"Based on a True Story," Part 1

Captain Phillips

Captain Phillips is about a 2009 incident in which an American cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama, was boarded in the Indian Ocean by four armed Somali pirates who held Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) and his crew hostage, demanding millions of dollars in ransom. When a U. S. Navy destroyer, the USS Bainbridge, and a frigate, the USS Halyburton, came to the Maersk's rescue, the pirates took Phillips aboard a lifeboat to transport him to Somalia. Phillips was eventually rescued by Navy SEALS, who killed three of the four pirates. Their leader, Muse (Barkhad Abdi) had been tricked into boarding the Bainbridge to “negotiate” with the Navy. He is now serving a 34-year sentence for kidnapping.

Captain Phillips is a traditional American military propaganda film. Ever since World War II, Hollywood and the Pentagon have had a mutually advantageous arrangment. In order to make the film appear realistic, the filmmakers need access to military equipment, locations and personnel. In exchange, the film studios are required to give the military final script approval.

Since the film was adapted from A Captain's Duty, Captain Phillips' book about the incident, he behaves admirably throughout. If reality, he is being sued for $50 million by members of his crew for “willful, wanton and conscious disregard for their safety.” The Maersk was boarded 240 nautical miles (nm) from the Somali coast, after being warned by the U. S. Maritime Administration to stay at least 600 nm from Somalia due to the danger of piracy. It would be interesting to know whether real or imagined pressure from the ship's owners to take the shortest route played a role in his decision.

It's likely that Tom Hanks has already cleared his February calendar in preparation for his next Oscar nomination. The director, Paul Greenglass, is known for his technically competent, exciting semi-documentary action movies. His previous films include Bloody Sunday (about a 1972 British army massacre of Irish protesters), United 93, and The Green Zone (about the Iraq War). He excels at describing what happened, but carefully avoids questions about why. 

The film makes no serious attempt to explain the motives of the Somali pirates. All we get are some opening scenes set in a poor village and a line of dialogue from Muse about there not being as much economic opportunity in Somalia as in America. It would be interesting to know more about the relationship between the four pirates and the Somali bosses from whom they take instructions. At one point, Muse boasts that he extorted $6 million during a previous act of piracy. Phillips asks the obvious question, “Then why are you here?” This potentially interesting point is not pursued.

In the absence of an explanation of the behavior of the Somalis, it is likely that the audience will assimilate this film to the racist narrative of Hollywood's traditional melodrama in defense of colonialism—the one about, for example, the wagon train under attack by hordes of mindless Indians. In this story, the “human beings,” i. e., white people, are presented as victims of an attack by “aliens,” i. e., people of color, who are presented as the embodiment of pure evil. This narrative was used successfully in a previous film about Somalia, Black Hawk Down.

In the last third of the film, we are treated to one of the oldest cliches of the colonialism melodrama: The arrival of the cavalry just in time to rescue the trapped settlers. Cue the patriotic music. Presumably, the audience is expected to cheer as two heavily armed battleships take to the high seas to attack a lifeboat containing four emaciated Somalis. “We're number one!”

The only dischordant note occurs when the captain of the Bainbridge is told that he is not, under any circumstances, to allow the lifeboat to reach the Somali coast. In other words, Captain Phillips' life is to be sacrificed rather than to allow this to develop into a more serious international incident. Fortunately, that was not necessary.

The clearest example of the role of military script approval in preparing this film is the portrayal of the Navy SEALS who came to Captain Phillips' rescue. The film shows the SEALS, who have a reputation for excellent marksmanship, killing three men with (by my count) four shots. Imagine my surprise when I read that, in reality, 19 rounds were fired. Shocking!

But that's not all. There was $30,000 aboard the lifeboat, money that Phillips took from the ship's safe and gave the kidnappers in the hope they would take it and leave. This money disappeared and was never recovered. The kidnappers were all dead. Captain Phillips was exhausted, injured and helpless. The most likely explanation is that it was stolen either by SEALS or other naval personnel who boarded the lifeboat. The Navy investigated the incident, giving polygraph tests to several individuals. They concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against anyone and, according to the Navy, “The case was ultimately closed without evidence of wrongdoing.”

