
A rare look into North Korea's famed Propaganda School - davidchua
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/101east/2011/02/2011217113256267999.html
======
kulpreet
Why are all these North Korea articles/videos always so interesting to us?
Every time one of them is posted I find myself glued to the computer screen
and then looking up more information on Wikipedia for hours. I must have seen
like 10 documentaries on it by now, but it's interesting every time.

~~~
IsaacL
It's one of the few closed societies left on Earth. I think it's natural to be
fascinated knowing that there's a country of millions of people, but it's
almost impossible to know anything more.

I find it fascinating wondering what everyday life must be like for people in
the regime. North Korea has engineering schools and computing systems - so,
they must have hackers. I wonder which programming language best embodies the
Juche spirit? Do they use standard software engineering techniques or is this
considered Western capitalist propaganda?

~~~
va_coder
>>I wonder which programming language best embodies the Juche spirit?

COBOL

~~~
kabdib
JCL

It is, after all, Job _Control_ Language.

------
espeed
Be careful not to assume from this video that propaganda primarily only
happens in far-off dictatorships like North Korea. Propaganda is more useful
in a democratic society because as Chomsky says, "If you don't behave in a
dictatorship, they'll just bludgeon you over the head." To control the
population in democratic societies, governments and lobbyists use propaganda
to control the masses through an "artificially created public sentiment"
([http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F07E5D8143FE...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F07E5D8143FE633A25755C0A9609C946296D6CF)).

Modern propaganda originated during World War I under Woodrow Wilson.
Americans were isolationists and didn't want any part of the war; however, the
US government wanted to enter the war so it created the Creel Commission
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information>) to influence
public opinion towards entering the war.

The Creel Commission was so effective that it was able to turn Americans from
isolationists into German-hating warmongers in only 6 months. The Creel
Commission operated for 2 years, and it is where the modern PR industry
emerged from.

But this was almost 100 years ago, and the government, lobbyists, and PR
agencies have been perfecting it ever since. We are the propaganda experts,
not North Korea.

A few weeks ago, I formed an open-source project called "The Propaganda
Project" (<http://www.propagandaproject.org/>) to build a Web service that
will enable people to identify and catalog instances of propaganda techniques
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques>) used in mass media to
effectively pull back the curtain so that it loses its persuasive effect.

For example, let's take the three 60-minute cable news programs competing at 5
PM -- Glenn Beck (Fox News), Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (CNN), and
Hardball with Chris Matthews Hardball (MSNBC).

The Web service will make it easy for people to identify and catalog instances
of propaganda techniques used during each episode. Someone might see and tag
in online video that Glenn Beck used a "glittering generality" at 1 min and 12
seconds into the show and an "appeal to fear" at 1 min 33 seconds. Someone
else might see that Chris Matthews used a "red herring" at 1 min 20 seconds
and Wolf Blitzer used a "quote out of context" at 1 min 40 seconds.

My premise is that there is a finite number of shows and an abundance of
politically-passionate people that love pointing out the other-side's
propaganda. Over the course of an hour-long program, people might be able to
identify 30 or more instances of propaganda techniques used in each program.

If the service becomes popular, and people use it to check to see if their
favorite shows are using propaganda or if the other-side is, the networks
won't want to be known as the networks with the most propagandist shows so
they will force the shows' producers to reduce the ratio of propaganda per
episode.

This is a brand new project that's just getting off the ground so please give
me your feedback, and let me know if you want to help.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Wow. Where to start.

The first thing that caught me about your comment was this: _as Chomsky says,
"If you don't behave in a dictatorship, they'll just bludgeon you over the
head."_

Ignoring the appeal to authority (which always is a red alarm for me) the
problem is that dictatorships are completely different entities than are
commonly thought. Most people think that in a dictatorship there's one guy in
charge and he directly controls the lives and actions of all the people. But
that's not true: simple span-of-control theory says that one person, at most,
can observe and coordinate the work of 5 to 10 other people. The more control,
the fewer number of people. So there are dozens of levels between Kim and his
people, each level interpreting things their own way and each level impacting
how things are run to a great degree.

Nope, dictatorships are actually oligarchies, with a symbiotic relationship
between the dictator and the "middle management" so to speak. Even if the
dictator took all the middle level management out and had them shot, there
would just be a new structure put in place with all the same old problems (and
symbiotic relationships)

My perception of your comment kind of went downhill from there. Some
highlights were comparing "news shows" across several different channels, 1 of
which was a news show, 1 was a quasi news show, and 1 was an entertainment
show. I seriously doubt such comparisons are going to lead to much value for
the reader.

Then we had the whole problem of definitions. As I understand it, propaganda
is the dissemination of information in order to effect change in public
opinion. It doesn't have to be false, involve logical fallacies, or any of
that. Some of the best propaganda, as the Pentagon says itself, is simply
telling people the truth about stuff they haven't heard before.

Then there was the over-reaching narrative of "everything is propaganda" --
joining up marketing, entertainment, sales, etc. It's a sign of a poor
definition when it fails to distinguish things. And of course we had to trot
out a good dollop of American-bashing with the Creel commission and such.
Sometimes I think America-bashing has become the salt and pepper of faux
intellectual discourse. Discussion getting a bit tired? Throw in a few jabs at
the Yanks. "Easily manipulated into warlike frenzy" and "more controlled by
propaganda than North Koreans" (I paraphrase) are serious assertions.
Assertions that you began with, then failed to offer any proof, aside from a
Chomsky quote.

So apologies if I am being a bit harsh. I just didn't get much value from your
comment at all.

