Yahoo steers towards 'Buffy' conf. to upstage Media confer.

[barracuda]

Web pages can exploit parafoveal priming which is the tendency of things outside the center of your vision to get into your mind unfiltered by critical thought, like product placement in a movie.

Yeah, information placement within the visual field confers meaning and bias to other informational objects throughout that field. Some good information on the mechanics of foveal and parafoveal priming in manipulating subliminal perceptions at http://www.csic.cornell.edu/201/subliminal/#nutsbolts. Good stuff, Hugh.

[annie aronburg]

foveal and parafoveal are certain to anger at scrabble.
also: it is fun to make the picture move up and down on the screen.

annie

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Er, barracuda, I get more what you mean with your additional clarifications but
telling me I react poorly to comments like-

His views are illogical and nonsensical

-is pushing the complexity envelope a bit, innit?

Anyway, I retract my flabbergasted comment about your credibility and replace it with noting that this board is a difficult medium to share research on and the correspondence pacing makes it hard to reach a consensus on the proportionality of something, especially when trying to posit a larger proportionality than commonly expected of something which is not even well understood nevermind recognized.

Whew.

Vocabulary opens doors of perception.
Keywords Rule.

Without the right vocabulary one cannot conceive that such things really are done or how they even would be.

And that is why an effort is made to turn our heads when potential learning goes by and to define our keywords for us in safe ways.

[barracuda]

Anyway, I retract my flabbergasted comment about your credibility and replace it with noting that this board is a difficult medium to share research on and the correspondence pacing makes it hard to reach a consensus on the proportionality of something, especially when trying to posit a larger proportionality than commonly expected of something which is not even well understood nevermind recognized.

If the above text is not the finest impersonation of compared2what?'s seemingly inimitable prose stylings, it will do until a better one comes along, or it can be proven that the two of you have ever been seen in the same room together. Or not. And I agree with your notation.

[a11235813]

You do know that Yahoo is not a search engine? It is a web directory. Every site listed on a yahoo search has been picked by an employee to appear there after a review of the site and a slew of information required upon a submittal of an application to be listed there.

Hi barracuda,

This may have been true at the time the article you cited was written (2000), but not any more. Yahoo Search functions pretty much like Google, Clusty, etc. now.

Regards,
a11235813

[barracuda]

Thanks, a11235813. I see now that my info was indeed outdated.

[professorpan]

Essentially what I was saying to professorpan was,"Do you have a better theory than Hugh's about Mockingbird as it functions today?" So far there has been no reply, and in all my reading of the posters on this website, many who openly deride you, I have yet to read one theory which approaches your "General Field Theory" of media manipulation in its umbrealla-like, overarching ability to encapsulate large aspects of confusing issues within the realm of CIA (etc.) media propaganda and meme spread. Are you happy now?

Sorry, barracuda, I missed your original question. Honestly, debating Hugh's theories has been an utter waste of time and energy I could have spent elsewhere.

How does Mockingbird (or the current incarnation of CIA/media confluence) function today? Very likely by influencing the types of stories that are given play in the MSM, influencing the "experts" who appear on news shows, influencing publishers to take on certain books, and other forms of pressure or censorship of "sensitive" topics.

I base that upon my own rather extensive analysis of the news and entertainment media over the course of my adult life. My view can be supported by the historical record, personal accounts of those who have been involved, and other subjective, examinable facts, and doesn't require a vast mega-cabal that has gone unrecognized to every human on the planet except for our dear Hugh.

The onus is not upon me, or anyone else, to disprove Hugh's wild and woolly assertions. It's up to Hugh to convince others that his ideas are valid. And, without fail, his assertions about "keyword hijacking" have failed miserably under the scrutiny of me and the other board members who have taken the time to put them to the test.

His ideas are a classic example of paranoid delusion, and he reacts like a classic delusional paranoid when his ideas are examined and questioned -- with hostility and denial.

Why bother? Sure, it might be fun to toy with his ideas as a conceptual game, but he is utterly convinced of the infallible TRUTH of it all, and good luck trying to get him to listen.

But whatever. People who want to play verbal games with him are welcome to, but I've wasted far too much time already. Life is too short to expend on trying to combat the entrenched delusions of one human being.

[chiggerbit]

Hugh, I may not have always agreed with your theories, and even became annoyed at times when you inserted your theory at the least provocation. But as a moderator I always appreciated the gentlemanly way you presented your arguments. As a now ex-moderator, I would like to say thanks for that.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Sticking with this topic of how subliminal framing is an everyday deliberate media tactic, including on Yahoo's front page which millions see-

When people quickly scan a high-density webpage these little tricks can channel attention and create/reinforce attitudes. Lots of research goes into the perceptual ergonomics of multi-tasking in the military (pilots etc.) and in advertising media. And for the same reasons, control.

Articles can be listed in any order on a webpage. How this is done can be exploited as subliminal framing.

Recall my noting how the CIA's coup in Chile was revealed in Senate testimony to include juxtaposition subliminals in propaganda newspapers, putting something awful next to a target subject like a leftist leader, etc.

Positive framing is done the same way, of course.

When you scan a cluster of five or six stacked articles, one most easily sees the top and bottom articles. That can be used to focus attention on the first read and then the last to siphon attention away from stuff in the middle.

