Federal Propaganda Ministry? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


FirmhandKY -> Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 6:49:04 PM)

No, not really. Not yet, anyway.

But suppose that Bush and Cheney attempted something like this in order to "build support for important issues of the day, such as the fight against terrorist and the war in Iraq".

Couldn't you just hear the screams all across the land, in almost every newspaper, and on every television station?

DailyKos would have gone ballistic.

Have you heard anything about this?

The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?
by Patrick Courrielche

I recently wrote a critique of the art community’s lack of dissent in the face of many controversial decisions made by the current administration. Entitled “The Artist Formerly Known as Dissident,” one of the key points argued in the article was the potential danger associated with the use of the art community as a tool of the state. Little did I know how quickly this concern would be elevated to an outright probability.

Sometime between when I finished the critique and when it went live online, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.”

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!”

I learned after the conference call that there were approximately 75 people participating, including many well respected street-artists, filmmakers, art galleries, music venues, musicians and music producers, writers, poets, actors, independent media outlets, marketers, and various other professionals from the creative community.

...


Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.

It sounded, how should I phrase it…unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me.

The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons.

We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election.

...


The NEA was created by the Congress of the United States and President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as “a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.” The issue of health care is curiously absent from this description on their website.

So I’d like to start a little debate and ask you, the reader, the same question. Do you think it is the place of the NEA to encourage the art community to address issues currently under legislative consideration?


...


A machine that the NEA helped to create could potentially be wielded by the state to push policy. Through providing guidelines to the art community on what topics to discuss and providing them a step-by-step instruction to apply their art form to these issues, the “nation’s largest annual funder of the arts” is attempting to direct imagery, songs, films, and literature that could create the illusion of a national consensus. This is what Noam Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent.”

...

I’m not a “right-wing nut job.” It just goes against my core beliefs to sit quietly while the art community is used by the NEA and the administration to push an agenda other than the one for which it was created. It is not within the National Endowment for the Arts’ original charter to initiate, organize, and tap into the art community to help bring awareness to health care, or energy & environmental issues for that matter; and especially not at a time when it is being vehemently debated. Artists shouldn’t be used as tools of the state to help create a climate amenable to their positions, which is what appears to be happening in this instance. If the art community wants to tackle those issues on its own then fine. But tackling them shouldn’t come as an encouragement from the NEA to those they potentially fund at this coincidental time.

And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “

Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?




Does "Ministry of Propaganda" sound like hyperbole to you now?


Now read the "rest of the story" as well ...


WHO SET UP GOVERNMENT "PROPAGANDA" CONFERENCE CALL?
Newly Revealed White House, NEA Audio Contradict
by Patrick Courrielche

Another conference call has materialized, revealing a concerted effort by government to use the arts to address political issues.



Just to add ... I don't really blame the Obama administration (too much). What bothers me is that few artists are complaining about this, and few media sources think it's important enough to even comment on.


Firm




servantforuse -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 6:53:08 PM)

I see a Czar being appointed very soon. It will be Czar number 35.




tazzygirl -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 7:14:10 PM)

quote:

And before answering, let me give you my take.

The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation – a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?


Im trying... but... maybe someone can help... conflict?




servantforuse -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 7:19:28 PM)

One of the art projects the NEA has funded was a crucifix dropped in a jar of urine. The artists name ( if you call him one ) escapes me at the moment. Our federal tax dollars at work.




tazzygirl -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 7:21:41 PM)

OK. thank you. im still not seeing the conflict of the government asking one of its agencies for help. or IS that the conflict?




Musicmystery -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 7:57:07 PM)

quote:

But suppose that Bush and Cheney attempted something like this in order to "build support for important issues of the day, such as the fight against terrorist and the war in Iraq".


No need. Just tell the CIA to manufacture the fake intelligence, lie to the American people, and send Colin Powell with false evidence to bring in the U.N.

Propaganda is old school.




Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:18:27 PM)

Well I for one do see a conflict of interests, or at least the potential for such a conflict. The NEA funds many of these people's work,andthe possibility that funding would be withheld unless supportive art was created is there, or at least the perception of it is there,and that is enough really. The NEA should be an arms length organization, one that is not functioning as part of the administrations public relations machine.
A really dumb idea....makes one wonder if anybody is really running things these days, or is every groupand agency just blundering around on its own.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:23:34 PM)

quote:


WHO SET UP GOVERNMENT "PROPAGANDA" CONFERENCE CALL?
Newly Revealed White House, NEA Audio Contradict
by Patrick Courrielche ]ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



Firm, once again, I have to ask why you seem to get all your news from organizations run by people wearing tinfoil hats to keep the Venusians from controlling their thoughts. Last time you put citations up on a subject, we found out that Obama was bipolar, that his friends were admitting that he actually wanted "government death panels" and that our president was planning on making every American sign a "loyalty oath".....not to mention coining the the charming phrase Obamunist. In another cite you seem to regard as trustworthy, the headline "Obama sends message to Al Queida: Attack now" was prominently displayed. (The article turns out to be an op-ed piece about how his refusal to torture prisoners will lead to terrorist Armageddon on American soil.) I am sure that there are left wing sites that are equally silly, but I haven't gone out of my way to quote them as authorities on current events..

Now comes this gem, with the citation being from a site where the only article on the page NOT devoted to the "NEA propaganda scandal" was an exhortation to give money to Sarah Palin with the grand prize being a chance to have dinner with her. I can only assume second prize is two dinners with her. After all, how much buckshot filled moose can one eat?

What truly puzzles me is why you continue to tout these bull goose loony theories in favor of those things that might actually be worth examining. Case in point: On one those websites was a video damming Obama for deciding that the SEIU's clam that cutting the payments of home healthcare workers violated the terms of the stimulus package (which stated clearly that a state could not both receive aid and cut back on existing social programs). Now I didn't take the woobling lunatic site's word for it, nor did I take the word of the SEIU. I found mention of it in the LA Times. Now I am not saying that there was or was not wrongdoing on behalf of the administration on a supporting (and contributing) union in this matter. I believe that any politician has to at least be carefully scrutinized for such actions because influence peddling is so much a part of our political landscape. But instead of  bringing that point to discussion, you used it as a "proof" that the Obama administration is busing in "union goons" to bust heads at town hall meetings. Why do you insist on being the "conservative who cried wolf" and keep using sites that make the National Enquirer look like the National Review?

Do come join us, Firm. Planet Earth is not so bad. The mainstream media "MSM as your chosen news sites like to call it whenever bemoaning the fact that they have not yet admitted that Obama regularly dines on puppy stew with baby sauce) may not be as lurid as the one's you read, but there must be SOME that have what you might consider "real" news and not be laughed at by anyone who bothers to look at them. I can promise you that you will be safe. Obama is not a zombie here to eat your brains. Democrats do not have black masses and sacrifice virgins in their private caucus rooms. Progressives aren't planning to remove Lincoln from his chair in the memorial and replace him with a statue of  Stalin. All is well in the state of reality.

And, having said that, I'm going to find some sites with headlines like "Limbaugh and Palin have sex with ploar bears while clubbing baby seals during secret summit to put democrats into concentration camps" so I can post fun stuff too.




Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:44:28 PM)

quote:

After all, how much buckshot filled moose can one eat?
An awful lot...moose is fucking delicious!!