~~~
espeed
One of the biggest problems with the way the news is presented is the idea of
framing (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)>) -- stories
are presented in a narrowly-framed viewpoint so most public debate only occurs
inside the framed perimeters.

Our perspective is constrained so we see things through a "reality tunnel"
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel>).

We never see the whole picture. We only see a narrow sliver of it. Perspective
is infinite -- only the Omniscient see its entirety. But we often believe that
our perspective is the way things are -- the whole truth. Thus it shapes our
beliefs, and in so doing, guides our thoughts, our choices, our trajectory.

And because we are not experts in most things, we use mental shortcuts to help
us decide ([http://jcr.wisc.edu/publicity/press-
releases/docs/2009/june/...](http://jcr.wisc.edu/publicity/press-
releases/docs/2009/june/JCR_Drolet_JUN09.pdf)).

Here's an example of a divisive, yet narrowly-framed issue: Abortion.

How is abortion usually framed? People argue about the "right to life" vs a
"woman's right to choose." We argue back and forth about these issues, but we
are doing so inside a narrowly-framed perspective.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said that abortion is primarily about
population control, but this rarely gets talked about
([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all)).
It's the establishment's pink elephant that's been sitting in the back of the
room since the 1970s.

I believe that much of propaganda is designed to dance around the issue of
population control (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control>).

Watch Dr. Al Bartlett's (<http://www.albartlett.org/>) fascinating lecture on
the exponential function at the University of Colorado at Boulder
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&playnext=1...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&playnext=1&list=PL63DAFCD223C29352)).
He says, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to
understand the exponential function." Professor Bartlett then goes through the
stark reality of what will happen if we continue our exponential growth
against finite natural resources.

Research by economists John Donohue and Steven Levit at the University of
Chicago
([http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittT...](http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf))
showed that the legalizing of abortion started to reduce violent crime by the
1980s because would-be impoverished people weren't growing up to be criminals.
You may have read about this is Levit's book, Freakonomics
(<http://freakonomicsbook.com/>). The government knows this.

In the 1960s Henry Kissinger completed National Security Study Memorandum 200
(NSSM 200), which is more commonly referred to as the "Kissinger Report"
(<http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf>). Kissinger says that the
greatest threat to America is not the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but
the overpopulation of third-world countries. NSSM 200 discusses several
mechanisms that control population growth, such as war, famine, disease,
pestilence, poverty and immigration.

My point is that abortion is a form of population control and our government
sees it as such, but this rarely gets talked about. Instead we argue about
"right to life" and "right to choose" and most have never even considered the
bigger issue because that's the way the issue has been framed, because that's
the way the government and the media establishment want it.

The question we should be asking is, "Do you believe that population control
is a good thing or a bad thing?"

Why do you think government and media don't talk about the population control
issue more? Is it because they think the population will be upset thinking
about the idea of population control?

At the end of Dr. Bartlett's lecture on population growth
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&playnext=1...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&playnext=1&list=PL63DAFCD223C29352)),
he presents the "Great Challenge." He asks, "Can you think of any problem on
any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any
demonstrable way aided, assisted or advanced by having larger populations at
the local level, the state level, the national level, or globally?"

My answer to his challenge is: Yes, larger populations mean we have more of
our greatest resource -- ourselves. Our creativity and ingenuity has developed
solutions to our greatest problems, but we need true and accurate information
so that we make better decisions and work toward a solution. To our government
and the media: Don't hold back stark realities or frame it in propaganda
because this only impairs our ability to find a solution.

