These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

The impact of Television Advertising on Suspcion - a question.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Toshiro GreyHawk
#1 - 2012-01-22 11:43:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk
I've been watching Television for over half a century, starting about the time TV became popular.

It has occurred to me - that whereas in earlier times - people tended to mostly hear ... not necessarily the truth, people are often mistaken and local beliefs inaccurate - but mostly people believed what they said ... at least in rural areas where more people lived in earlier times. They expected to be told the truth and were outraged when they weren't.

With the advent of Radio and Television - you've got people who've been exposed to exaggerations and outright lies so much that being lied to in advertising is somewhat common place for most of the population.

How do you think that may have effected peoples attitudes?

Are people now more likely to believe in Conspiracy Theories - or disbelieve their government - because they've spent so much time being lied to?

Do people now expect to be lied to?



No special reason here. Just idle curiosity.

Question

.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#2 - 2012-01-22 12:16:50 UTC
The question is, why didn't you expect to be lied to constantly even without the obvious exaggerations of TV commercials ?
It doesn't have to be a bad-intentions lie, it is enough to not be according to reality regardless of the beliefs of the people touting it (stuff like, say, just about any religion, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, homeopathy and other alternative medicine).
On the other hand, growing up in a socialist//communist country will probably do that to you regardless of what's on TV. Or probably not. It's hard to self-diagnose. Heh.

I don't think there were any solid studies regarding gullibility levels across the years, nor currently based on age, but I have a nagging feeling that the percentage of paranoid conspiracy theorists and that of people who will believe just about everything has remained relatively constant, regardless of early age exposure to mostly bland truths or blatant lies.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Toshiro GreyHawk
#3 - 2012-01-22 13:19:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk
When my parents grew up in a rural area - they expected to be told the truth. Refraining from Lying was after all one of the 10 Commandments and these people were raised on their religion.

Now - as I said - that doesn't mean that they were told the truth. Between basic ignorance and local mythology ... what might today be called Urban Legends - a lot of the information they got was false - but still - the people relaying the information believed it themselves and had no intent to trick their listener.

Whether or not their religious beliefs were true - there was no lying involved.

If someone tells you something that isn't true - but they believe it - that isn't a lie - it's misinformation. If they believe it themselves and have no intention to deceive - they aren't lying - they're just wrong.

The same would go for political ideology if you were being talked to by a true believer. Of course in some political systems - such as communism - the prime proponents knew they were lying but accepted lies as being OK because whatever served the cause was what mattered. But yes - I do imagine there is a difference in the way people would respond to lying TV Commercials based on their culture and the politics of their area. If you're whole political structure is based on a lie ... most people would understand that (I would think) and I would imagine that would effect their outlook on things.

In my parents generation, stories were told - but if the listener knew that what they were being told was a fantasy - then that wasn't a lie either. They were just being entertained - not tricked. Of course ... Tall Tales are often told with the intent to try and deceive someone into believing that they were true and these would be lies.


Horse Trading also, after all, was all about lies - but a constant, unending stream of lies, such as people get today with Television Commercials wasn't the norm. Today - if you are watching Television - you're being lied to every 10 - 15 minutes - for several minutes at a time.

So, it's a question of degree.

People were lied to in the past - but it wasn't the constant bombardment of lies that we have today, at least during whatever time we're watching Television.

As to my ideas on what the ramifications of all this lying is ... I don't really know. It's just something I wonder about.

.
Something Random
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-01-22 14:36:15 UTC
Its not strictly 'lies' today though is it - most countries i believe have a watchdog authority that regulates what is said and put across on TV at least.

Advertising is a trick - 'Create a problem, Fix the problem, Sell the solution' i believe is a mantra in the Ad World.

Not strictly lies, but bias, agenda, disinformation and distraction are more the techniques used today. Unless its a party political broadcast, then its not knowing any better.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.
stoicfaux
#5 - 2012-01-22 15:20:40 UTC
Toshiro GreyHawk wrote:

With the advent of Radio and Television - you've got people who've been exposed to exaggerations and outright lies so much that being lied to in advertising is somewhat common place for most of the population.

It's not lying. It's puffery.
Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally.[1] Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image of what is being described and is especially featured in testimonials.


Quote:
How do you think that may have effected peoples attitudes?

The effect is minimal. After all, if you look at mythology *cough*religion*cough*, people have been willing to believe utterly unsupported "truths" since ancient times.

