2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumbrooklynite
(94,595 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts).............. well alrighty then.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I'm not scared of the truth but you are.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)even if they are 'not paying attention''
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)Don't you regularly have dinner with the executives of all the major news networks? (If not, sorry. I don't know where I could have gotten that impression.)
Wilms
(26,795 posts)And no one, except you, has alleged as much.
It's called, "bias", BKite.
Just like last night. Did anyone accuse people who make over $250K a year of a conspiracy? Nope. But they're the ONLY demographic Hillary won. No conspiracy. Just a like-mindedness. Greedy minds think alike.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it down. Censorship is a conservative attitude not a progressive.
Media bias is a fact. They don't even mind letting us know who they support, just look at who they donate to.
But not to worry, the People will overcome the Big Money and Corp-Media biases that the Clinton camp embraces.
That this is a class war can't be more obvious by who donates to whom.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Or have you never wondered why you basically never see a photo of a criminal that doesn't make them look shifty or dangerous? Or why certain candidates always look bad in media that leans against them? It isn't a coincidence that in left leaning media Trump always had a stupid, pursed lip look, and why in right wing media Hillary usually looks slightly deranged or like she's shrieking.
This stuff isn't new, but it is very revealing about inherent bias.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Their whole campaign is now driven by conspiracy theories and ugly smears against Bernie, women, young people, progressives -- and a whole other bunch of people they are desperately going to need in the GE should Hillary get the nomination.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)to take away the optics of Bernie's huge win in NH.
It's all on purpose. They know exactly what they're doing.
coyote
(1,561 posts)the corporate candidate. No surprise there.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)I don't know what the intent was (if any) but with a ~20 blow-out it makes her look clueless.
casperthegm
(643 posts)But I'm beginning to wonder. First Chris Matthews, now this. The pictures don't lie. Maybe it's not so crazy after all....
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)and showed only his serious face.
MSNBC and ABC have been running the same kind of pro-Hillary graphics for quite awhile now.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Have been shown to work since the 50s
Subliminal perception is a deliberate process created by communication technicians, whereby you receive and respond to information and instructions without being aware of it. Messages in the form of printed words, pictures or voices presented either very rapidly or very obscurely bypass your conscious awareness. Anything consciously perceived can be evaluated, criticized, discussed, argued, and possibly rejected. Anything programmed subliminally to your subconsciousness meets no resistance. This subliminal information is stored in your brain and capable of influencing your judgment, behavior and attitudes.
The use of subliminal techniques in print communication media has been going on in the United States at least since the World War I period. For example, Norman Rockwell's first cover on The Saturday Evening Post during 1917 incorporated embedded SEXes. Whenever an embedded word or picture accidentally became consciously visible, the readers would pass it off as a joke, an accident, or a product of their imaginations.
Serious commercial experiments with subliminal messaging were conducted in the mid 50-s. On June 22, 1956, the British Broadcasting Corporation experimented with projecting subliminal images on television. Pictures were flashed on the screen too quickly to be seen consciously, but they did make an impression on the subconscious. The BBC experiment was followed by experiments by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mexico's Televisa commercial TV and radio network, US TV station WTWO in Bangor and many more.
Experiments were not limited to television. In 1958, radio station WAAF in Chicago broadcast "subaudible" commercials. Seattle's KOL broadcast hardly audible taped messages "below" the music played by its disc jockeys. "How about a cup of coffee?" was one, and "Someone's at the door" was another. On December 8, 1972, The New York Times reported that In-Flight Motion Pictures, Inc. would begin selling subliminal commercials embedded in the movies they would distribute to all the major airlines. Supermarkets across the country are reducing theft an average 30 to 50 percent by broadcasting subliminal messages such as "I will not steal" and "We are watching you". Stimutech, Inc. of East Lansing, Michigan markets a computer video system that flashes subliminal messages on your television while you watch the regular programming. Subliminal messages are prepared by teams of psychologists who use Freudian ideas to change the thinking patterns and behavior of the viewer.
So how can something that we don't notice affect our behavior? Well, unheeded doesn't mean unseen. Let us first understand how our perception works. As you know, our mind consists of two interacting parts: conscious and subconscious. The subconscious part of mind operates below the level of conscious awareness, it controls reflexes, automatic functions and handles the processing and storing of incoming information. Subconsciousness is able to process 20,000 bits of information simultaneously, while consciousness can deal only with 7 ± 2 bits of information at the same time.
Instead of the simplistic five senses of Aristotlesight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell there are at least thirty-seven known, differentiated sensory inputs into the brain. All of the information picked by these senses is sent to the brain and absorbed by the subconsciousness, however, only very concrete and relevant data is passed to the conscious mind after it has been processed and reduced. All the rest remains ignored. A good example of this is the Cocktail Party Effect : You can talk with a friend in a crowded party and still listen and understand what he says even if the place is very noisy. You can simultaneously ignore what another nearby person is saying, but if someone over the other side of the room suddenly mentiones your name, you notice that sound and respond to it immediately. Not only that your name immediately triggers your attention, you usualy are aware of the entire sentence it has came in. From this experience we can learn that our brain records everything that takes place around us. Interesting that certain words like SEX, BLOOD, DEATH, FUCK and such have the same effect in triggering your attention as your name.
So, only the information considered as "relevant" goes to the consciousness. Non essential information, short or vague stimuli are stored in the subconscious without reaching our awareness. Important to stress that they are NOT discarded, but stored. E V E R Y T H I N G you have ever experienced in your life, from every stranger's face you have ever glanced at in a crowd to every spider web you gazed at as a child, can be retrieved from your memory by hypnosis or by electrical stimulation of the brain cells in temporal lobes. Hence whatever was subliminally put into your brain will stay there forever and in the right circumstances will trigger the right reaction in you. That is not being said that subliminal messages determine your reaction in an inexorable manner. The accepted opinion is that subliminal messages rather strengthen, accelerate and reinforce reactions in persons who are ALREADY PREDISPOSED to the subject of the message. But I guess one can't be sure.
More and also:
http://subliminalmanipulation.blogspot.dk/
Test your perception..
http://subliminalmanipulation.blogspot.dk/
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)(she said, not at all sublimely)
starroute
(12,977 posts)He said that the newspapers might pretend to be impartial by running photos of both candidates side by side. But the photos of Eisenhower would show him relaxed and smiling and surrounded by friendly crowds, while those of Stevenson would show him sitting alone and looking worried. And I started paying attention and found it really was that way.
I was nine. It was the first moment at which I lost faith in the fairness of the political system -- though far from the last.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)scores of reasons why this was good for Clinton
More time on Republicans than Democrats
Sanders did not get the "real Democrats"