The Persuasiveness of Truth between Conflicting Ideals

  

   Both Abolition and Correction tried to persuade Americans of the “truth”. The truth here is of course relative, and questionable, because both claimed to be telling the real story.  Questions then lie in the persuasiveness of each film in the attitudes of their viewers. Does the order in which you see each film play a factor? What if you see only one film but not the other? A study performed by Bradley S. Greenberg in 1963 set out to answer these questions. 

   Greenberg’s study consisted of 144 students enrolled in a California college. The students were divided in a way “to equate as closely as possible the initial level of attitude toward HUAC. Suffice to say at this point that no significant differences existed among the subject groups assigned to the film treatments, and no subject who had seen either film within the past six months was included in the final analyses.” (Greenberg, 1963) The groups were split into four viewing groups OA: Abolition only, OC: Correction only, OA-OC: Abolition then Correction, and OC-OA: Correction then Abolition. Two weeks before the first screening students were asked a series of questions and answer according to adjectives used in both films; the same test was administered after the screenings as well, however, on the first test the terms HUAC and ACLU were mixed in among other ideas. 

   The results were, well, some what expected. Each film--when viewed solo--had the desired effect, in other words it fulfilled its propagandist goal. The interesting find came from the persuasive power of the films. It was discovered that regardless of order, those who had seen Correction had “attitudes that are comparable to those maintained by a group which has seen only Operation Correction. All three treatments that received Operation Correction were more unfavorable to HUAC.” The findings conclude that seeing either film leaves the audience as how the filmmaker intended, but in this study seeing both films sways viewers to the beliefs of Operation Correction. 

Greenberg's study can be found at:

Greenberg, B.S. "Operation Abolition" vs. "Operation Correction." Audio Visual Communication Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1963), pp. 40-46

Operation Correction: The Strike Back

   While the focus of this site is primarily on HUAC and exploring how the threat, and fear, of the blacklist still remained even when the organization was losing credibility it would be unfair not to mention the counter film Operation Correction, which was also put on the homepage for viewing. After all, if the Hollywood ten would have never fought to testify like they did, who knows where civil liberty fights against HUAC would have gone. 

   Success can breed imitation, sort of. Shortly after Operation Abolition came Operation Correction, it was the same news footage in the same sequence, however, it’s commentary slant was on the opposite end of the spectrum. While Abolition was an attempt to rally support by showing what communist tactics could do to our students, Correction was the counter strike that showed what HUAC was doing, and what they had become, was the un-American activity and that the students were on the side of civil liberty. Abolition’s commentary is HUAC favored while Correction’s commentary is sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The film’s commentary comes from Ernest Besig, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California. Throughout the film Besig points out the fallacies, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations that are present in Abolition. Besig urges us to remember that “the truth lies not in the picture but in the words of the narrator.” The narrator, of course, being himself, thus asking the audience to lean towards the argument Correction is presenting. The film takes an unveiling approach to go about its argument. By dissecting each part of Abolition this film is trying to influence the perception of truth.  

Operation Abolition the Attack on Students, Er, I Mean Communists

   At this point (1960) HUAC’s reign, and its prestige, was beginning to downfall. Yet, the groups 1947 Hollywood blacklist which denied actors, directors, writers, and the likes, from working in the studio system was still of great threat; almost any publicity dealing with HUAC equalled the blacklist for you with no chance to clear your name.  So, what’s an organization to do when support is diminishing and bad publicity in every newspaper is growing? Rally support, of course, and what better way to do that than a one of a kind, sliced and diced, HUAC supported film.  HUAC was able to see the enormous propaganda value in the student protests during the May hearings. Hence, why it ordered the news footage be handed over--giving no credit to the stations.The resulting film was Operation Abolition. This film was made an official part of HUAC’s reports and investigation and shown to millions where, surprisingly, it was met with success.

"Operation Abolition" is a 45-minute documentary film portraying certain of the events which took place on May 12, 13, and 14, 1960, in the course of hearings held in San Francisco by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The film is also an integral part of an official report of the Committee on Un-American Activities to the House of Representatives. As such, it has the official endorsement of the committee, just as all other committee reports do.The title of the film is derived from the name which the Communist Party itself has given to its current, greatly intensified drive to have the committee abolished.-House Report No. 2228, 86th Congress, 2d Session

    It is important to take note, and keep in mind, that HUAC had always faced strong opposition in California even months before the hearings came there. In the propagandist film Operation Abolition the film’s narrator, Representative Francis E. Walter--the Chairperson of HUAC--and the son of a well known anticommunist radio host, shows us the scenes that happened that May in California when the Communist Party was “able to incite and use non-communist sympathizers to perform the dirty work of the Communist Party.” The “non-communist sympathizers” Walter mentions include students--graduate and undergraduate--professors, community and church leaders, and even California Representative James Roosevelt; all who were denouncing HUAC months before the trials came to California.  However, the focus, and the blame, was shifted to the students in the lens of Abolition. The film is careful to lay great emphasis that these students were provoked, maybe even inspired, by communist leaders to riot. With juxtaposing shots of the students and the subpoenaed alleged communists the film’s editing is trying to tie a connection between the two. Through out the film we also here Walter’s voiceover, a film tactic to show the voice of authority or the voice we are supposed to trust, telling us that it is the communists sneaky tactics that have duped the students into protesting. 

   Statements later released by the committee about the film even claim to be “kinder” to the students by saying that they were under communist influence. The idea that in the presence of believed injustice a person would act on their own accord to try to stop it is simply against American traditions in the eyes of the committee.  In 1947 those working in film and who were perpetrators of such acts were written off as communist and had their name taken down on the blacklist. In 1960 the fear had spread that, not only were there communists amongst us, they were also infecting the minds of the youth, the student protesters. As the disdain for HUAC from Californians came before the trials invaded San Francisco so, too, did the commitment to preserve civil liberties.

The Historical Background

   In May of 1960 HUAC, or the House of Un-American Activities Committee, was meeting at city hall in San Francisco to discuss accusations against a list of “prominent communists” within the community. As hearings were trying to take place inside San Francisco City Hall students could be heard outside demonstrating. During the hearings and pickets or, perhaps, because of the hearings and pickets an event known as “Black Friday” occurred on May 13, 1960. The two short films below, Operation Abolition and Operation Correction, focus on this event using the same hodgepodge news footage, different biased or slanted commentary, and the power of voice over narration to draw two completely different conclusions about what is Un-American. 

Operation Abolition

Operation Correction