Quote:
Are people now more likely to believe in Conspiracy Theories - or disbelieve their government - because they've spent so much time being lied to?

Sounds like an over-simplification. You would need to ask a group of experts (and you would probably get conflicting answers.)

Quote:
Do people now expect to be lied to?

Yes. However, oddly enough, if you consider the "a lie spoken loudly enough and often enough will be believed by enough of the people" theory of marketing, a better question is: why do many people willingly believe the lie? or at least play along with it?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Atticus Fynch
#6 - 2012-01-23 01:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Atticus Fynch
I never believe anything on TV short of the News, and even then I go to multiple sources to see if the stories coincide.

Advertisments should just be re-named -Blatant Lies-

They dont even try very hard to hide their BS anymore.

[b]★★★Cargo Pilots Unite!!!★★★ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=668132&#post668132[/b]
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-01-23 01:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Toshiro GreyHawk wrote:
How do you think that may have effected peoples attitudes?

I don't think they lie, rather they exaggerate constatly and I think it polarizes people.

Being heavily disappointed and rarely impressed leads people to view the world the same way. Everyone always thinks everything is horrible. Every new bill that's bad is THE END OF THE WORLD, every president they don't like is TRYING TO RUIN THE ECONOMY, and the things they do like they exaggerate just like a Big Mac commercial. Their candidate is some kind of savior, their rights are stand alone and iron clad.

As a society we are just way too comfortable exaggerating.



Toshiro GreyHawk wrote:
Are people now more likely to believe in Conspiracy Theories - or disbelieve their government - because they've spent so much time being lied to?

I think this has more to do with the government not arguing with them. A conspiracy theory can make it's rounds and no one cares.

The government never steps up and does an emergency broadcast to say where the oil contracts went for example. Imagine the minds that could have been changed if Bush had done an emergency broadcast and bashed the **** out of Loose Change back when that was all over the place. All he would have to do is read straight off a debunk website because the claims were weak to begin with. But they just let it go...

Back when it was Obama vs McCain, McCain had people in republican rallies asking him if Obama was a terrorist, asking him if he was a 'muslim' like muslims were our enemy, things like that. Sure our president may note offhandedly that we're not against a religion, but they don't go out of their way like the tin foil hat brigade does, to shove that in our faces and they need to. There is too much dissent in the U.S. that is unfounded, and it drowns out the things that actually matter, weakening us as a country.

It's funny people still always talk about WW2, but in WW2 we put up posters everywhere. It was all over T.V. to support the troops. People advertised war bonds and things like that. It was EVERYWHERE. When we went to the moon the whole country already knew and everyone cared. It was the topic EVERYWHERE and the government started the conversation. Today they just don't. They leave people with unknowns and watch as they fester into paranoid delusions.

Even if you think the government IS out to get you. It makes no sense to let you think so without getting a word in. There is nothing that justifies their modern silence. It is a failure on the part of our leaders. All of them.



Toshiro GreyHawk wrote:
Do people now expect to be lied to?

Yes. In my opinion being exaggerated to over and over by the media, other people, and advertising makes me very wary of claims even from people I should trust.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch
Toshiro GreyHawk
#8 - 2012-01-23 13:03:21 UTC


Thanks for the thoughtful responses. As I said - this was something I though of and wondered what other people thought about it.



Of course ... it's not just been commercials but I had wondered what part commercials played.

One thing that I believe has changed is that at one point in time - people tended to believe the government. They had more trust in people in authority. Now they don't seem to. There was an idea that "The Government has access to more information so they must know the truth," with the assumption that the government wouldn't lie.

I would imagine that Vietnam had something to do with that as there were a number of things done in that war that weren't publicized. Such as our efforts in Laos. Of course, the odd thing about that was that the communists knew we were there but much of the American people didn't.

Then there was the fact that we were dealing with communists in the Cold War and pretty much everything they said was a lie - but people who wanted to believe it did. These people got a major boost as dissatisfaction with the Vietnam war increased until you had them being interviewed and their lies and fuzzy thinking were broadcast as if there was some basis for them. Something the media referred to as "Objective Journalism."



Then came Water Gate and the revelation of all the lies that had been told by the government - but - more importantly, the networks realized that they could make money off the news. Before that - News had been a loss leader for the networks. The only reason they did it - was because the FCC made them do it as part of their license to broad cast over the air waves. The networks then, since they had to do it anyway, tried to do a good job, compared to the other networks and made their nightly news broad cast a prestige thing. When they realized they could make money off of it - that led to the tabloidization of the news media. Now, they not only could make money - they HAD to make money or lose their jobs. All the older journalists were dying or retiring and the new breed, raised on Television - had no early training in telling the truth. Of course - this is only a rosy picture of the old time print journalists as news papers could lie as much, especially about politics, as the TV journalists do now - and probably more so.


