearly identifies the issues by explaining techniques that would close loopholes and deductions, by defining what are small businesses  by addressing how there should be no tax cuts for corporate businesses. On the other hand we have Romney implementing another experience of a small business man he met in St Louis once again using ethos but no factual evidence, he then once again uses terms such as “They are suffering in this country” conveying sympathy towards small businesses and people in general.

            Furthermore. It was quite stressing observing how Romney would repeatedly disrespect the time limit there was, and subjectively attacking Obama’s facts and ideas, not only would he criticize but he would use similar experiences of random citizens, however this strategy of his makes him seem more credible and empathetic towards the audience. One example that clearly depicts is in segment 5 when Obama speaks of the balanced approach that is needed concerning corporate taxes and economic relief, explaining how there should be no tax breaks for companies that ship over seas furthermore, questioning the audience if we believe EXXON mobile should have tax breaks when we know that the corporate oil industry receives 4 billion in corporate welfare.  Once this was said Romney refuted his idea by solemnly saying he had never heard of such thing, in other words inferring that such evidence is not true.

In my opinion Obama successfully identifies where specific change is needed in order of relieving the economy.

            Speaking of the federal regulation I believe is quite logical that there should be a plenty of more regulations. However Romney used great wording in order stating his belief of excessive regulations and overall did not infer a direct statement clearly depicting his position on such matter. Moreover, something that really bothered me was Romney’s constant use of the term “moral”. In the federal debt segment he begins by saying that the federal debt is no other but a “moral “issue he states “ it is not only an economical issue, it is not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we are taking in” in other words he believes that this is more than just economical but moral and yet he wants tax breaks on high profit corporate industries?

            In conclusion as the presidential debate comes to an end Romney once again uses religion while explaining the role of the government. The republican candidate states the following “ the role of the government is to promote life, to protect lives and liberty” the responsibility of protecting the life of the citizen, thus, does not believe in cutting military expenses. In my opinion this is quite contradictory since on one side he advocates for liberty and “life” and yet believes that the military is a great way of retaining liberty and life.  Overall although Romney spoke much more than Obama, portrayed a great posture, used hand gestures in order of appealing the audience, and used a high pitch tone of voice Obama seemed much more truthful humble and based his ideologies in facts and logic rather than using religion or solemnly basing his ideas through random experiences.