Propaganda

The footage from eight years ago of a Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Dura, being killed by Israeli gunfire, which was used by the killers of reporter Daniel Pearl in the video they posted to the Internet of that murder, was apparently a hoax, as reported by Australia’s Daily Telegraph. In an appeals trial for a civil defamation lawsuit by the France 2 network and its cameraman, Charles Enderlin, against a media watchdog who claimed the footage was a hoax, the jury was shown 18 minutes of footage rather than the 57 seconds which were broadcast. That footage includes staged battle scenes, rehearsed ambulance evacuations, and even the boy–supposedly dead–moving and looking at the camera. The French press, which had been siding with France 2 against Philippe Karsenty, director of the Media-Ratings watchdog group, appears to have been proven wrong and Karsenty vindicated. Enderlin has apparently been caught fabricating other footage as well. (This story also covered by the Wall Street Journal online, but apparently not by many other news sources, which is why I’m giving it attention.) ...

This should be considered old news, but the Center for Public Integrity has done an extensive analysis of statements made by the president, the vice president, and five other senior members of the Bush Administration between September 11, 2001 and September 2003 and identified 935 specific false statements made. These statements are now part of a searchable database, and they’ve put together a graph that shows how the frequency and number of false statements dramatically increased during the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and then declined as the truth became known in the course of the war: ...

Back in 1999, a bunch of billboards popped up around Phoenix that had white letters on a black background and were signed by God. One I took a bad photo of said “You think it’s hot here? –God.” They’re back. There’s now one near Kat’s workplace that says “Life is short. Eternity isn’t. –God.” These come from a group that calls itself GodSpeaks, which doesn’t actually pay for or put up the billboards, they just help interested groups in doing it locally. I’d like to see someone make one of those sign generators for these billboards, so I can make some parodies, which these are just asking for. These billboards aren’t as lighthearted as some of the church marquee signs (like this one, for example, which suggests a God who has mellowed considerably from the one who sent the plagues of the Exodus). Here are some ideas for better content: Stop putting words in my mouth. –God If I existed, I’d communicate directly to all people in their own languages in a miraculous manner rather than through billboards put up by people pretending to be me, just as parents pretend to be Santa Claus. – God Please post further suggestions in the comments. (And if somebody writes or finds a billboard photo generator, please let me know.) ...

The Parents Television Council, the organization that is responsible for generating over 99.8% of all indecency complaints to the FCC, has further demonstrated its own complete pointlessness by putting out a website that assembles a collection of the most indecent clips from broadcast television, with no parental controls of any kind on the page. Each clip is categorized with labels like “sex,” “violence,” and “foul language." What’s a kid more likely to come across? A five-second bit in one of thousands of television shows, or a huge collection of the worst of the worst all in one place on the Internet? It’s high time for broadcast television indecency rules to be dropped. (Via The Agitator.)

[UPDATE (April 15, 2008): See the NCSE’s “Expelled Exposed” website for a look at the deceptive tactics of the filmmakers and the real facts that they aren’t showing you.] In February, the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” starring Ben Stein, will be released. [UPDATE: The release was delayed until April 18, possibly due to copyright infringement worries.] The film apparently argues that intelligent design is being wrongly excluded from public school classrooms, despite the fact that intelligent design is rebranded creationism and is a religious view without scientific support. There is no scientific theory of intelligent design to be taught in schools–it doesn’t exist. The advertising for the film says that P.Z. Myers appears in the film–but he was not interviewed for a film called “Expelled,” but for an apparently fictional project called “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.” Mark Mathis, a producer for Rampant Films, contacted Myers, and he agreed to appear in that film. Now, as it turns out, Mathis is an associate producer on “Expelled." Myers writes: Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, “bring it on!” We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol’ wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us. I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education reports a similar experience–she also was interviewed for “Crossroads." The producers of this film are sleazeballs. This kind of technique is already at or beyond the ethical edge for a comedy film like Borat, but to do this for a film that purports to take on a serious issue–and pretends to be on the side of God–is well past any such boundary. If, as has been suggested, this film is going to argue that belief in God is necessary for moral behavior (a falsehood), the behavior of the producers proves that it is not sufficient. The lesson for the future: Do not sign an agreement to be interviewed for a film if the agreement contains language that says they can use “…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads…and/or any other production…” That “and/or any other production” is a big loophole that will be exploited. UPDATE (August 23, 2007): Ed Brayton observes that two of the alleged controversies that “Expelled” will cover are bogus claims of persecution–the denial of tenure for Guillermo Gonzalez and the alleged martyrdom of Richard Sternberg. Ed notes that he has an article coming out in Skeptic magazine in February 2008 which will debunk the Souder report about the travails of Sternberg at the Smithsonian (a subject he has already written extensively about on his blog–linked to from the articles at my blog under the “Richard Sternberg affair” category). UPDATE (December 18, 2007): Ed Brayton points out that a new argument from the Discovery Institute for why Gonzalez shouldn’t have been denied tenure actually undermines that claim. UPDATE (February 10, 2008): John Lynch has a nice visual diagram of Gonzalez’s publication record. ...