Today, the phrase "You can't let the facts get in the way of a good story" is pretty much standard.


*shrug*

.
SpaceSquirrels
#9 - 2012-01-23 13:10:40 UTC
Consider the impact of constant media...and the medium. As opposed to newspapers etc. (ads were easier to ignore) Also journalism has changed... Rather into CNN asking random idiots to IM them or gathering info from blogs.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#10 - 2012-01-23 14:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Since we're on the topic of lies and TV, one can assume that political ads todays are built on purposefully spreading misinformation.

***The 2012 US Presidential Campaigns***

If you look at the ads put out today by the Republican party, you will notice a ton of outright lies and misinformation. Especially when you have already done your own homework and research. Unfortunately, not everyone does their own homework/research and decide to trust everything that the Republican party tells them. The same goes with the Democratic party and their voters. Both political parties have been historically known to be hypocritical at best and morally bankrupt at worse. This has created a climate we all see today in which both sides spread misinformation designed specifically to get people to vote one way and not the other regardless if the misinformation is destroying the very fabric of our society.

***The 2008 Presidential Campaigned***

Dare I talk about the misinformation and outright lies spread by the masses here? Let's see...

Myth #1: Barack Obama is not allowed to be president because he was not born in the US and that he is somehow born in Kenya. MYTH BUSTED: No evidence to support this claim.

Myth #2: Barack Obama, even though he was born in the US, is not qualified to be president because his father is from Kenya and that any presidential candidate must have both mother and father who were born in the US. MYTH BUSTED: The US Constitution doesn't mention any of that. There are only three simple requirements: candidate must be US born, 35 years old, and have lived in the US for 14 years consecutively. That is it (literally). NOTE: Obama was not the first such president whose father is a foreigner.

Myth #3: Obama is not a Christian but is a Muslim and therefore can't be voted into office as all prior presidents were Christians. MYTH BUSTED: The US Constitution makes no such requirement. In fact, the federal government is not allowed to recognize one religion over another in the US. That, and not all prior presidents were Christian (JFK was Catholic with Irish roots).

Myth #4: John McCain was not allowed to run for president as he was not born in the US. MYTH BUSTED: John McCain was born to a US national even though he was born in Panama. He was also born in a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone which at one point was US territory.

Myth #5: John McCain used his connections as a military pilot in Vietnam to legally get out of the Vietnamese prison: MYTH BUSTED: John, despite his connections, chose to stay with his fellow inmates until the war was over.

***The 2000 Florida Recount***

If you want to see a good example of hypocrisy and misinformation, you need not look any further than here.

When Al Gore and George W. Bush were neck-n-neck in Florida, people were literally split on what to do when they realized that the votes are too close to call. One one side, people wanted a recount while on the other side people wanted to accept the current status of the votes (it showed that Bush was ahead). Then there was the dimple ballots and the famous term 'hanging chads'.

Dimple ballots - when a ballot that is designed as a manual punch card with the voter punching a hole onto it end up having a bunch of loose chads building up behind the ballot to the point where the next voter is unable to punch a hole through. As a result, when the ballot is fed through a machine to count, the vote is not counted. This was common in 'butterfly ballots' (Google it).

Hanging Chads - Also commonly seen in butterfly ballots or other punch-card-style ballots in which a voter managed to punch a hole through the card but the chad is still attached to the ballot on one of its four sides. When the ballot is fed through the machine, the chad folds back to the original place and the vote is also not counted.

This created an uproar with the voters who were also faced with inconsistent voting procedures (one part of Florida used manual punch cards while others used electronics systems while yet another used hand-cranked systems). This is where the demand for the recount started. Let's observe the two cases here.

Case #1

Democrats wanted the intent of the voter to be counted while ignoring the technicalities of properly using a ballot. The Republicans opposed saying that the voters have to follow the rules and that the intent doesn't matter.

Case #2

When the Republicans were unable to prevent the recount, they turned to the absentee ballots (especially the ones sent in by our troops overseas). The Republicans wanted to count all of them, including the absentee ballots that didn't meet regulations set by the state government. The Republicans at the point sounded a lot like the Democrats in the first case in that the voter's intent should be considered. The Democrats reacted by acting like the Republicans in the 1st case as well in that the absentee voters should have followed the rules.

