But I detect a deliberate effort to change minds, a persuasive tone that is evidence of a propagandist, not educational or scholarly, motivation. As I mentioned earlier, I don't like propaganda, even when I happen to agree with it.

The latest show, on Mussolini, is much better, because it focuses directly on the dictator himself, it chronologically lists his history and analyzes his methods. The parallels with Trumpism are obvious, and the attempt to make them obvious seems to be muted. Still, they manage to come across perfectly, and I suspect a Trump supporter would instantly see that it was not very flattering to his man. Still, The Mussolini episode appears to be much more like scholarship than propaganda. Maybe its just that the writers are more subtle and better at it.

Political truth is subject to perspective, and interpretation. You don't have to lie to push a point of view, you just have to slightly ignore, or slightly emphasize certain points. Outright lies may be spotted by a sophisticated audience. It also depends a lot in which order you recount certain events or facts. I was taught this as a propagandist for the nuclear power industry, and I can recognize it when others do it, or try to do it to me. "Never make stuff up, just make sure you tell OUR side of the story."

I'll give an example. Every politician or celebrity has many photographs of himself on file. When writing an article about him, you can select those photographs which communicate, by means of a facial expression or gesture, exactly what you want your reader to think is in his mind about that topic. Of course, we all know a still photograph means absolutely nothing, it may be selected from an event that had nothing to do with what you are writing about, or it may just be an accidental configuration of expression that was captured by the lens and reflects nothing of the man's mental processes. But the reader is subconsciously influenced by the writer's selection of that photo; is the man pouting, is he sneering, does his cheerful laugh come across as a hostile snarl? Yes, the face gives clues to the mental state beneath it, but we normally have access to a moving image in real time, not just a snapshot out of context.

Likewise, a skilled artist can draw, or paint, or sculpt a likeness of a face which is flattering or terrifying, without actually portraying an image that is demonstrably false or distorted. A picture is worth a thousand words, but it is easier to lie with pictures than with text.

I really think this series was devised deliberately to slander Donald Trump. The writers are deliberately selecting and emphasizing factors about these dictators designed to get the viewer to realize "Damn, that's exactly what Trump is doing!" Factors which support this analysis are emphasized, those that contradict it are glossed over. None of these are actual lies or falsehoods, or a blunt accusation, but the emphasis and interpretation is there, or at least, it is to me. I don't like it when people fuck with my head like that, even if I happen to agree with everything they say.