DomKen -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:50:53 PM)

Funny how when Bush/Cheney broke a slew of federal laws distributing propoganda, video press releases anyone?, it was perfectly ok with the conservatives but when the Obama administration organized a perfectly legal conference call to simply organize some people to produce propoganda it is a horrible thing.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:52:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:


WHO SET UP GOVERNMENT "PROPAGANDA" CONFERENCE CALL?
Newly Revealed White House, NEA Audio Contradict
by Patrick Courrielche ]ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



Firm, once again, I have to ask why you seem to get all your news from organizations run by people wearing tinfoil hats to keep the Venusians from controlling their thoughts. Last time you put citations up on a subject, we found out that Obama was bipolar, that his friends were admitting that he actually wanted "government death panels" and that our president was planning on making every American sign a "loyalty oath".....not to mention coining the the charming phrase Obamunist. In another cite you seem to regard as trustworthy, the headline "Obama sends message to Al Queida: Attack now" was prominently displayed. (The article turns out to be an op-ed piece about how his refusal to torture prisoners will lead to terrorist Armageddon on American soil.) I am sure that there are left wing sites that are equally silly, but I haven't gone out of my way to quote them as authorities on current events..

Now comes this gem, with the citation being from a site where the only article on the page NOT devoted to the "NEA propaganda scandal" was an exhortation to give money to Sarah Palin with the grand prize being a chance to have dinner with her. I can only assume second prize is two dinners with her. After all, how much buckshot filled moose can one eat?

What truly puzzles me is why you continue to tout these bull goose loony theories in favor of those things that might actually be worth examining. Case in point: On one those websites was a video damming Obama for deciding that the SEIU's clam that cutting the payments of home healthcare workers violated the terms of the stimulus package (which stated clearly that a state could not both receive aid and cut back on existing social programs). Now I didn't take the woobling lunatic site's word for it, nor did I take the word of the SEIU. I found mention of it in the LA Times. Now I am not saying that there was or was not wrongdoing on behalf of the administration on a supporting (and contributing) union in this matter. I believe that any politician has to at least be carefully scrutinized for such actions because influence peddling is so much a part of our political landscape. But instead of  bringing that point to discussion, you used it as a "proof" that the Obama administration is busing in "union goons" to bust heads at town hall meetings. Why do you insist on being the "conservative who cried wolf" and keep using sites that make the National Enquirer look like the National Review?

Do come join us, Firm. Planet Earth is not so bad. The mainstream media "MSM as your chosen news sites like to call it whenever bemoaning the fact that they have not yet admitted that Obama regularly dines on puppy stew with baby sauce) may not be as lurid as the one's you read, but there must be SOME that have what you might consider "real" news and not be laughed at by anyone who bothers to look at them. I can promise you that you will be safe. Obama is not a zombie here to eat your brains. Democrats do not have black masses and sacrifice virgins in their private caucus rooms. Progressives aren't planning to remove Lincoln from his chair in the memorial and replace him with a statue of  Stalin. All is well in the state of reality.

And, having said that, I'm going to find some sites with headlines like "Limbaugh and Palin have sex with ploar bears while clubbing baby seals during secret summit to put democrats into concentration camps" so I can post fun stuff too.

Alinsky rule 5 and rule 12.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.



quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

Last time you put citations up on a subject, we found out that Obama was bipolar, that his friends were admitting that he actually wanted "government death panels" and that our president was planning on making every American sign a "loyalty oath".....not to mention coining the the charming phrase Obamunist.

Utterly false.

Is this a lie on your part, a fabrication, or a lame attempt at hyperbole?

Back your claim up with a cite, please, or apologize like the man you claim to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

In another cite you seem to regard as trustworthy, the headline "Obama sends message to Al Queida: Attack now" was prominently displayed. (The article turns out to be an op-ed piece about how his refusal to torture prisoners will lead to terrorist Armageddon on American soil.)

Utterly false.

Is this a lie on your part, a fabrication, or a lame attempt at hyperbole?

Back your claim up with a cite, please, or apologize like the man you claim to be.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

Now comes this gem, with the citation being from a site where the only article on the page NOT devoted to the "NEA propaganda scandal" was an exhortation to give money to Sarah Palin with the grand prize being a chance to have dinner with her. I can only assume second prize is two dinners with her. After all, how much buckshot filled moose can one eat?

