FPS





Read about White, Black and Gray propaganda

Propaganda is a form of communication that attempts to influence the behaviour of people by affecting their perceptions, attitudes and opinions. 
Propaganda can restructure hostile attitudes, reinforce friendly attitudes, or maintain the continued neutrality of those people who are undecided. 

A characteristic of propaganda is its reliance upon devices designed to discourage reflective thought such as name calling, use of glittering generalities like "freedom" or "injustice," use of prestigious symbols, endorsements from prominent persons, endorsements from regular folk, 'get-on-the-bandwagon' representations, and cardstacking to minimise or maximise events. 

Propaganda does not always advance an argument and is often aimed instead at advancing an image or general system of ideas that implicitly supports an action or policy.

While propaganda has existed for ages, the advent of twentieth century mass communication enabled it to flourish and it has been employed with increasing sophistication in all major conflicts beginning with World War I. 

Unlike other forms of warfare, the success or failure of propaganda cannot be immediately known or measured. It is a continuous process that persuades without seeming to do so. The sources and accuracy of propaganda mark it as being one of three forms: white, black, or gray.

White propaganda comes from a source that is identified correctly and the information in the message tends to be accurate. The Voice of America (VOA) is an example of a white propaganda unit because it presents a positive image of the United States. While the VOA is not connected with the military, armed forces have commonly used radio to destroy the enemy's will to resist with a minimum loss of blood. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. Fourth Psychological Operations Group produced a white propaganda radio programme that featured testimonials from happy Iraqi prisoners of war along with prayers from the Koran and the location of U.S. bomb targets for the next day. A great majority of Iraqi defectors said that the broadcasts influenced their decision to surrender. White propaganda attempts to build credibility with the audience by convincing them of the good intentions of the sender.

Black propaganda, from a source that is often well concealed, employs a high number of distortions or out-right falsehoods. It is also categorised as disinformation, from the name of a KGB division, dezinformatsia, that specialised in such a form of creative deceit. In World War I, Germany made a crude and futile attempt to persuade French soldiers at the front to abandon their units by posting large signs advising them that British men were treating the French unkindly. By World War II, the same sort of message designed to demoralise troops received more polish through the transmissions of Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose. A similar style of disinformation came in the form of "The New England Broadcasting Station." This station, supposedly run by discontented British subjects, began sending radio transmissions of war news in the weeks prior to the planned invasion of England by Germany. The station was actually an undercover German operation that aimed to reduce the morale of the British people. Black propaganda seeks to destroy the credibility of opposition governments.

Gray propaganda may or may not be correctly identified and the accuracy of the information is uncertain. In the aftermath of the failed 1961 CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion, the VOA denied any American involvement. While the source of the information was clearly identified as the VOA, the information was false. Sometimes gray propaganda is true and designed to embarrass an enemy. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used examples of American racism, such as lynchings, to slow U.S. advances throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The damage that this gray propaganda caused to foreign relations ultimately prompted the U.S. government to back domestic civil rights legislation.
By turning enemies into friends or neutrals through the power of persuasion, propaganda offers a relatively inexpensive way of reducing armed conflict and bolstering national security. For this reason, it will most likely remain a popular weapon in government arsenals.



What do you know about propaganda?  Read this overview and add a personal comment. Have you ever been influenced so much by an advertisement or a campaign that you have had to have that product?
Remember the frenzy two years ago over Lewis Road Chocolate Milk

Overview
“Every day, we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another. These appeals persuade, not through the give-and-take of argument and debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions. For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda.”
- Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991