The Propaganda Project (<http://www.propagandaproject.org>) is my answer for
reducing the noise and getting more truth out of the media. Do you think it
can work?

~~~
rdtsc
> My point is that abortion is a form of population control and our government
> sees it as such, but this rarely gets talked about.

I wonder where is the separation between those that understand the issue at
hand (let's say "population control") but know that they will never be able to
frame it as such, and those that don't know the issue and are just bouncing
around between the allowed frame limits?

In other words this seems to imply there is a group of people in the
government that meet and discuss these issues "off-the-record" so to speak,
and they all sit around and ponder "How would we curb population growth?".
Presumably NSC is doing this as you pointed out.

However I feel there is tinge of conspiracy theory here as well. I can't
imagine there be this group of very intelligent and informed governmental
group that is also at the same time able to keep it secret and is able to
exercise control. They would have to communicate their desires or commands to
IMF, World Bank, UN, branches of the US Govt., somehow determine who gets
elected and who doesn't etc. It is not impossible but somehow I don't quite
believe it yet.

~~~
espeed
This separation occurs between those that take the time to research and think
about the issue and those that accept the issue the way it's generally framed.

Population control has been talked about publicly. It was discussed more
prevalently in the 1970s -- it just doesn't get talked about much anymore.

Here is a recent video of David Rockefeller speaking about the importance of
population control for the UN and other international bodies (such as you
mentioned):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8>

Again, it's not so much a conspiracy -- you don't see the establishment giving
presentations on who killed JFK at conferences. But as you can see, population
control is a discussed in these settings -- just not in the mass media. As
explained in "Manufacturing Consent," these type of framed issues are just
part of the political economy.

------
zephjc
It's almost funny, I guess in a sad way, to watch this and realize that every
person you see in the film is planted (including those in the backgrounds),
the young actors carefully picked, every shot is framed to make NK _not_ seem
like the giant hole it actually is. It's no more real than a hollywood
production.

------
lallysingh
On a fairly unrelated note, I really wish Al Jazeera was watchable in the
states as a proper news channel. I'd prefer to watch it than streaming web
video -- I might actually watch TV news again! But I think it'd bring some
well-needed balance to what else we see on the news (even including BBC).

~~~
hnu
I've read every comment just to find somebody who mentions this. I'm not in
the US (Actually in north Africa), so I watch Aljazeera whenever I want. Why
the Americans are not trying to address the question of why they're missing
out on such delicious journalism is a fact that I cannot fathom.

------
johnl87
This video kind of makes you wonder if people are really saying these things
cause they mean it or if they are just being watched and have to act a certain
way to reap the benefits of being a firm party supporter. Benefits like living
in Pyongyang and actually having food and shelter. I feel that it's probably
the latter in like 99% of cases.

My father in communist Poland wasn't able to do the research he wanted at his
university at Poland cause he wasn't in the party. He cursed out his professor
and called him a communist and got kicked out and had to transfer schools.
Calling someone out as a communist was a slur against them because those
reaping in party benefits were seen as betraying their own country.

I feel like it's a similar case in NKorea. You have to act that way cause your
neighbors will tell the authorities about any signs of disloyalty and the
family will disappear (into a re-education camp.) I think that's why these
people on the videos when they are interviewed really chose their words
carefully and make anything they say an attempt to glorify the dear leader.
Their eyes give them away though. I feel like everyone is aware of it -- the
conditions in their country vs the west, but they live in fear of expressing
their own opinions so they just shut up and go about their lives.

~~~
chrischen
I did not see that in their eyes. These people are privileged, as the video
said, so they're probably content with their status.

------
Entlin
24 million people, all brainwashed. There will be a long time before this
country sees a popular uprising like Tunisia and Egypt have.

~~~
daliusd
I'm pretty sure they are not brainwashed that much. There are people who are
like those young actors. But that engineer (father of actress) understands
situation better: there is reason why he does not want his daughter to be
actress. Actually looks at reaction of parents when actress told the story how
she became actress. They are trying to hide their eyes like they could betray
them. This video alone is enough to understand what price she might pay
sometime.

~~~
stcredzero
Such attitudes may predate the communists. Even in my mother's generation,
entertainers carried a stigma with them. Much like in ancient times in the
West, entertainers of many kinds were considered the lowest of the low.

My mother was born to parents who were living in what is now North Korea. My
grandfather was a doctor and a successful entrepreneur. Needless to say, the
communists didn't have a very sunny view of him, and the family had to be
quickly moved south.

Both my mother and my father had some inclinations towards the performing arts
and were actively discouraged from this. In the case of females, yes, a fear
of "dishonor" was involved. Since many men of power in the North Korean regime
are effectively above the law, such fear is perhaps not unwarranted. (Is it
really much different than our society?)

------
icegreentea
The segment during the dance class was... weird. With the exception of the
mention of the great leader, it's almost completely identical to something
you'll see over here. Right down to "I need to go on a diet".

------
radicaldreamer
This video's available in 720p on Al Jazeera's YouTube channel:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmzPsJfkWjA>

