From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Propaganda as edited by AlanE (Talk | contribs) at 04:28, July 10, 2015. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wow, a stolen page

Almost all of this page is cut/pasted from creationpedia. really "creative" Menkatron 16:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

For your information, I wrote that submission myself--in both places.--TerryH 00:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Weasel Words

"In one famous example, a television broadcast network circulated for weeks certain memoranda, the contents of which were damaging to the incumbent President of the United States (George W. Bush), though those who obtained those memoranda knew, or ought to have known, that they were forgeries."
The above lines cite no sources.
Which 'television broadcast network' is this?
Elaborate on the 'contents', what were they?
Who are 'those who obtained those memoranda'?

Fixed. Karajou 15:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Merchant of Venice

The reference to Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice being blatantly anti-Semitic propaganda is simply not correct. This has been a subject of for quite a long time. While, in one example, the Nazis broadcast the play shortly after Kristallnacht as anti-Semitic propaganda, and there are other instances in which it has been used as such, there is ongoing debate as to whether that was Shakespeare's intention. Many of the arguments for a sympathetic reading of the play center around Act III, Scene I, wherein Shylock gives the speech which begins: "Hath not a Jew eyes?" JBrandonLoberg 18:05, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock was not so much propaganda as a case of making the subject fit an already widespread perception of how a Jewish money-lender would act. Officially, at the time of writing the play, there were no Jews in England except the odd Iberian keeping a very low profile, so there was no reason, really, for propaganda. The Bard's treatment of Richard III is far closer to the mark as propaganda. Indeed, most of his Histories have a decidedly anti-York, pro-Lancaster flavour - in keeping with the Tudor sovereigns who had popped up out of the Lancastrian side of the Wars of the Roses. AlanE 21:09, 6 November 2012 (EST)

I agree. As distasteful as it is (and it really gobsmacked me when I saw the play for the first time a year or so ago) it is not propaganda by any stretch of the imagination. --DamianJohn 22:23, 6 November 2012 (EST)
I am always pleased when someone - anyone - is affected by Shakespeare. Good or bad, it shows he is never out of fashion. AlanE 22:59, 6 November 2012 (EST)