The news. A billboard. A 30-second TV spot. A pop up window on your computer screen. A bumper- sticker. An inaugural address. Propaganda exists in nearly every form, in every country, around the world. Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of an individual or a community toward some cause or movement.
Propaganda was originally used to describe the dissemination of information, whether positive or negative, in regards to a cause. By the mid-20th century, the meaning of the term had evolved to describe the often false, compelling claims that justified political actions and ideas.
Though propaganda has existed for centuries, it is typically identified as having had significant use for the first time during World War II. Leaflets were dropped from the air, posters were placed throughout towns and cities, and news short films were played in movie theatres in a variety of languages. In the Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, and in Germany, under Adolph Hitler, propaganda was used to favour communism and Nazism in all forms of public expression. The post–World War II use of the word “propaganda” typically referred to political or patriotic uses or to explicit promotion of an ideology. The term gained a negative connotation, especially in political spheres following the World War II era. In reality, propaganda can be used for “bad” or for “good” forms of persuasion. Today the word “propaganda” is often closely associated with commercial interests and advertising because it is used as a means of influencing buyer behaviour, and it is not meant to be propaganda the way the traditional use of the word implies.
Propaganda generally appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect. It shares techniques used by advertising and public relations to promote the candidacy of a public figure or to sell commercial products to the typical consumer. Propaganda can be used to shape an organisation’s perspective, a movement, a person, or a brand. In its most basic sense, propaganda presents information in a way that is meant to persuade an audience rather than objectively provide information. Propaganda often presents facts selectively so that individuals process the information in a specific way (thus possibly lying by omission), or it uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change in the target audience’s attitudes to further a political, religious, or commercial agenda. Some consider the use of propaganda as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.
Propaganda takes place in many contexts. From the big screens at football arenas to the digital headlines of newspapers, nearly all channels of communication can be used for propaganda. It tends to be present in government, wartime, education, and in almost all mass media.
Art with visual appeal has historically been and continues to be a vehicle for propaganda. As the world becomes increasingly digital, the visual mediums that can be used to persuade people are everywhere. Today propaganda assaults the senses: it is visual, audible, kinesthetic, and sometimes olfactory. It
can be impactful subconsciously as well as consciously. Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news and government reports, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and digital ads or messages. The most influential use of propaganda in today’s media is through social media and other websites because the world and individuals around the globe are more connected now than ever before.
What does the future hold for propaganda and its wide variety of techniques? Will the global public continue to jump on the bandwagon to join a cause? Will glittering generalities and testimonials continue to influence major purchases? Will political candidates continue to card stack their views in order to sway unsuspecting voters, or will we stand up against emotional words, name-calling, slogans, and gimmicks? Only the well informed, impervious, and unaffected seem to stand a chance! 

  1. How do labels on food packaging mislead or confuse consumers?
  2. What changes should be made to the standardised nutrition facts that appear on processed food packages? 


What is the future of 3D food?



Some of the foods we have seen look quite unappetising! 
Here are some links for you to read and view other 3D food...




Do people have a right to know what is in their food and where it was produced? 

Who should be responsible for making this information available? 




Have a look at this!

One day, 10 years from now, you might find yourself hankering for a snack. No, you don’t plunk a few quarters into a vending machine in return for a salty bag of potato chips. Instead, you reach for a 3D-printed cracker, which over the last few days, has sprouted nutritious-and-delicious mushrooms and greens.
It’s not some sci-fi fantasy. These snacks are the creation of Dutch food designer Chloé Rutzerveld, who designed the novel treat for a project she calls “Edible Growth,” which explores 3D-printing with living organisms. 
Here’s how they’re made: A 3D-printer builds cracker-like structures made with seeds, spores, and yeast. In three to four days, when the seeds and spores have fully sprouted, it’s snack time.
Is your sugar intake too high?
What are your thoughts re the information in Nigel Latta's documentary?


'THAT SUGAR FILM' is coming to a Tauranga cinema, 

starting  7 May 2015 – It will change the way you think 

about 

‘healthy’ food.