***Conclusion***

There was a lot of misinformation spreading around especially through TV ads sent in by Super Pacs and both political parties. You can even see the ads today as the primaries are progressing.

EDIT:

On Myth #3, I forgot to point out that Obama is Christian. It's just that some people assumed he was Muslim simply because of his father who was born a Muslim but died an Atheist.

Adapt or Die
Toshiro GreyHawk
#11 - 2012-01-23 18:01:02 UTC



Just a couple of comments:


1) Another example of vote counting selectivity - was in an Election in San Diego CA for Mayor. For whatever reason - the current Mayors largest rival had to be written in as they weren't on the ballot. Here - the race was so close that the current Mayor won because - there were about a dozen write in votes for his opponent - who, while they had written in the opponents name - had failed to check the box next to that name ... Their intent could not have been more strongly expressed - and yet - these votes were discounted because they didn't follow the rules.


2) I do believe that Catholics are considered Christians by both themselves and pretty much everyone else. What they are not - is Protestants. The Protestants were created as a category in a religious revolt against the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was actually at that time not the only Christian Church as there was also the Greek Orthodox Church (and a few others). A note there - is that one of the reasons for the success of the Muslims in spreading across Northern Africa - was that the sect of Christianity there - was different than the Catholics or Greek Orthodox and had been treated poorly by them. Thus their conversion to Islam was made easier. Or so I've heard.

The issue with JFK - was whether or not he would be more loyal to the USA or to the Catholic Church and whether or not he would be obedient to the Catholic Pope. Now - historically - this has been a real issue in Europe over which wars have been fought so ... for some people it was a question that needed asking. JFK's assertion that he was loyal to the USA seems to have taken care of it but it's hard to say to what degree that was a factor.


3) Now ... another issue here - is whether or not the Mormons are Christians. With Mitt Romney running for President - this is an issue that has come up and one that might well cause him some problems. I do not know the official position of the Mormon Church on the issue of whether or not they consider themselves to be Christians - but I do have some very dear friends who are Mormons - who, when they speak of Christians - are not referring to themselves. When they refer to themselves - they call themselves Mormon's - or Later Day Saints.

Here - the Mormon religion is very similar structurally to the Muslims in how it is different than the Christians. a) Both religions (Mormon and Muslim) accept the Old and New Testaments of the Bible; b) Both religions have their own book that they add to the Bible as a Holy Text. For the Muslims it is the Koran, while for the Mormons it is The Book of Mormon. One specific belief of the Mormon faith - as related to me by one of my friends when I asked - was that they believed that if you lived a perfect life - when you died - you became God of your own planet. This is something that goes very strongly against main stream Christians views and if more people become aware of this little fact - it might cause Mitt Romney some problems - especially amongst the more religious voters of his party. You will note that in in Iowa the more religious people were voting for anyone but Romney - they just had to many to choose from. Now that some of those others have gone and with at least Perry endorsing Gingrich - Romney lost badly to him in South Carolina ... which is a fairly conservative, Christian state. Of course - just as Romney, who is from the North East, did well in New Hampshire, Gingrich, who is from the South - did well in S. Carolina. We'll just have to see how all this plays out in other states.



Now ... as to religion in general, what you'll find among most religions is that they provide comfort to their believers. Here - it doesn't actually matter whether or not their beliefs can be proven to be real or not. What matters is the personal belief of the believer and how their religion provides them comfort in a time of crisis. For those who have lost loved ones - and wish to believe that they well see their loved ones again - religions that preach of an after life - provide comfort. The same would go for people who are themselves threatened with imminent death.

Another factor in this - is the effect of taking some sort of action. If people can do something - whatever it is, however small it may be - it may make them feel better than if they are utterly helpless. Chanting and the repetition of phrases also tends to comfort the human mind for some reason.

It's easy to dismiss others religious views but ... for those facing death for themselves or a loved one, I'd not be so smug in denying them whatever comfort they may find. If it makes them feel better during one of the worst moments of their life - who am I to deny that to them?


Now again - as to lying - people who profess a sincere belief in something are not lying - whether they are right or not. Lying is telling an untruth with the intent to deceive. So - people professing a belief in something that others question - are not lying if they really believe what they are saying.

Of course ... Religious Charlatans go back ages and duping people into giving up their money or power over their lives through the use of religion is also an age old ruse.



