by Starman » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:54 pm
Weird shit.<br>Reading some DU comments (thnx for the lin), there isan uncanny resemblance of the altered flags to what they'd look like draped across caskets. But also, the dlags are clearly cut-and-paste visuals, as each of the two large flags are identicial -- same exact folds and shadow details.<br><br>And what IS IT with those goofy smiley-faces, ennyway?<br><br>Did anyone notice the nine stars on the above stage-overhang?<br><br>Comment via DU re: the infamous prescription-drug 'RATS' advertisement as an example of deliberate subliminal manipulation:<br> <br><<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.bushwatch.com/rats.htm>">www.bushwatch.com/rats.htm></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>"At first glance, the Republican television commercial on prescription drugs looks like a run-of-the-mill attack advertisement. The announcer starts by lauding George W. Bush's proposal for dealing with prescription drugs, and criticizes the plan being offered by Vice President Al Gore. Fragments of the phrase "bureaucrats decide" — deriding Mr. Gore's proposal — then dance around the screen. Then, if the viewer watches very closely, something else happens. The word "rats," a fragment of the word "bureaucrats," pops up in one frame. And though the image lasts only one-thirtieth of a second, it is in huge white capital letters, larger than any other word on the commercial. The advertisement then declares, "The Gore prescription plan: bureaucrats decide."...<br><br>"Almost every advertising professional interviewed said that given the technology by which commercials are assembled frame by frame, it was virtually impossible for a producer not to know the word was there. "There is no way that anything Alex Castellanos does is an accident," said Greg Stevens, a veteran Republican admaker here. Bobby Baker, chief of the office of political programming at the Federal Communications Commission, said that if the word had been deliberately inserted in the commercial that would be "an extraordinary development" and reflect "reckless" behavior. While he said the commission did not prohibit subliminal advertising, Mr. Baker explained that "we have policy statements and public notices that indicate they are inherently intended to be deceptive and might be contrary to the public interest."" (NYT, 9/12/00)<br><br>****<br>Yuh, like, Welcome to the Brave New World -- Still!<br>What 'other' tricks are we unaware of?<br>Gummint-by-guile -- Don't we deserve better?<br>('Course, we'll actually have to DO something to force change).<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