Our FPS topic for Term 2 is Processed Food


Here is the overview. Have a read through and consider what extra information you may need about this topic

Overview
“When you go to the grocery store, you find that the cheapest calories are the ones that are going to make you the fattest - the added sugars and fats in processed foods.”
Michael Pollan
In today’s fast-paced society, most people rely on some type of processed food. We purchase processed foods from supermarkets, food trucks, restaurants, and fast food restaurants. But is all processed food bad? Processed foods are those that have been altered from their natural state. Processing primarily takes place either for convenience or for safety reasons. Processed foods can be classified on a spectrum that ranges from minimally processed to heavily processed. Food processing takes place in a variety of ways and can include canning, dehydration, freezing, and refrigeration. Processed foods often contain preservatives, additives, artificial flavourings, and other chemical ingredients that give the foods a more appealing look or taste. Consumers tend to assume that all processed foods are bad for their health, and they are in many cases; however, some processing techniques are in place to make foods safer to consume or to preserve foods so they can be shipped long distances. Foods are also processed for the sake of convenience which can help make food preparation easier with products like ready-made meals and canned goods with long shelf lives.
Many credit World War II and the exploration into space with the surge in processed food production that appeared in the 20th century. During World War II, significant military research and innovation helped develop dehydrated juice, instant coffee, and cake mix used to feed soldiers fighting the war. Convenience foods were soon introduced to the general public as time-saving alternatives to cooking standard meals. The exploration into space of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s encouraged the creation of even more processed foods. During this period, more women began working outside the home, and the desire for convenience made processed foods more appealing. As the consumer society mentality began to develop in industries like technology and retail, the food industry was not left behind. Techniques for spray drying, juice concentrates, freeze-drying, colouring agents, and the introduction of artificial sweeteners only increased the popularity of processed foods.
In general, most nutritionists and dietitians discourage individuals from consuming processed foods. Highly processed convenience foods are typically high in fat, sugar, and/or salt and have many calories; however, many of the foods that we consume on a daily basis are both processed and healthy. For example, milk is a processed food because it has been pasteurised to kill bacteria and homogenised to keep the fats it contains from separating. Fruits and vegetables that have been flash frozen or juiced and canned to preserve them so they are convenient to cook and readily available year round are also examples of minimally processed foods. Frozen fish fillets, canned salmon, frozen berries, 100% whole grain breads, and oatmeal are other examples of nutritious processed foods.
Some foods are processed through genetic modification. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are those that have their DNA altered in a specific way to create a more desirable crop. Crops are typically engineered for faster growth, to create resistance to disease, and to produce more nutrient rich products. Currently, more than 60% of the foods that appear on supermarket shelves in the United States contain ingredients that have been genetically modified in some way. Those who are in favour of genetic modification believe that we won’t be able to feed the world’s billions of people without producing high- yield, genetically modified food. GMOs are often regarded as the solution that will help end world hunger. Since crops can be genetically engineered to withstand harsher climates or be especially nutrient-dense, many nations are considering using genetically modified crops to feed populations that suffer from extreme malnutrition.

Those who oppose genetically modified foods fear agribusiness giants such as Monsanto Foods want to monopolise food and agriculture production. Opponents of GMOs often choose to consume a diet made up of organic produce and food goods. It is anticipated that many of the foods the worldwide population will eat in the future do not yet exist. Researchers are constantly adjusting the ingredients, flavours, and even nutritional content in processed foods. Food experts believe it may be necessary to rethink how food is harvested, produced, transported, and processed around the world. Creative techniques for printing food - or replacing food altogether with liquid meal supplements - are already gaining the attention of investors and the food industry’s best scientists and researchers. 

What changes need to be made in the food industry? 
Will processed foods someday feed the world’s population and eliminate hunger and malnutrition? 
These are just a few of the burning questions scientists today are already trying to address for the future. 




53 comments:

  1. I made speech about this last year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found this very surprising A lot of things have added sugar but I did not expect marmite. Next time I go to the supermarket I might have a look

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also this is shocking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI7FkBoDxx4

    ReplyDelete
  4. I found this video frightening because it means that most of us are at a risk of diabetes & heart disease. Something that shocked me was at 27:30.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow! This video has definitely taken me by surprise, next time I go to the supermarket with Mum I am going to make sure that we think about what we are buying for school lunches and make them more healthy. I'm not saying that I am unhealthy nut I can definitely be healthier. This video has majorly made an impact on how I look at the way sugar is impacting on us as human beings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can not believe that marmite has 26 grams of sugar!!!