.
stoicfaux
#12 - 2012-01-23 18:41:48 UTC
If you want examples of how politicians take liberties with the truth, the just check out http://www.politifact.com/. They check the accuracy of statements made by US politicians.

Which leads me to counter the OP's premise with: Is the ease of information transmission via the internet helping to propagate lies/misinformation to the public, or is the internet making it easier for the public to see through such lies/misinformation?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#13 - 2012-01-23 18:54:38 UTC
Hmmm,

Personally, it's about trust, not truth.

When someone is spinning a yarn, I think we all know it fundamentally at some level - but ultimately do we trust them?

It's more important to help someone who you trust that told you a lie, than it is to help someone you do not trust that told you the truth.

I can deal with people lying to me, that's something they need to make peace with, not me.

Like I say, I think we all know when someone is lying to us, it's pretty easy to spot. I've never understood the concept myself, I figured as a child it was something 'silly' that grownups did, and now I'm an adult I see it everywhere and to be honest it just makes me giggle.

I just tell the truth, regardless 'cause people trust me to be honest and that holds more water than Loch Ness. It also means you cannot lose an argument, because you can't beat the truth, it wins every-time.

As for the other points in this thread - going the way of politics and religion will just get this thread banned.

BTW, the plural for Chad, is Chad, not Chads.

AK

This space for rent.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#14 - 2012-01-23 18:58:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
@ Toshiro GreyHawk

Mormons do consider themselves to be Christian (or at least some of them). The issue is that some Christians (and I emphasize 'some') don't believe in that Mormons are Christian. There are even some Christians (ie: The Westboro Baptist Church or that other church in Gainsville, FL.) who are hostile to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Protestants and any other faith-based group that doesn't conform to the Orthodoxy.

If I were to run for US President today, assuming I meet the three basic qualifications, my Gnostic beliefs which implies that those who acquire 'Gnosis' (knowledge) will become like God, will be a big issue with Christians just as Mitt Romney's belief is. Even Obama's Christian faith was questioned even though the church he came from was clearly Christian by nature.

But as history shows, the truth always ends up being the first to get buried because people of authority see it as a threat to their position of power. The Vatican is a prime example.

EDIT:

@ Alleykat

I don't think this thread will get banned as long we keep it civil around here. So far, no one has been flamed.

Adapt or Die
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-01-23 19:53:41 UTC
Toshiro GreyHawk wrote:


One thing that I believe has changed is that at one point in time - people tended to believe the government. They had more trust in people in authority. Now they don't seem to. There was an idea that "The Government has access to more information so they must know the truth," with the assumption that the government wouldn't lie.

I would imagine that Vietnam had something to do with that as there were a number of things done in that war that weren't publicized. Such as our efforts in Laos. Of course, the odd thing about that was that the communists knew we were there but much of the American people didn't.

Then there was the fact that we were dealing with communists in the Cold War and pretty much everything they said was a lie - but people who wanted to believe it did. These people got a major boost as dissatisfaction with the Vietnam war increased until you had them being interviewed and their lies and fuzzy thinking were broadcast as if there was some basis for them. Something the media referred to as "Objective Journalism."



Then came Water Gate and the revelation of all the lies that had been told by the government - but - more importantly, the networks realized that they could make money off the news. Before that - News had been a loss leader for the networks. The only reason they did it - was because the FCC made them do it as part of their license to broad cast over the air waves. The networks then, since they had to do it anyway, tried to do a good job, compared to the other networks and made their nightly news broad cast a prestige thing. When they realized they could make money off of it - that led to the tabloidization of the news media. Now, they not only could make money - they HAD to make money or lose their jobs. All the older journalists were dying or retiring and the new breed, raised on Television - had no early training in telling the truth. Of course - this is only a rosy picture of the old time print journalists as news papers could lie as much, especially about politics, as the TV journalists do now - and probably more so.


Today, the phrase "You can't let the facts get in the way of a good story" is pretty much standard.


*shrug*

.



I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. it's been hard to have much faith in the government since the Dubya-Cheney administration. Messy election, with suspicion of fraud and complicity by the candidate's governor of Florida brother. A Supreme Court decision that supported the election results, and appeared to be based on political considerations and nepotism rather than legal reasoning. Then suddenly an energy crisis was declared, with cities in California getting rolling blackouts. Odd that we suddenly had a power grid shortage when we elected two oil men as President and Vice President. Then there was the drumming up support for invading Iraq. Every time the Administration ran into a road block in support, the Terrorism Threat Level went from yellow to orange. Coincidence maybe, I don't know. And then after Iraq was invaded, we had the U.S. government awarding a billions of dollars no-bid reconstruction contract to Halliburton. Which the Vice President had ties to and was formerly the CEO of.

