General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe started watching a fine Netflix documentary -Five Came Back - about WWII and Hollywood filmmakers
that got on board with our war effort.
https://www.netflix.com/title/80049928
First episode has a chilling part - it shows the efforts Hitler put into his visual propaganda (the Leni Riefenstahl films).
What is horrifying is to see how right wing media in this country is doing similar fawning to the orange asshole - and how his cult worships him, not all that different from what happened decades ago.
We are not in uncharted territory (considering the whole world), but certainly are for this country. Not good...not good at all.
Brother Buzz
(36,423 posts)The Battle of Midway (1942, John Ford)
Prelude to War (1942, Frank Capra)
The Battle of Russia (1943, Frank Capra)
Undercover: How to Operate Behind Enemy Lines (1943, John Ford)
Report from the Aleutians (1943, John Huston)
The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress (1944, William Wyler)
The Negro Soldier (1944, Stuart Heisler; produced by Frank Capra)
Tunisian Victory (1944, John Huston)
Know Your Enemy: Japan (1945, Frank Capra)
The Battle of San Pietro (1945, John Huston)
Nazi Concentration Camps (1945, George Stevens)
Let There Be Light (1946, John Huston)
Thunderbolt (1947, William Wyler)
hlthe2b
(102,236 posts)battleground states were accessing the electorate's attitudes and state-specific polls on impeachment (Pennsylvania, Michigan, I think, and one other state). I will just say they were really not that favorable to impeachment-- if they were right. Even some of the Democratic electorate seemed very squishy. It wasn't that they liked Trump, but they were all too willing to discount the impeachment effort to "politics."
It would not be the first time that reporters on NPR or CNN or even MSNBC seemingly seek out the naysayers but there was something about the people they spoke to that left me totally depressed.
I am feeling very uneasy.
Maraya1969
(22,479 posts)a president for having a marital affair. Sure they said he lied to congress but who the Hell wouldn't? Talk about a witch hunt? That was a witch hunt.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)I know, I know...they are voters. They are also immovable idiots. I'm going to bet they watch fox and laugh at limpballs, and are frightened daily by vannity and carlson.
My other pet peeve is "independents". What a cover for "repubs hiding in shame". How about you ask how many of them were previously Republicans. I flat ass don't care what they think. "Nazi-lites"
Waste of our time to hear from them. They are "the willing Nazis" who accepted Hitler, so long as the economy was strong, their 401's were growing, and they weren't Jewish. Fuck 'em all!
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)in part to curb the influence of fascist, extremist propaganda from broadcasters like Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda and bigot and anti Semite Father John Coughlin, the Canadian 'radio priest' who broadcast in the US from Michigan in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1987, Reagan began ignoring the Fairness Doctrine and in came Hate Radio.
After all this time it's disturbing that we don't have another accessible media venue for true, balanced news and public affairs, especially with the power of Hollywood.
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that wasin the FCC's viewhonest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
dware
(12,369 posts)It wouldn't have covered Cable or Satellite TV nor the Internet.
There are tons of opposing views out there now via the Internet.
The Fairness Doctrine is where it belongs, in the Dustbin of History.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)information and entertainment untethered to the internet, as it should be and thank god.
'Dustbin of history' barely 70 years ago, about the time many people here were born.
Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)
tenderfoot This message was self-deleted by its author.
Midnight Writer
(21,753 posts)Fascinating and up close films of extraordinary events.
BigmanPigman
(51,590 posts)a few years ago. I think it was this film, anyway. What I remember was one of the film makers (I believe it was George Stevens) said that Roosevelt or Truman had the foresight to send filmmakers into the concentration camps when they were liberated as documentation for history's sake. He knew that some people would say it was all made up and such atrocities were BS and he wanted evidence as proof. That really impressed me.
TeamPooka
(24,223 posts)a great guy and wonderful director.
Everyone who knows him is so happy this passion project of his has been so welcomed by the public and critics.
He has worked very hard in his career in a very unsung aspect of the industry (behind the scenes documentaries) and it's great to see nice guys come out on top.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)This kind of thing scares the shit out of me. The power of propaganda. Until we can get rid of right-wing hate media, we don't have a chance.