That’s a common tool of propaganda. If you lie outright, you can get caught, and the audience may not believe you in the first place. The real trick is to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination, and if you’re doing it skillfully, they’ll end up not only believing what you want them to, but also thinking it was their idea all along. I’ve even seen the video cut to show the tank moving in the man’s direction, and then cut away before it stops, creating the impression that the full video would show him getting run over and is not included because it would be too graphic - for example, 3:14 in this bizarre psyop recruitment ad.
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone imply that he’s important because he’s a martyr, it’s the fact he believes in his cause strongly enough and he was brave enough to stare down inevitable death and force the other guy to blink that’s so memorable about that image (at least for me and those I’ve spoken to about it)
The psyops propaganda you posted is definitely cringe af but it seems to clearly show the tank turning in the clip, calling it a clear example of misleading people into thinking he was killed is a pretty big stretch imo
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone imply that he’s important because he’s a martyr
Why did you read my comment but not the one I was replying to?
The psyops propaganda you posted is definitely cringe af but it seems to clearly show the tank turning in the clip
Right, because the tank did turn, so they can’t show a clip of it driving straight at him because that clip doesn’t exist. But given that it’s on screen for about one second, I would venture to guess that some people might not be examining that too closely, and would just see that the tank is moving.
calling it a clear example of misleading people into thinking he was killed is a pretty big stretch imo
It’s not about directly misleading people, as I said. It’s about leaving ambiguity and subtly hinting at what that ambiguity might be, while leaving yourself plausible deniability. To simply lie directly is a crass and obvious form of propaganda, to be used sparingly. If you’re looking for propaganda in the mindset of looking for a “smoking gun” that would hold up in court, you don’t understand the nature of it. It’s an art. It’s advertising. I couldn’t prove to a jury what Shakespeare wanted the audience to take away from Hamlet, but that doesn’t mean I can’t analyze it and make educated guesses.
Obviously, anyone who’s seen the full video or knows the story won’t be fooled, but that’s not the point. If some number of people come away thinking what you want them to think, and the origin of that thought can’t be traced back to you in an incriminating way, then you did your job.
I always assumed that tank man got ran over since I’ve only seen images.
That’s a common tool of propaganda. If you lie outright, you can get caught, and the audience may not believe you in the first place. The real trick is to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination, and if you’re doing it skillfully, they’ll end up not only believing what you want them to, but also thinking it was their idea all along. I’ve even seen the video cut to show the tank moving in the man’s direction, and then cut away before it stops, creating the impression that the full video would show him getting run over and is not included because it would be too graphic - for example, 3:14 in this bizarre psyop recruitment ad.
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone imply that he’s important because he’s a martyr, it’s the fact he believes in his cause strongly enough and he was brave enough to stare down inevitable death and force the other guy to blink that’s so memorable about that image (at least for me and those I’ve spoken to about it)
The psyops propaganda you posted is definitely cringe af but it seems to clearly show the tank turning in the clip, calling it a clear example of misleading people into thinking he was killed is a pretty big stretch imo
Why did you read my comment but not the one I was replying to?
Right, because the tank did turn, so they can’t show a clip of it driving straight at him because that clip doesn’t exist. But given that it’s on screen for about one second, I would venture to guess that some people might not be examining that too closely, and would just see that the tank is moving.
It’s not about directly misleading people, as I said. It’s about leaving ambiguity and subtly hinting at what that ambiguity might be, while leaving yourself plausible deniability. To simply lie directly is a crass and obvious form of propaganda, to be used sparingly. If you’re looking for propaganda in the mindset of looking for a “smoking gun” that would hold up in court, you don’t understand the nature of it. It’s an art. It’s advertising. I couldn’t prove to a jury what Shakespeare wanted the audience to take away from Hamlet, but that doesn’t mean I can’t analyze it and make educated guesses.
Obviously, anyone who’s seen the full video or knows the story won’t be fooled, but that’s not the point. If some number of people come away thinking what you want them to think, and the origin of that thought can’t be traced back to you in an incriminating way, then you did your job.