22 April 2011

Placement, Framing, and how to make almost anything not matter - Media

So, I'm watching the Morning Show on CNN, and here's what happens:

1. In San Francisco, at an appearance by the President, some women (who paid for their lunch and entry) raised their hands and stood up to sing about Bradley Manning.  To his credit, the president waited until they were finished (at which point, of course, they were escorted out - can't let them thar rabble rouser middle-class looking women be doin' that, y'all).

2. In the very next interview, after some very demeaning comments and glances between each of the female 'reporters' - CNN showed a short clip of a soldier on a surprise visit and his daughter meets him.  Wonderful, tears, real.

Now on the face of it, it's not about much.  But look at what is called the "framing" of the two items:

The network had to show the event because it involved the president.  The 'reporter' dismissed it, at best, not just by words, but by rolling her eyes, making the appropriately "did they REALLY do THAT?" - all as if had been, somehow, an 'inappropriate' thing to do.

The fact that the item about the soldier and his teenaged daughter was placed immediately afterward and was appropriately gushed over (it is not to diminish their moment - I am only speaking of placement and tone and how things are spun) by the two women.

NOT ONCE - other than the passing comment ("They were there about Bradley Manning") - was the critical reality of Bradley Manning, his situation, the allegations of torture, why he was being held the way he was, etc., etc. - was ANYTHING mentioned.  Nope - the only thing that was REALLY important was the soldier and his daughter; thereby eliminating, dismissing, and diminishing Bradley Manning and these women (whom by the way stayed totally within the law, were respectful, and were on key) as so much poop.

DON'T JUST WATCH THE WORDS.
WATCH HOW THINGS AND EVENTS ARE 'FRAMED.'
WATCH THE BODY LANGUAGE AND THE EYE MOVEMENT.

AND IF YOU THINK THESE ARE NOT PLANNED OR THOUGHT THROUGH, WELL OKAY, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
The truth speaks otherwise.

Peace
Awareness
& Standing up. Not for the Quisling or the Coward.

BluesVues

(picture credit: http://www.facebook.com/IsleofViewInsights)

19 April 2011

Rick Santorum on his campaign slogan

Rick Santorum is a bottom-feeder amongst the lackies of the 6-6-6 Greed Group.
Listen and watch as he responds to a question asked about his "new slogan" coming
from a poem of Langston Hughes, who was gay.

This is the same poophead who believes that "it won't hurt Senior Citizens to suffer" - and that
he can't understand why when "Social" Security is discussed, the current recipients are not also
on the chopping block.

Yep. This one is not only stoooooopid, he's dangerous, and he does not care.

The Truth About GOP Hero Ayn Rand

And this is the woman over whom many Republicans have an orgasm? Wow.
She is anti-religion and anti-Altruism and Love (Jesus and she would have
had some disagreements, I believe - but she'd have seen him as 'weak.')

She reminds me a bit of Joan Crawford in her role in "What Ever Happened to
Baby Jane." If this is their guru, no wonder so many are socipathic sounding.

18 April 2011

An Ode to Monsanto

Watch the whole video - it changes tempo and is really quite cool.
Then pass it on. Suggest that more videos get out there. Put it
right where it is today and sing it; spoken word it; just do it; say it; out loud.

GMO is not good for any living thing - except for the entities of the 666 Greed Group -
proud partners together, killing We the People Slowly and for extreme Profit.

For Monsanto & the other Antichristers, We are the Expendables.

14 April 2011

How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation | Common Dreams

Helen Caldicott is a long-time and leading expert and authority on Nuclear power and its dangers.

Monbiot is a journalist, not a scientist. This is an excellent article, check it out if you have a moment.

Cheers.

How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation | Common Dreams