Do people (on Tumblr) think paw patrol is intentional propaganda? I would think it’s much more likely that they just made a show with cute dogs with jobs that kids understand. Actually, does propaganda need to be intentional?
I believe the prevailing opinion is that it is subtly intentional but has more impact than intended because it is a reflection of the indoctrination of the writers, but I may be mistaken.
It may be created to intentionally teach children not to fear police and to obey the rules of society. Which sounds good on paper but can be really problematic.
It’s not just Paw Patrol. It’s every cop show that has messages of the cops always being on the side of “good”. There are many many many articles and academic papers about “copaganda” that explain it better than I can.
I love pointing out problematic behavior in cop shows.
Those DAMN DEFENDANTS claiming they didn’t do it when the good cops JUST KNOW they’re guilty. The DAMN JUDGES always wanting EVIDENCE instead of just taking the cops at their word the alleged criminal dumped the drugs in the river.
How DARE they insist cops DO THEIR JOB. what’s next, asking them to PUT THEIR LIVES AT RISK?
Usually it’s more subtle like “they’re complaining about being asked to do their jobs correctly, and these are the people we’re supposed to be cheering for?” or “they fabricated evidence of one crime because they dropped the ball with another crime, and they’re the good guys? If you say so…”
Some people might say I’m ruining a show, but come on… The show was already ruined. I’m just adjusting the picture so your rose tinted glasses get the right colors.
What about when suspects or perps use a “loophole” to escape justice and then you find out that loophole was the accused weren’t read their rights or was abused during an interrogation and had no access to a lawyer. Like the cops didn’t do basic police work correctly but it’s the suspect who did something wrong. Remember that the rights read to a person under arrest are actual constitutional rights that each American is entitled to and which the police must abide.
In one of the episodes, the towns police force (two cops) has a real or precived grievance, and decided to work to rule on protest.
By the third act they’ve discovered that work to rule is more work than they’ve been doing, the grievance is dropped, and nothing has changed for the next episode.
I think it’s more in the line of no public services is totally fine, the city hands over police, firefighting and other services to this kid and his dogs. The mayor is barely competent to do her job without the kid’s assistance. Which may also include racial stereotypes as she’s black. Look at the show, there is no services. Every crisis is solved by a genius 10 year old and his bunch of dogs. Why do we need public services if everythung can be done by… Child labour?
There’s definitely racial stereotypes; mayor Humdinger, a blonde haired blue eyed white man, spends all of his time trying to to appropriate Adventure Bay’s resources and stake claim to its governance. My dude even seized the means of government over a metropolis and proceeded to speedrun bad governance. The only way they could have leaned harder into the white stereotype is by putting him in socks and sandals and having him remind people that he’s 1/32nd native american and has black friends.
Not that I’m complaining, mind you. Anyway, it’s not exactly like Paw Patrol are bashing fash when they stop Humdinger, they’re just keeping control over Adventure Bay’s resources rather than ceding them to his. It’s Saturday morning nationalism.
So it shows the elected officials as being corrupt to the point of having broken the process, and the answer to the evil mayor is the authoritative police. How often are corporations the bad guys?
I am still convinced the show takes place after WW3. Most of the 18-50 year old adults are gone. (The movies don’t count, ridiculous fan fiction) There is a spare population and not a lot of kids, and the ones we do see are being raised by their grandparent, are running a dog grooming business, and Ryder.
Ryder’s parents were likely involved in the dog augmentation weapons program at CalTech with a massive grant from Lockheed. Since his parents are dead, he took over the remains of the program after the war and started the Paw Patrol.
Also Mayor Humdinger is not a real mayor. Foggy Bottom was annihilated and he is the only one left, so he took charge. The derivative kitty augmentation was housed there, and they are all that is left. Why he keeps coming to adventure bay, dude is really lonely.
I definitely agree with you in the broad strokes here, and was mostly looking at the definition of propaganda and seeing how easily a message can be subverted through relatively normal and innocent seeming mechanisms.
Edit: somehow I thought this was a reply to my comment.
Do people (on Tumblr) think paw patrol is intentional propaganda? I would think it’s much more likely that they just made a show with cute dogs with jobs that kids understand. Actually, does propaganda need to be intentional?
I believe the prevailing opinion is that it is subtly intentional but has more impact than intended because it is a reflection of the indoctrination of the writers, but I may be mistaken.
