You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


‘ollywood Propaganda – New edition of Reel Power in French

Reel Power broke the mould for books covering the role of Hollywood in promoting militarism, war and the political status quo. It took the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model and adapted it to film and TV, showing how Hollywood’s output varies, but tends to repeat and reinforce the same ideological priorities regardless of genre or budget. A French edition of Reel Power – called Hollywood Propaganda – has just been published, so here is the new introduction for this edition, written by Matt Alford, the author of Reel Power/Hollywood Propaganda, and co-author of our book National Security Cinema.

Intro

Since Reel Power was first published, American popular culture has remained overwhelmingly a reflection of the power structures that shape its political culture.

During the 2010s we have seen the continuance of major military-sponsored franchises – more Transformers, more Marvel, and there’s more Avatar, Terminator and Top Gun on the way.

Even more brazenly, in 2014 Sony released The Interview, a film which imagined a CIA assassination of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Such a direct fantasy about killing a foreign leader has not been committed to film since Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was squished in the 1993 Charlie Sheen movie, Hot Shots – and even then it was achieved with slapstick rather than through a realistic immolation in a helicopter. And, unlike Hot Shots, the US weaponised The Interview, making thousands of copies on USB drives and sending them over the Demilitarized Zone in the hopes of igniting a revolution among the North Korean people.

American Sniper, Wonder Woman, Lone Survivor, Argo, Zero Dark Thirty were similarly all jumping hot with regressive political themes sucked up from reality and twisted for our viewing pleasure.

MGM even remade 1984’s oft-ridiculed Red Dawn, which had depicted a Soviet invasion of the United States with the script subjected to the guidance of President Reagan’s secretary of state General Al Haig. In the 2012 version, MGM replaced the Soviets with the Chinese until Beijing, incensed by a leaked copy of the shooting script, complained. At great expense, the studio chopped out the Chinese and replaced them with, of course, North Koreans.

So far, so predictable.

More intriguingly, films like Get Out and The Shooter wowed audiences while pointing to the possibilities for progressive content even in the mainstream. Others, such as Kill the Messenger, The East, and The Ghost Writer – great dramas about what has become known as the “deep state” – were buried by their own distributors, as has been routine. At the same time, films like Black Panther (depicting an African independence movement) and American Made (Tom Cruise and US drug-running) gave the illusion of critical content but mangled the historical record, for one reason or another, to mask more disturbing histories – akin to a “limited hang-out”, to use the CIA jargon.

However, the really big development in this field of study over the past decade has been how “national security cinema” – which I had mentioned only in passing in Reel Power as a term to characterise the worst products – has become an increasingly appropriate term to characterise the film and TV production process.

When I was first looking at the relationship between politics and motion pictures around the turn of the Twenty-First century, as a scholarly community we all just accepted the consensus opinion that a small office at the Pentagon had assisted the production of around 200 or so films throughout the history of modern media. This was highly misleading. Through working with a non-affiliated researcher Tom Secker, labelled by bureaucrats in the British state as a “vexatious requester” due to his extensive FOIA inquiries, I was able to establish that since 1911 over eight hundred films had received DOD or CIA support. Most surprisingly, there were over 1,000 TV show titles in the list. Simply put, the US government has been quietly reworking thousands of scripts and no one really had any idea except their PR offices.

I am writing this new introduction while on a research trip in Washington, DC. Vast amounts of annotated scripts and DOD-Hollywood correspondence had been either taken by or donated to a single historian—Lawrence Suid—from 1976 to 2005, possibly beyond. Suid kept his material in a private archive in a public library in Georgetown University, Washington DC, and for many years his apparent unwillingness to share the material represents a substantial and unnecessary loss to the research community. The only person who seems to have had some limited access – and most of that was directly via the Marines rather than anywhere else – was an LA Times journalist called David Robb, who was able to rush out an explosive but unsourced book on the subject in 2004. The library was unable to explain how or why the papers arrived or where the rest of it went. The Pentagon can dodge FOIA requests on this by claiming that the material is not in their hands.

In 2017 I noticed that Georgetown Library had rearranged their collections and some of the material attributed to Suid appeared to be available without his consent. Packed into 13 boxes was evidence of yet more government influence over film and TV, including numerous examples that had simply never been mentioned anywhere, although it was clear from both Robb and Suid’s work that huge quantities of that material, including the most controversial parts, had been removed. My co-author Tom Secker and I are currently raising funds to buy a similar haul from the Marines.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy this new translation of Reel Power and that it helps you navigate the screen entertainment industry to find more joy and reject more lies.

Matthew Alford

Washington, DC – April 2018

Subscribe to Spy Culture

If you enjoyed this content then keep up with new posts here at Spy Culture by subscribing via email, RSS, Instagram, tumblr or google+: