Pan will give no examples of "real, verifiable examples" nor explain how these alleged better examples that HMW is allegedly occluding are "proven" and all while Pan denies that any psy-ops CAN be proven.
What a mess of contradictions and double-binds coming from Pan. Standard, though.
Well stick these in your pipe and smoke them.
--
Government influencing TV content in the War on (some) Drugs
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2 ... print.html
--
Jane Mayer's excellent exposé of "24" producer Joel Surnow:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... fact_mayer
"...the conservative writers at “24” have become “like a Hollywood television annex to the White House. It’s like an auxiliary wing.”
--
Pentagon influence on Hollywood scripts (with list of films that received cooperation)
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/G ... 21,00.html
--
Operation Hollywood documentary (I think FourthBase posted this already, but it's factual and based in reality, not speculative fantasy):
http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/operatio ... ie-making/
--
So there are a few examples, Mr. Manatee. Just the tip of the iceberg, for those who take a few minutes to look for the information.
Evidence shows quite clearly that the government tries to influence the content of popular media, and frequently succeeds. And sometimes it doesn't -- many films of the past several decades demonize the U.S. government, the military, and the CIA.
I could gather piles of documentation similar to the sources above: documents, interviews, film documentaries, etc. The evidence leads to a very clear conclusion: Sometimes the military/industrial complex influences the content of popular media. It is indisputable.
There is zero evidence -- nada -- supporting the extent of control that you posit. Not an iota of documentation,
not even another writer, scholar, or commentator, supporting the existence of "keyword hijacking," to take your most fanciful idea.
Isn't that surprising? That out of all the critics of media, all the progressive experts on psychology and persuasion and propaganda -- NONE of them have ever discovered "keyword hijacking," or the placement of doggie-themed films on store shelves to distract from an Abu Ghraib dog trainer's trial, or how a guy's face on a stack of pancakes is used as a WTC7 metaphor, or the paper trail linking R.J. Reynolds to George Lucas for the Chewbacca/chew tobacco linguistic psyop?
Think about this, Hugh (and Hugh's fans/believers): Either the Manatee is a groundbreaking, visionary genius who has uncovered the largest, most intricate conspiracy of all time, with tens of thousands of complicit co-conspirators and a magnitude more who are unknowing duped into complicity, all craftily and secretively orchestrating billions of dollars in film, tv, print, retail, and radio dollars to accomplish its plans....
And only HE, and he alone, has discovered the truth about how it all works....
Or...
Hugh is wrong. The conspiracy is not nearly as vast, omniscient, effective, or controlling as he suggests. "Keyword hijacking," while amusing and intellectually entertaining, isn't real. And some monster movies are just that -- movies about giant, scary monsters, with zero funding or control or political motivation beyond the desire of the producers for box office lucre.
Seriously, folks -- if you believe Hugh is correct, then you are suggesting that we have, in our midst, the guy who has solved the biggest, most complex conspiracy ever foisted upon the weary, bleating mass of humanity. The RI board has produced the only political researcher who has discovered, and documented, the biggest story of all time -- the complete and utter control of popular audiovisual entertainment down to the minutiae of names, keywords, and retail product placement.
So... What is it, RIers?