It may be created to intentionally teach children not to fear police and to obey the rules of society. Which sounds good on paper but can be really problematic.
It’s not just Paw Patrol. It’s every cop show that has messages of the cops always being on the side of “good”. There are many many many articles and academic papers about “copaganda” that explain it better than I can.
I love pointing out problematic behavior in cop shows.
Those DAMN DEFENDANTS claiming they didn’t do it when the good cops JUST KNOW they’re guilty. The DAMN JUDGES always wanting EVIDENCE instead of just taking the cops at their word the alleged criminal dumped the drugs in the river.
How DARE they insist cops DO THEIR JOB. what’s next, asking them to PUT THEIR LIVES AT RISK?
Usually it’s more subtle like “they’re complaining about being asked to do their jobs correctly, and these are the people we’re supposed to be cheering for?” or “they fabricated evidence of one crime because they dropped the ball with another crime, and they’re the good guys? If you say so…”
Some people might say I’m ruining a show, but come on… The show was already ruined. I’m just adjusting the picture so your rose tinted glasses get the right colors.
What about when suspects or perps use a “loophole” to escape justice and then you find out that loophole was the accused weren’t read their rights or was abused during an interrogation and had no access to a lawyer. Like the cops didn’t do basic police work correctly but it’s the suspect who did something wrong. Remember that the rights read to a person under arrest are actual constitutional rights that each American is entitled to and which the police must abide.
Copaganda is real.
There was a Canadian TV show called Corner Gas.
In one of the episodes, the towns police force (two cops) has a real or precived grievance, and decided to work to rule on protest.
By the third act they’ve discovered that work to rule is more work than they’ve been doing, the grievance is dropped, and nothing has changed for the next episode.
YV?
Yellavision. It’s like television, but when your parents yell at you to change the channel.
Straight up typo.
I thought it was something like “young viewers” or something.
I think it’s more in the line of no public services is totally fine, the city hands over police, firefighting and other services to this kid and his dogs. The mayor is barely competent to do her job without the kid’s assistance. Which may also include racial stereotypes as she’s black. Look at the show, there is no services. Every crisis is solved by a genius 10 year old and his bunch of dogs. Why do we need public services if everythung can be done by… Child labour?
There’s definitely racial stereotypes; mayor Humdinger, a blonde haired blue eyed white man, spends all of his time trying to to appropriate Adventure Bay’s resources and stake claim to its governance. My dude even seized the means of government over a metropolis and proceeded to speedrun bad governance. The only way they could have leaned harder into the white stereotype is by putting him in socks and sandals and having him remind people that he’s 1/32nd native american and has black friends.
Not that I’m complaining, mind you. Anyway, it’s not exactly like Paw Patrol are bashing fash when they stop Humdinger, they’re just keeping control over Adventure Bay’s resources rather than ceding them to his. It’s Saturday morning nationalism.
So it shows the elected officials as being corrupt to the point of having broken the process, and the answer to the evil mayor is the authoritative police. How often are corporations the bad guys?
I am still convinced the show takes place after WW3. Most of the 18-50 year old adults are gone. (The movies don’t count, ridiculous fan fiction) There is a spare population and not a lot of kids, and the ones we do see are being raised by their grandparent, are running a dog grooming business, and Ryder.
Ryder’s parents were likely involved in the dog augmentation weapons program at CalTech with a massive grant from Lockheed. Since his parents are dead, he took over the remains of the program after the war and started the Paw Patrol.
Also Mayor Humdinger is not a real mayor. Foggy Bottom was annihilated and he is the only one left, so he took charge. The derivative kitty augmentation was housed there, and they are all that is left. Why he keeps coming to adventure bay, dude is really lonely.
Okay, now I’m into that theory. Is there more anywhere?
No, I made it up while watching my 1,000th episode because my kids were so hung up on the show for several years. It was an awful time.
I definitely agree with you in the broad strokes here, and was mostly looking at the definition of propaganda and seeing how easily a message can be subverted through relatively normal and innocent seeming mechanisms.
Edit: somehow I thought this was a reply to my comment.
“Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
Hmm. ‘Used to promote’.
So it can be produced unintentionally but used intentionally.
This doesn’t answer your question but kicks the can down the road.
The producers may be making a cute show. Those funding and airing it may interfere in the process to mold the message.
It can be wholly innocent all along or turned malicious along the journey to the audience.