      Delete
  6. I meant 28 grams I think that's about 10 teaspoons. this is making me think a bit more about what I eat!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This video took me by surprise! I was very pusuaded to change the way I think about the amount of sugar before I eat it. I couldn't believe the amount of sugar in marmite. Also I hope the children like the young girl, do not have to get 6 teeth removed from drunk coca-cola from their baby bottle. I am defiantly going to think before I buy!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its kind of scary the more you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. after watching this video I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it for e.g. the professor who (wahoo I spelt it right) was against it he is a bit of a extremist. I think having some sugar eating healthy and exercising will give you a healthy life style, I wouldn't call it "toxic"

    ReplyDelete
  10. This clip has not taken me by surprise because, my dad has told about this
    before I watched the documentary. I believe that in the 1970's food companies took out the fat and made everyone believe that fat is bad, just because it was cheaper to add sugar and it increased their profit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I did not expect this amount of sugar. I was most surprised at the about of sugar in fruit juice. How much sugar is too much? That little girl who got six teeth pulled out was just sad because her mother was feeding her the wrong diet. I think its about time that we all started to think about little things that we eat but could contain lots of sugar.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I find it very scary how much sugar they put in processed foods these days, some is hard to believe and I don't think 4 teaspoons of sugar is much at all

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is definitely an amazing and surprising documentry!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I found this documentary //www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A
    it is about the side effects of GMO's and it will really change the way
    you think about GMO's. Use the link above or type "The seeds of death"
    on to youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think Governments should legislate i.e make it a law, that all food producers should label all the ingredients in their products. Foods without appropriate wording would not be permitted to be sold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the food industry should always label what is in their food because of allergies. If someone is allergic to a food and the food company put it in without labeling that person will become sick etc. I GMO should also be label so you know what you are consuming

      Delete
  17. I think the food industry should certainly label what is inside the product
    and what you are consuming. Especially whether the product is GMO
    or non-GMO so, you may choose what you are consuming.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree with you, you clearly are right about that although that could decrease profits of companies and government which therefore tax's may be raised, I still agree with you though.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with Jonathan consumers should have the right to know CLEARLY what they are eating,GMO or non-GMO you should know.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A tax may also help as low profit consumers can not buy these products

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The government actually tried to place a sugar tax, but it wasn't put into action.

      Delete
  21. I also think that they should clearly put a Processed/GMO food label on all of the food so that even a 5 year old could find it without looking to hard. Also with the ingredient list and the processed/GMO food label are so small that you can only find the if you are squinting (and even then they are hard to read!).

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with this because consumers should have the right to be able to know what they are eating and putting into their digestive system. It's as easy as placing a label on the package stating whither or not it is GMO Free or contains GMO. Also this could come across as a safety reason as there may be someone who may be allergic to any sort of GMO. Finally, my last reason would be... The goverment should make a law where if it does not state whither it is GMO or not a GMO, that that company would be dealt with in a professional way.

    ReplyDelete
  23. People definitely should be able to see what's in their food.
    Lots of food products boast 'All natural', because our food doesn't have ingredients that don't come from Planet Earth, so there could really be anything anything in those 'all natural' biscuits.
    The government is already responsible for food labelling, however the trouble is that food companies can make up all sorts of excuses for not having to label all their ingredients, eg. Coke, with its secret ingredient: "We can't show it because other companies could steal it!"
    So that crosses of 'food companies' and 'government'. In the end it all comes down to the consumers' decisions; the consumers have the ability to shape the whole food market, but only as a group.

    ReplyDelete
  24. All foods should be clearly labeled incase someone has an allergy to a food that is not stated. Everyone has a right to know if their food has been GM.
    The government should declare a law to make this compulsory just like thy did in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the USA they have not made it compulsory to label GM food so,
      the people there do not know if they are consuming GM food.

      Delete
  25. Foods should be labeled because some of the people may be allergic to some type of foods, or they may follow some religion or other life patterns and they don't eat part of the food. Also, some might be concerened about whether the ingredients are bad for their health.

