Drop the doublespeak and call it what it is: corporatized propaganda. God, where's John Wilkes Booth when you need him?

I think you might be mistaken.  Corporate propaganda concerns content, where I think "emotional engineering" concerns delivery only.  If the information is accurate then an interesting, gripping and emotional delivery doesn't move it into the cheap and "fluffy" world of PR, quite the opposite actually.  It makes it interesting and engaging.  I actualy wish that more organizations would make the effort and get it right.  The world is too full of dry, boring academic.  This prevents the subject from coming to life and inspiring the next generation.

Pathetic, really, that museums now feel that they have to pander to the public's stupidity or to even consider "competing" with amusement parks. I have been routinely disappointed with the current trend in "documentaries" on the History channel and the Discovery channel -- over-acted and over-sexed dramatizations of everything from Attila the Hun to the Civil War rather than just presenting a discussion of facts and/or theories. So far, I have still been able to rely on programs shown on PBS stations to not use this condescending tone with their viewers, so it is those stations which I support. If you want guffaws and cheap entertainment, go to Six Flags. If you want to actually be enlightened about a topic, go to a museum. Please stop mixing the purposes of the two!

I don't think this "dumbing down" is necessarily a bad thing. Museum's are not, and never have been, a place to gain in-depth knowledge.

Even in the stuffiest of examples, the main concept is to learn an overview of the topic, or to witness something in person. Think of the best museum exhibit you've ever visited (whether art, history, or field), and think about why it was the best. Was it because of the depth of something you learned, or, was it because of an emotional response you had?

There is a multitude of better options for learning something deeply than visiting a museum, so why do we still go? Are there any other reasons than A) Being entertained while learning B) Being introduced to a new topic C) Seeing something in person that previously was only seen second hand? The museum mentioned in the article could satisfy any of these, and as long as it doesn't do it at the expense of accuracy I don't see the harm.

Amen, Brother. Too often, I leave one of these new Museums, feeling like I've been treated like an idiot.

Lots of fluff and no meat.

The worst of all--with neither fluff nor meat--is the Indian museum in DC.

What a waste of funding. And the soffit on the north side is already peeling off. Someone screwed he Red Man again.

I totally agree.. This is not delivering anything false or ominous. It's just using all the tools of the art to create a compelling emotional experience that educates. I may be biased because I am from Chicago and just happened to be in Springfield around the time it opened. I went with my wife and out two kids and we thought it was amazing. It was theatrical and engaging, but totally informative and fact based. I think the author is way off base. Everything he talks about in relation to the creation of this museum sounds just right to me. Instead of just consulting with the Lincoln scholars, they engaged them and drew this experience from them. It sounds like that was a lot of fun, and an emotional experience for the people that helped create it, and the result is a museum that delivers on its purpose... and packs them in!

test