Propaganda together, and almost perfectly delivered. You can

Propaganda and Public Opinion Final

1.     National socialism was one of the most
unique movements in human history. Why did it attract so many of the national
elites — artists, university professors, scientists, and filmmakers —to its
banner? Please explain how the Nazis were able to spread their message and gain
acceptance in one of the most cultured and scientifically advanced societies in
the world.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Federic Spott’s “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics” book in
addition to the “The Triumph of the Will” film both approach Hitler from a
completely different perspective. Instead of the plain dictator we’ve learned
about in the past, we see the portrait of an artistic and cultured dictator
that was much more complex than most of us would imagine. Both the book and the
film detail the traits Hitler held that made him quite favorable to many in
Germany at the time.

For starters, he was an extremely powerful and effective
public speaker. When viewing the film you can tell the preparation and a great
deal of effort he put in to ensure his speeches were well put together, and
almost perfectly delivered. You can hear the confidence and pride he held while
speaking and his true belief in not only himself but also his cause. He knew
how to fire up the crowd, appeal to their beliefs and values, and overall sell
them on his vision for his newfound Germany.

In addition, he was also previously an artist who was rather
good, although not particularly imaginative being the reason he never made it
professionally. He also knew quite a bit in regards to architecture and was
actually quite skilled when it came to drawing up plans. He was also a huge
lover of opera, in particular, Wagner.

Although Hitler was an extremely big appreciator of art and
culture, he was very narrow-minded in regards to it, and only preferred certain
kinds. He was not a fan of modern art in the slightest and rejected modern
music as well. He preferred a more traditional and classic approach in regards to
art and culture (Spotts, 2009). Something I feel really connected him with the
German people.

Overall, I think it is apparent as to why Hitler was an
attractive leader at the time. He was an unconventional artist that painted a
picture of a new Germany he would create if given the opportunity. An
opportunity that he seized by running a well put together, well-rehearsed show
that was his Nazi party with him at the forefront.

rise of Third World ideology followed the collapse of National Socialism. Why
did people in developing countries rise up and what media strategies did they
use? Does this movement still have relevance today, both here in the US and

Frantz Fanon’s “The
Wretched of the Earth” discusses the complicated movement against
colonialism. A crucial idea throughout the book is that decolonization is unfortunately
always a violent process that is held by and also challenged by violent force. Fanon was an advocate for violence to be used to
regain control by the colonized to gain back their self-respect. The colonizers
have created a world that defines their superiority over the colonized, and to
ultimately liberate the oppressed the colonized must revolt. He explains the
complexity of the process, and how even after the revolution is won there is
still much work to be done to create free states. He argues that when it comes
to liberation, everyone has a part to play and finding that balance between all
of them can often lead to power struggles and sometimes even reference back to
colonialism. (Fanon, 1961).

honestly had a very difficult time understanding this topic, as well as I’m
still slightly struggling to fully understand it so please bare with me here. I
think in regards to today in this day and age the most relevant movement to
this topic I’ve seen in the past few years would be the black lives matter.
Although I personally think all lives matter, as we spoke about in class it
brought the attention to a specific marginalized group of people that are
facing an oppressive situation. The police in a sense would play the part of
the colonizers, and the blacks as the colonized. The police feel superior and
have established a world that fits their ideology, and now with so many deaths
caused by the police the blacks are finally taking a stance against to regain
power. The trouble with this though is you can’t destroy the police system,
simply reform it in hopes there is a middle ground found which I don’t know is
entirely possible. In addition, the blacks fighting back only make the
situation more escalated and violent. So in essence I think Fanon’s movement
does still holds much relevance today and is just as complicated.

media landscape is changing in dramatic ways. How has the shift to digital
technology change how content has been delivered, and perhaps change the
content itself? If you were to advise a client, how would you suggest they
adjust to these changes?

The shift to digital technology has
definitely changed the media landscape drastically. The world has pretty much
fully gone online, and many traditional media outlets are feeling the pressure
to keep up or disappear due to the accessibility through our smart phones.

In general, social media is dominating right
now. We no longer have to wait to tune into an evening newscast to hear breaking
stories. We can simply open up our phones and instantly Google it. Everything
is at our fingertips. We can search pretty much any and all forms of news. In
addition, social media platforms have made it so easy to live chat and connect
with each other on sites such as facebook, instragram, snapchat and more in
real time. The possibilities are plentiful and therefore allow the every day
person to receive relevant information in real time.

There are obviously cons that come with
this online world. The most important thing to note is the biased perspective
you’re creating without even realizing. Everything on our phones and computers
are essentially tracked and saved to create this perceived forecast for the
user. The online controllers essentially weed out news and information they
think the user would deem unattractive to “enhance” the online experience. This
makes it so much easier for people to create a political and social opinion
that is perceived to be the majority but in actuality may not be. This type of
filterization doesn’t allow an environment for discussion or debate, but rather
one of intolerance. In addition, fake news is becoming dangerously common. News
that is fragmented or bent creates ignorance and misunderstanding that can
escalate differences and opposing views because there doesn’t seem to be a
middle ground for anyone to reach.

there are both pros and cons to the online shift. Technology and online
platforms allow for instant access to breaking news as well as connections to
those around you. Many people have optimized their use by making it their
business to stay on top of the news and information in regards to news and
information being easily accessible online. The controversial side of it
however is the biased perspectives it can create due to the ownership by big
conglomerates as well as it’s tailored to match a certain forecast that they
believe you’ll find appealing which in essence keeps a lot of us
unintentionally very biased. I think it’s important to keep in mind for anyone
involved in the online world to tread lightly and cautiously. Be mindful when
active online, acknowledge the good and bad of media and try to always remain a
responsible user.


F., & FARRINGTON, C. (1969). The wretched of the earth … Translated
by Constance

(Reprinted.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

K. (2015). The silencing: how the left is killing free speech. Washington,
D.C.: Regnery

L. (Director). (n.d.). Triumph of the will = Triumph des
Willens Video file.

F. (2009). Hitler and the power of aesthetics. Woodstock, NY: Overlook