The incidents that are left out of “true stories” are sometimes more interesting than those that are included.

You may also be interested in reading:

"Based on a True Story," Part 2

Does Propaganda Work?

First of all, before you read any further, you have to take this pop quiz on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) written by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Finished yet? O.K., now you can read Kaiser's analysis of the results. You'll find that less than 1% of respondents got all ten items correct. I was one of them, which is why you people should listen to me when I'm talking!  ;)  You'll also find that people who got fewer correct answers were (among other things) more likely to be Republicans, watchers of Fox News, and in favor of repealing the law.

Kevin Drum has constructed the following chart. He points out that there has been more conservative disinformation regarding the five items that more people answered incorrectly than the other five. This suggests that the right wing and their media enablers have been effective in misleading the public about the ACA.

I'm not sure I buy Drum's argument, since he has no data on how frequently false claims were made. I don't recall hearing that much about the nonexistent mandate that small businesses offer coverage to their employees, for example. Of course, there have been more complaints about the individual mandate than any other provision of the ACA, but in this case, the conservatives have not lied about it. There really is an individual mandate, although they have neglected to point out how small a percentage of Americans will be affected by it.

In order to get these results, you need more than just conservative propaganda. You also need corporate news media that fail to correct it, media that present these false claims as a he-said-she-said “controversy,” without explaining who is right and who is wrong.

Update

Thanks to Paul Ricci for pointing out that paid advertisements have almost certainly been a major factor in spreading public misinformation about the ACA. On June 20, The New York Times added up the expenditures to that date.

The amount spent attacking the ACA ($235 million) was 3.4 times the amount spent defending it ($69 million). Almost all the pro-ACA ads were from the Department of Health and Human Service ($47 million)--ads which the Times describes as “bland, explaining aspects of the law.” The anti-ACA ads come largely from the usual cast of Elephants who have emerged as major players in the post-Citizens United ad wars—the U. S. Chamber of Commerce ($27 million), Karl Rove's Crossroads USA ($18 million), etc. As part of the captive audience for these ads, I would not describe them as bland. The anti-ACA ads play to people's fears about government takeovers (“socialism”), rising deficits, and the rationing of care.

The anti-ACA ads have played primarily in swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, suggesting that they are, in part, an early start to the presidential campaign. I live in Pittsburgh, the fourth largest market for these ads ($7.6 million). Philadelphia, at $7.9 million, is the second largest market.

Circle of Jerks

Let's start out by acknowledging the obvious.  When U. S. Marines urinated on the dead bodies of Afghan citizens, that was stupid. Really stupid.

The sight of pixilated penises brings back memories of Abu Ghraib. But I suspect this was a more spontaneous demonstration of contempt for the enemy. You'll recall that the Abu Ghraib atrocities were traced to explicit communications from commanding officers about how to interrogate prisoners, the paper trail eventually leading back to the White House. (For a thorough analysis of the situational forces influencing the Abu Ghraib defendants, I strongly recommend social psychologist Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect.)

Predictably, as soon as the golden shower video went viral, the Obama administration's propaganda machine went into full outrage mode. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was “deeply disturbed” by the incident. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressed “total dismay.” Not to be outdone, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called it “utterly deplorable.” What hypocrites! Where's the outrage over more than ten years of U. S. occupation in which we have humiliated, terrorized, maimed and killed unknown but substantial numbers of Afghan civilians?

The administration also claimed the scandal would hurt our reputation with the Afghan people. But this claim assumes that, prior to the pissing contest, the Afghans had a high enough opinion of Americans to allow room for it to drop. Hasn't anyone at the White House heard of the floor effect?

Here's a promise to anyone reading this blog. If you happen someday to run across my dead body, you have my permission to pee on it as much as you want. I won't mind at all.

Let's hope the military isn't too hard on these guys.