Virgil Griffith has put together a fascinating data-mining tool that compares anonymous Wikipedia edits to WHOIS records for IP addresses, to allow users to examine edits made by people at particular organizations. The tool can be used to examine edits by people at the NSA (Ft. Meade), the CIA, the Church of Scientology, Bob Jones University, the Environmental Protection Agency, Diebold, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Raytheon, The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, the WorldNetDaily, Fox News, the Republican and Democratic Party, the Vatican, among many others. The organizations listed here are all listed on the side of the tool’s main search page, but there are many more in the drop-down list of user-submitted organizations, and you can specify organization names and locations. Wired magazine has assembled a list of some of the more interesting edits, such as someone at Diebold deleting references to security flaws in electronic voting machines and someone at the CIA editing song lyrics from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Griffith, who built Wikiscanner while working at the Santa Fe Institute, begins graduate work in September at Caltech on theoretical neurobiology and artificial life under Christoph Koch and Chris Adami. It’s wonderful when data mining can be used for good purposes. (Hat tip to Scott Peterson on the SKEPTIC list.)

Bill Muehlenberg’s blog has a review of Robert Morey’s 21-year-old book, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, which he applies to “atheist storm troopers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.” Muehlenberg characterizes Dawkins and Harris as trying to “suppress all religious freedom, not unlike what was attempted in the former Soviet Union.” Muehlenberg offers nothing to support this accusation, but that’s not the point I’d like to respond to. In his review, he makes the following statement: He [Morey] even quotes from a famous atheist debating guide, in which every trick in the book is offered to fellow atheists as they attack theists. Published by Prometheus Books, the main atheist publisher, The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi teaches atheists how to deliberately use deception to refute theists. After reading Moray’s [sic] description of, and quotations from, the book, it occurred to me that all the atheists I have been debating must have well-worn copies of the book. It certainly explains why actually having a rational debate with an atheist is so difficult. All the dirty tricks, ruses, ploys and deception makes any debate with them a one-way affair.Muehlenberg has been deceived by Morey, and is deceiving others with this description. First, Nicholas Capaldi is not an atheist, he is a Catholic who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans and has written a number of religious publications from a Catholic perspective (though his central focus is on business ethics). Some of his publications include “From the Profane to the Sacred: Why We Need to Retrieve Christian Bioethics” and “A Catholic Perspective on Organ Sales” (both in Christian Bioethics). Second, The Art of Deception is not “a famous atheist debating guide.” The book’s content is fairly standard introductory material for a course in informal logic, logical fallacies, and critical thinking, and there is no focus on arguments for or against the existence of God. There are four examples of such arguments in the book (pp. 97-100, 120-121, and 142). The first set of pages includes a circular argument for God’s existence from the Bible’s say-so and a refutation of the argument from design from David Hume, the second gives the example of an appeal to ignorance to argue for the existence of God from an inability to disprove God’s existence, and the third is an example from Paul Tillich of arguing that your opponent really agrees with you, for example from the claim that a respect for logic is “a sign of ultimate concern and therefore a proof of God’s existence.” (Similar arguments are made regularly by presuppositionalists–that if you use logic you are presupposing the existence of God.) Note that three of these four arguments are deceptive arguments for the existence of God, not against, and the fourth is an example of a refutation of bad use of analogy to argue for the existence of God. There’s nothing in Capaldi’s book which even purports to teach atheists how to use deceptive arguments against theists. Finally, Capaldi’s book was not written with the intent to promote the use of deception. Rather, he wrote the book in a Machiavellian style in order to make it more entertaining. Capaldi’s explicitly stated purpose is to enable the reader to recognize and not fall for deceptive arguments from others. He writes in his introduction (pp. 13-14): … I have written this book from the point of view of one who wishes to deceive or mislead others. On the assumption that “it takes one to know one,” I have found that people are able to detect the misuse or abuse of logic if they are themselves the masters of the art of deception. I ask the reader to contemplate the prospect of a world in which everyone knew, really knew, how to use and thereby detect the misuse of logic. To exemplify this perspective, I wish to use an analogy with writings on politics. There are at least three great books which seek to describe political reality: Aristotle’s Politics, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Aristotle fails because he is so dull that he is often not read, while Hobbes’s perceptiveness is lost in the controversy over the theoretical context in which he embeds his insights. Machiavelli’s vivid account is the most popular and the most effective. I believe that more readers have learned about politics from reading Machiavelli than anyone else precisely because Machiavelli’s Prince is presented in a format of active manipulation rather than passive recognition. I hope that my presentation of informal logic will have the same kind of impact as Machiavelli. ...