I think that 8-year period taught a lot of people that lying is the norm, and it's something you can get away with.
Skorpynekomimi
#16 - 2012-01-24 05:01:23 UTC
I have very little faith in the american government doing anything other than pushing fundamentalist and pro-capitalist policies, and lining their own pockets while screwing over everyone who isn't male, white, and rich.

But then, I'm not even american. What do I know?
Other than being jerked around by customs and then practically banned from the country by new laws.

Economic PVP
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#17 - 2012-01-24 14:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
I have very little faith in the american government doing anything other than pushing fundamentalist and pro-capitalist policies, and lining their own pockets while screwing over everyone who isn't male, white, and rich.

But then, I'm not even american. What do I know?
Other than being jerked around by customs and then practically banned from the country by new laws.


It's not really capitalism that is considered a problem here in America. It's the very idea that capitalism can control or dictate the outcome of our legislature. Corporations (especially oil companies like BP and Exxon Mobile) have been well known to spend billions of dollars a year on lobbying in Washington alone to try to dictate the decisions of our government. Pharmaceutical companies are another prime example.

Adapt or Die
Borascus
#18 - 2012-01-24 14:34:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Borascus
When it comes to TV the general rule of thumb is "Only pay attention to the facts"


If someone says: "Health insurance is bad because you can have your leg amputated and not be eligible to cover lost work.."

The only meanings are: "Some health insurance policies do not cover the loss of only one limb in relation to work"


In relation to "conspiracy theories": If the facts are such that an event has transpired that would normally require the signature of at least one person, but no such person can be found" It only alludes to the event taking place.


i.e. JFK Assasination: imo the reality is that a former sniper / someone with experience with guns decided to shock the world - An act of terrorism by today's standards.


However, information pertaining to the grassy knoll the 2nd shooter, government involvement, references of conjecture such as bad habits have all been applied after the fact to paint a picture.

Its similar to character profiling so it merely implies that the government being the best would not have allowed this without collusion.


When in fact anyone can walk around anywhere they like and say pretty much anything that they like until formal situations are accountable.


TV Advertising susceptibility is a well-discussed topic with the main four angles of evaluation already satisfied: Good for me and good for them, good for me but not good for them, not good for me but good for them, not good for me or them.


Just ignore the lies, or approach the information with a view to only obtain facts. Painting pictures of behaviour is a science that has no paradigm, only a probability based on previous experience.
SpaceSquirrels
#19 - 2012-01-24 15:37:25 UTC
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
I have very little faith in the american government doing anything other than pushing fundamentalist and pro-capitalist policies, and lining their own pockets while screwing over everyone who isn't male, white, and rich.

But then, I'm not even american. What do I know?
Other than being jerked around by customs and then practically banned from the country by new laws.



Whaaat did you do?...
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2012-01-24 15:53:07 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Since we're on the topic of lies and TV, one can assume that political ads todays are built on purposefully spreading misinformation.


***Conclusion***

There was a lot of misinformation spreading around especially through TV ads sent in by Super Pacs and both political parties. You can even see the ads today as the primaries are progressing.


[Had to snip the quote-- forum post length limit seems to be reached.]
Right on, Henry. Just want to also note another example of deliberate disinformation: the 2004 "Swift Boat" TV ads against John Kerry. Remember those? Long, expensive ads saying that Kerry improperly got his medals from the Vietnam War record, by falsifying his record or stealing somebody else's glory or something. The ads claimed to be paid for by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Which later turned out to be a fictitious organization created by the Republicans, or Bush's campaign people. Bascially a Super Pac thing. The allegations against Kerry turned out to be completely false, but it didn't matter. They'd already put it in people's minds that he wasn't really a war hero, but instead was the kind of guy who would steal the honor from another veteran.

This disinformation stuff works. It's no different than what a certain group of people did in Germany in the 1930s. But back then they only had primitive media to work with-- newspapers and radio. And people actually read things and discussed them with each other back then. Reading newspapers and discussing them was a form of recreation. Now, with multiple forms of instant media, and people's attention spans measured in seconds, how much more opportunity for disinformation manipulation? Plus the fact that we have decades of advertising thought-manipulation science to draw on.
12Next page