What truly puzzles me is why you continue to tout these bull goose loony theories in favor of those things that might actually be worth examining.

And you have so far written 46 lines, 5 paragraphs and 3,443 characters (including spaces) and have yet to do anything but sling mud and insults.

Nary a word about the topic at hand.

So, do you believe that the calls occurred, or do you dispute that fact?

Play ball, or go fish. I had believed that it was possible that you were a person with enough intelligence and honor to be able to discuss and debate, once you realized that I don't fall for your tricks. To me, this post is a watershed, in painting you as nothing more than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan.

Please prove me wrong.

On anything.

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:55:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Funny how when Bush/Cheney broke a slew of federal laws distributing propoganda, video press releases anyone?, it was perfectly ok with the conservatives but when the Obama administration organized a perfectly legal conference call to simply organize some people to produce propoganda it is a horrible thing.

So you admit that the Obama Administration did this? And to produce propaganda?

Thank you for your support.

Firm




DomKen -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Funny how when Bush/Cheney broke a slew of federal laws distributing propoganda, video press releases anyone?, it was perfectly ok with the conservatives but when the Obama administration organized a perfectly legal conference call to simply organize some people to produce propoganda it is a horrible thing.

So you admit that the Obama Administration did this? And to produce propaganda?

Thank you for your support.

Firm

I have no idea if they did or didn't however I do know it wasn't illegal unlike the VPR's produced by teh Bush administration.

Propoganda appears to have a more neutral meaning than you think.





FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:57:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Funny how when Bush/Cheney broke a slew of federal laws distributing propoganda, video press releases anyone?, it was perfectly ok with the conservatives but when the Obama administration organized a perfectly legal conference call to simply organize some people to produce propoganda it is a horrible thing.

So you admit that the Obama Administration did this? And to produce propaganda?

Thank you for your support.

Firm

I have no idea if they did or didn't.

Propoganda appears to have a more neutral meaning than you think.

I'm not familiar with "propoganda". Sorry.

Firm




DomKen -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 8:59:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I'm not familiar with "propoganda". Sorry.

Firm

A spelling flame. How frightfully original. nice derail of your own thread though.




rulemylife -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:02:18 PM)

And where is the latest scandal here?

Did I miss something?





FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:07:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I'm not familiar with "propoganda". Sorry.

Firm

A spelling flame. How frightfully original. nice derail of your own thread though.

Gee, DK, I didn't think you made mistakes.




Ever.




I just assumed I was unedjumaked or sumting. I is from Kain-tuck-ee, ya knowed ...[:D]

Firm




rulemylife -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:07:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Well I for one do see a conflict of interests, or at least the potential for such a conflict. The NEA funds many of these people's work,andthe possibility that funding would be withheld unless supportive art was created is there, or at least the perception of it is there,and that is enough really. The NEA should be an arms length organization, one that is not functioning as part of the administrations public relations machine.
A really dumb idea....makes one wonder if anybody is really running things these days, or is every groupand agency just blundering around on its own.



It seems we are creating all sorts of possibilities these days on how the Obama administration is going to ruin the country.






Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:30:59 PM)

It is my understanding, based on my experience in Canada, that such public funding bodies (ours is called the Canada Council) must be operated at arm's length from the government in power. This is to prevent,not only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety.

Personally I don't think that the NEA would allow itself to be used in such an openly partisan manner, but the appearance of such is as damaging as the actual fact of such. If those in the arts community believed that such a program of only funding "friendly" art was in place it would stifle the free rein of the artists to follow their muses wherever they might lead. As I said,in Canada we go to great lengths to not only prevent such a thing from happening,but also to prevent the perception of such a thing from occurring. I may be wrong, but I just figured that the same thing would apply in the US.




gift4mistress -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:39:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I'm not familiar with "propoganda". Sorry.

Firm

A spelling flame. How frightfully original. nice derail of your own thread though.


Didn't you quickly ridicule me in one of my posts for misspelling a word? [:-]




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875