I just came across an old post of mine on the Internet Infidels’ Discussion Boards: February 22, 2004, 05:24 PMI keep seeing this TV commercial from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The commercial shows a girl standing on a dock on a lake, with a life preserver sitting on it, and another drowning in the water as she looks on. The voiceover says something like “If you had a friend who was drowning, you’d help, wouldn’t you?" Every time I see it I think it’s going to be an argument for the nonexistence of God. The ad is online, though it doesn’t seem to be one of the ones the ONDCP put on YouTube, with subsequent ridicule. The ONDCP ad campaign has been studied by the GAO and found to be ineffective, but the government continues to spend over one hundred million dollars per year on it. ...

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has placed anti-drug PSAs on YouTube. You know, those same ads that have been shown to increase drug use? Perhaps they hope that the video replies which YouTube users generate in response will similarly have an effect opposite to their intent? (Via CNN.)

Hendrik Hertzberg writes of the bogus “War on Christmas” being pushed by Fox News in The New Yorker: The War on Christmas is a little like Santa Claus, in that it (a) comes to us from the sky, beamed down by the satellites of cable news, and (b) does not, in the boringly empirical sense, exist.He goes on to note that Today’s Christmas Pentagon is the Fox News Channel, which during a recent five-day period carried no fewer than fifty-eight different segments about the ongoing struggle, some of them labelled “Christmas under attack.”and discusses John Gibson’s book and Bill O’Reilly’s role as “Patton.” Near the end, he notes: In this war, no weapons of Christmas destruction have been found—just a few caches of linguistic oversensitivity and commercial caution. Christmas remains robust: even Gibson says in his book that in America Christmas celebrators (ninety-six per cent) outnumber Christians (eighty-four per cent). But the “Happy Holidays” contagion has probably spread too far to be wiped out.O’Reilly’s response on December 20: O’REILLY: Time now for “The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.” New Yorker magazine joins our hall of shame. We are recommending readers and sponsors avoid the publication. The reason: that magazine allows writer Hendrik Hertzberg to print dishonest propaganda fed to him by left-wing smear sites. As I previously stated, any publication or news operation that does that will be listed on BillOReilly.com as not worthy of your attention or advertising dollars. The spin and the propaganda stop here. The New Yorker magazine should be ashamed and is absolutely ridiculous. And one note to Mr. Hertzberg: You might want to rethink your practice of character assassination, sir. Just looking out for you.And Fox’s John Gibson, author of The War on Christmas, got into a shouting match with Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, with Gibson threatening to sue Boston for pointing out O’Reilly’s falsehood about green and red clothing being prohibited by Plano, Texas schools. As it turns out, there were some prohibitions about party items and gifts in Plano schools which included such things as paper plate color, which led to a lawsuit; that ban was revoked and the guidelines made more sensible–e.g., students could give each other religious-themed gifts, but teachers (who are acting in an official capacity and represent the state) cannot give religious-themed gifts to students. O’Reilly has retracted his comment about a ban on red and green clothing.