When we think of "propaganda," we usually don't think of Hollywood movies glamorizing war and the military, or of embedded war reporters with their "human interest" stories about the brave troops, or about military recruiting on campus (recruiters, posters, assemblies, "Job Fairs"), or the White House Office of Communication, or the Pentagon Office of Information, or the .net URL of the Digital Video and Imagery Distribution.

People who say "That's not propaganda" make the same error as those who say "advertising doesn't affect me"-- they limit persuasion to blunt, direct statements instead of recognizing the many subtle, indirect techniques used by all persuaders.

"PROPAGANDA" is often used simply as a general attack word to label any claims or charges from opponents, rivals, or critics. Here, however, two terms are used with specific meanings:

"War propaganda," as the term is here, refers to persuasion targeted at an internal audience: to bond one's own group, to build morale (a belief in "being right" and in "being able"), to get people to agree, to get involved, to incite a response, to channel that response, and to silence internal opposition. (See: War Propaganda )

"Psychological warfare," as used here, refers to persuasion designed to demoralize or terrorize an external audience: targeted at the "Other" (the outsider, the foe, the enemy) often by means of leaflet drops, radio and TV broadcasts, and rumors.

Movie-makers are certainly free to make films without Pentagon approval, but they do need approval if they want to get any military cooperation: that is, the free or low cost use of any troops, weapons, planes, ships, location settings. Pentagon approval requires that a movie "enhances recruiting and retention" of military personnel. If movie producers don't want to submit to the Pentagon approval process, then "they can either make their own props, or they can rent very expensive military-style weapons and equipment from a handful of Hollywood prop houses."

Realistically, this may increase the production cost by millions of dollars, so most movie producers are willing to save money and to let the Pentagon's "Technical Advisors" have script approval --primarily a matter of omission -- deleting from the script, or editing out any scenes, characters, dialogue, or language which does not "create a positive impression of the military and its capabilities." Robb's book documents this "script approval process" in scores of actual movies, but there's no way to estimate the amount of prior self-censorship involved by Hollywood writers who knew that some concepts would not be approved.

See also: Lawrence Suid, Guts and Glory (2002) Amazon Book Description: "Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film is the definitive study of the symbiotic relationship between the film industry and the United States armed services. Since the first edition was published nearly two decades ago, the nation has experienced several wars, both on the battlefield and in movie theaters and living rooms at home. Now author Lawrence Suid has extensively revised and expanded his classic history of the mutual exploitation of the film industry and the military, exploring how Hollywood has reflected and effected changes in America’s image of its armed services."

Jeanine Basinger, The World War II Combat Film (1986, 2003 ed.) a major academic study analyzing the patterns and the conventions within over 1,000 films about WW2. (Most people can recognize the overt bluntness of such films produced during wartime, romanticizing the warriors, as part of a homefront morale building effort. But, post-1950s Pentagon influence has been more indirect and subtle, and few in the audience are aware of the systematic process of Pentagon approval.)

This Pentagon concern for controlling "image" still remains a high priority: for example, the 2004 documentary film "Control Room"-- about the inner operations and reporting of Al Jazeera Arab TV ("A military spokesman is silenced after candid comments in a movie on Al Jazeera and Iraq war"):"Lt. Josh Rushing, a Central Command spokesman assigned to escort the documentary makers during their time in Qatar, is among the film's most sympathetic characters, portrayed as a thoughtful young man moved over time by the grim reality of war. At no point is he shown doubting the justness of the U.S. effort in Iraq, yet the film documents a budding friendship between Rushing and Al Jazeera reporter Hassan Ibrahim, and moments on camera when Rushing is wrestling with the film's central themes: war, bias and the Arab world's most powerful media outlet.... "

Concurrently, in a situation of "plausible deniability," the military's film distribution system denied it was "stonewalling" and said its refusal to distribute Michael Moore's controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 411, at theaters within military bases was due to "business reasons."

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) August 16, 2004 -- Just in case anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" needed any more controversy to fuel its hot box office, a new war of words broke out Friday over whether the US Army is stonewalling efforts to book the film at military bases.

But the organization that orders films for the 160 base theaters countered that it was the distributors -- Fellowship Adventure Group, IFC Films and Lions Gate Films -- that had the problem and noted they plan to stock base stores with the film's DVDs when they are released.

The movie, made by Oscar-winning director Michael Moore, has grossed over $113 million at domestic box offices and such a blockbuster would be routinely, and quickly, ordered up by the military.

But the movie presents a scathing view of President Bush's drive to war in Iraq, and it paints an unflattering view of the conduct of some US military personnel -- though many of the men and women fighting in Iraq are depicted as compassionate and caring.

Moore has made no secret of the fact he wants Bush ousted from office, and the film is undoubtedly anti-war.
"We have made all requested materials available to them, but unfortunately, a commitment to show the film has not been made," a Lions Gate spokeswoman said.

A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group claimed the military was stonewalling for obvious reasons.

Judd Anstey, public affairs specialist for the Army and Air Force Exchange Service which books movies for military base theaters, denied any suggestion the decision not to book the film had anything to do with its content and was solely based on business.

'Based on business'

The organization, called AAFES, is a non-appropriated government group, meaning that it is almost exclusively funded through its own ability to make money. The time between when "Fahrenheit 9/11" would be played in base theaters and when it would be sold on DVD was too short to allow it to make money, Anstey said.

"This was based on business standards," he told Reuters.

Anstey said it was only about a week ago that AAFES was told "Fahrenheit 9/11" would be available to the bases by August 16.

By that time, AAFES had already booked base theaters with movies through September 3, and with a reported DVD release date of October 5, it simply didn't think enough base personnel would show up to make the movie profitable.

"Historically, for films screened within that type of time frame, the box office is marginal," he said.

Moreover, he said, its audience size was limited because it has played in civilian theaters since June 23.

But sources within the distribution group said AAFES was first contacted in mid-July, given an availability date of August 16, and told 200 to 300 prints would be ready to go by then.

Sources at rival movie studios who asked to remain anonymous said both sides may have their points. Typically the military is fast to order up blockbuster movies that make over $100 million.

Just as typically, independent film distributors have fewer prints to ship around. With "Fahrenheit 9/11" playing so strongly, it may be that only recently the prints became available, the sources said.

The spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group also noted that the DVD release date has yet to be official and has only been reported in the media.

Anstey said that without an official DVD release date, AAFES had to base its decision on what had been reported.
------------------------
Copyright 2004 Reuters.