    ReplyDelete
  26. GMO foods should be labeled to increase awareness of modified goods to people that may not enjoy eating unhealthy food. If it was apart of your religion or diet to strictly not eat modified foods having a label would allow those people to be aware prior to eating GMO's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kraft (and other food companies that rely on GMOs) actually put money into not having to label ingredients.

      Delete
  27. Yes I do think people should have the right to know what they are putting in their mouths. Mainly due to allergic, religious and health reasons. Also. I think the person/people who made the product should be responsible of letting people know what ingredients it contains.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think everyone should be able to look on the lable at what, and how much they're eating, because they could be on a diet or they could have allergies. what ever the reason everyone should have the right to look at what they're eating. I know you don't want to look at a food product and think it's all healthy and then you eat it for a few days and you have gained weight, and you have not been feeling that well. Then you look at the product and you find out that it doesn't even have what it if, and if you see anything weird and you know it's something bad, and it doesn't even say it on the lable you get angry and don't buy the product again. So everyone loses, the customer, and the creator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think food should definitely be labelled;with all the deceiving sales and guarantees customers deserve to have the whole truth about what they are eating. It's almost like eating food with a blind fold on. I also agree with everyone else you don't want to suddenly find yourself gaining weight /becoming unhealthy because yo won't be able to tell what is doing this.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think people have a right to know what is in their food because if they have specific dietary requirements then they may eat foods dangerous to their health if the manufacturers don't put all the ingredients on the label.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1.A label may state that a food has 99.9% less fat so consumers may think this is healthy. They may not be true misleading consumers.
    2.People have a write to know what everything is in their food. If not this could upset someone with health issues.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1. Some labels may have misleading and false information on them, which may mislead consumers.
    2. Make information clearer and display all information about the product/food.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1. A label may state that it is 99.9% sugar free so that consumers believe it to be sugar free, when actually it may have other unhealthy substances.
    2. On ALL labels, state EVERYTHING that is in the product and to not have misleading/false information.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 1. An example of this is when I was eating a biscuit and the box stated 40%
    less sugar and I looked closer inside the box and saw that in very small print it said "40% less sugar than the average biscuit".
    2. The packaging should state all ingredients so that consumers now what they are eating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I was typing quickly I meant know not now.

      Delete
    2. I like how you used a real life situation to explain this!

      Delete
  35. 1. Some products have things like ' less sugar ' or ' no saturated fats' when it is replaced with artifical ingrediants or salt.
    2. Make the font bigger.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1. Some companies state they have 'less sugar' but what do they have less sugar than ?

    2.They need to write on bigger font that humans can actually read

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1. I think that many labels are misleading and as jack said labels say less sugar but that often means that they are putting more fat in it to make it still tasty
    2.Labels should state if it is bad for you and if so make it readable.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1. On the chocolate pudding above it says my personal guarantee the guarantee could be anyone just signing their name on the packet.
    2. I think that the processing the product has gone through should be written clearly on the packet.

    ReplyDelete
  39. One way food labels may confuse customers are the difficult, uncommon names of additives. The makers should label every ingredient clearly and truthfully.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1) Food labelling used to be very clear on foods, (On old packets of Kool-Aid the chemical ingredients were in BOLD!), But now that the food companies/consumers have realised that lots of those chemicals are unhealthy, they try to shrink the words down to the legal limit (still visible to the naked eye.
    2)The Australian government tried to insert a red/orange/green "traffic light" health system onto food packaging, so consumers could see how healthy the food is. However junk food companies threatened to sue for lost venue, and in never got put into action. I think, that just the fact that junk food companies objected, is good enough proof that the system would work.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Speaking of propaganda, countries like the the USA also have military
    propaganda for example: at my brother's school they had to evaluate a poem called: 'Iraq and roll' and It claimed the USA were the most powerful country in the world and that they could crush any country they liked and that you should not stand in there way other wise one might come for you, and I thought when I read it this is just incredible. But this is not an official documentation of the U.S government it only represents the thoughts of a U.S soldier. However, my point was that propaganda should by be viewed
    in a wider context than just eastern bloc communist countries because
    western countries have military propaganda too.

    ReplyDelete