Today's Yahoo front page stack of articles has one on "bikinis" at the bottom which I'm sure lots of people went to and used up their 45 seconds of news reading before on to their personal email etc.

When articles are stacked, you first read the top article and it can frame the one below it.
Reading in pairs or clusters can cause you to group things mnemonically as you scan.
When scanning I tend to pair things as I go in order to compare/contrast and I suspect that research indicates this is common since the brain is always looking for patterns consciously or not.

Today's national security/social control perception management challenge is that the Supreme Court just contradicted Bush on habeus corpus.
So the Supreme Court and Bush need to be subliminally propped up in the eyes of people who have been led to believe that This President's War is Just and Legal.

Another challenge is that a huge financial institution, Lehman Brothers, had losses and firings. So it got a postive framing help-out and a sublimating next-to-last spot on the stack.

Here are these devices on today's Yahoo front page in the news articles and then again when I click for my email and get yet another news listing.

Here is:
>positive framing of the Supreme Court
>positive framing of Bush
>positive framing of Lehman Brothers
>negative framing of Obama
>hiding bad news in the next-to-last place, especially the second page #4 spot - just like I said in a previous post!

Front page-

As of 11:16 a.m. PDT

• Supreme Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again
• Boy Scout describes surviving deadly Iowa tornado
• Official says Pakistan should reconsider its ties to U.S.
• Obama launches website to dispel campaign 'smears' - '08 race
• A look inside one of the best—and most secretive—air forces
• Lehman removes CFO, COO after $3 billion quarterly loss
• Utah town looking to revise ban on bikinis at city pool

Then I click for my email and get yet another list of news articles with the SAME framing PLUS there is the sublimated #4 'bad news' positioning I already wrote about used to hide the president's legal loss and even juxtapose it with a positive framing from the article above, "retail sales jump"-

Second page-

Yahoo! News: Top Stories
# High Court ruling may delay war crimes trials (AP)
# Scouts praised for response to tornado in Iowa (AP)
# Retail sales jump by largest amount in 6 months (AP)
# Bush says he will abide by Supreme Court's decision (AP)
# Opposition No. 2 faces treason charge in Zimbabwe (AP)

Yahoo!

[barracuda]

Right. We have an entire thread iin the lounge (begun by orz) Splicing adjacent thread titles based upon mistakenly conjoining juxtaposed headlines to create and influence meaning. To think that this process would not be adapted to cognitive control in media doen't make sense.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Right. We have an entire thread iin the lounge (begun by orz) Splicing adjacent thread titles based upon mistakenly conjoining juxtaposed headlines to create and influence meaning. To think that this process would not be adapted to cognitive control in media doen't make sense.

Your experience in visual arts allows you to understand the value of just putting stuff next to other stuff. Or stuff on other stuff.

Heck, that's all that art is, creating meaning out of juxtapostion, just like letters>words>sentences>paragraphs>books>doctrine>war>etc.

A guy whose cognitive research the CIA tapped, Charles E. Osgood, discovered cross-cultural qualities to words that indicated they were rooted in universal human brain function and especially rooted in the primal judgements related to SURVIVAL.

This survival theme is extremely powerful in our subconscious and can influence our perception and behavior even when we don't realize it.
So if this is used in subliminal vocabulary, framing can be enhanced. And it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_differential

Osgood called this "semantic differential" and it involves three qualities of a word-
>Evaluation - Evaluation loads highest on the adjective pair 'good-bad'.
>Potency - The 'strong-weak' adjective pair defines the potency factor.
>Activity - Adjective pair 'active-passive' defines the activity factor.

Keywords have been already tested and rated for maximum semantic differential and this is how psy-ops can take advantage of the "magic words" phenomenon in writing headlines and everything else.

There is even software sold that analyzes text to rate it for semantic differential and I'm sure it offers word substitution tempates to edit for intent, too, kind of a psy-ops thesaurus used to maximize verbal trajectory into your audience's attitudes.

Consider how useful this subliminal tech is when trying to maintain a permanent war psychology in support of a war economy and the wedge-issue social control that comes with it.

This is what the speech writers for politicians use on us and so do Operation Mockingbird news writers.

Because psy-ops is a scientifically-supported craft with specialized tools not known to the layman, like any other high-tech occupation.

Yahoo!

on edit:
BTW, I consider myself "vigilant," not "paranoid."
Notice the huge moral and credibility framing difference.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.”
-American anti-slavery activist, Wendell Phillips

[compared2what?]

Anyway, I retract my flabbergasted comment about your credibility and replace it with noting that this board is a difficult medium to share research on and the correspondence pacing makes it hard to reach a consensus on the proportionality of something, especially when trying to posit a larger proportionality than commonly expected of something which is not even well understood nevermind recognized.

If the above text is not the finest impersonation of compared2what?'s seemingly inimitable prose stylings, it will do until a better one comes along, or it can be proven that the two of you have ever been seen in the same room together. Or not. And I agree with your notation.

It's a perfectly lovely long sentence, and I'm not knocking it. Yet your comment brought tears to my eyes. I used really to be an inimitable prose stylist of modest but true ability. I was famous for it, even, though I hated that aspect of it. Not your fault, and no accusation intended, because how could you know? But I weep for that girl. She fought and died for nothing, with her eyes closed, for pretty much the whole of her trivial life. Thank god I'm happy now.

[barracuda]

I am very sorry, again.