It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Damn Media!

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ok, firstly, I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. That being said, I can at least see where FCD is coming from.

"Las Vegas shooter took 20 cruises, some to foreign ports"

Straight off the bat; why is this even remotely interesting or relevant at all if you're not trying to attach some significance to his travelling habits and the destinations he visited? Why not say "las vegas shooter took 20 trips to the supermarket?" Or "las vegas shooter took 20 trips to an Italian restaurant"? The article is clearly implying there is something significant in his travelling habits and, in particular, the fact that he visited "foreign ports" (incidentally, wouldn't be much of a cruise if he visited only non-foreign ports would it? Why include that word? "FOREIGN").

Then;

"In addition to his frequent forays into casinos and gun shops, Las Vegas strip killer Stephen Paddock took 20 cruises, many of them in Europe and the Middle East, investigators have learned."

So, what is the explicit connection between him going to gun shops and going to Europe and the middle East? Quite simply, there is no explicit connection between these things, however, there is an implied connection between him going to casinos (where he shot a load of people), buying guns (which he used to shoot a load of people) and visiting the middle east where he??? What? Had a nice holiday?
If they're not trying to convey a sinister connection then why report it at all? Is it coincidence that Europe and the middle East have become synonymous with terrorism and terrorist attacks?


ETA: Also it's worth noting that they say he took 20 cruises "many of them to europe or the middle east" then go on to list only five destinations. Where were the remaining 15 to? It would be interesting to know. It would be significant if the vast majority were not to Europe and the middle East. That would raise the question why they chose to focus on those 5 destinations, when the majority of his trips were not to either Europe or the middle east...

Also; If you look at data analysing how people consume articles online you will find that the vast majority of people do not read the full article. Many will only read the opening statements, many more will only read until they are required to scroll down, more still will abandon the article before reaching the halfway mark and, of the remainder, the majority will leave before the end. With this in mind, by FAR, the most 'important' content is that which is included in the title and opening paragraph. That is what the majority of readers will read.

The title and opening two paragraphs of this contain fewer than 100 words but makes mention of him taking cruises to "foreign ports" to "the middle east" "jordan" and "the United Arab Emirates" out of the remaining words, a good portion of them are redundant information (i.e. an explanation of why the source wasn't named and the fact that his girlfriend went along with him on some of the cruises. Not very useful information, unless you consider they may also be trying to imply his girlfriend was involved as well).

Interestingly, have you heard of something called the primacy and recency effect? That people recall details more easily that are at the end of a list of information and then the beginning (in that order) and tend to forget information in the middle. The list of cruise destinations ends with the United Arab Emirates and begins with Spain (plenty of unrest there at the moment). Coincidence? Perhaps... Though why list the destinations in that order? Why did they not, for example, list them alphabetically (I realise UAE would still fall at the end in that case). Not necessarily important but not necessarily insignificant either.

Just something to ponder perhaps...

edit on 7-10-2017 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2017 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

Thank you!

That is an excellent post! And it explains, precisely, the reasoning behind my OP.

Thank you for taking the time to put that theme into words!!



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
DP


edit on 10/7/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb



"Las Vegas shooter took 20 cruises, some to foreign ports" Straight off the bat; why is this even remotely interesting or relevant at all if you're not trying to attach some significance to his travelling habits and the destinations he visited?


The investigators and the media alike are trying to get a look at the entire picture here and are looking in to every aspect they can on this guy. That is why it is relevant. What CNN did not do with this article is imply anything like connections to ISIS, or anything of the sort. THey actually said the opposite.



The article is clearly implying there is something significant in his travelling habits and, in particular, the fact that he visited "foreign ports" (incidentally, wouldn't be much of a cruise if he visited only non-foreign ports would it? Why include that word? "FOREIGN").


They are not implying anything. They are reporting facts. People are reading in to it too much.

The OP is trying to create some sort of "conspiracy" where none exist.
edit on 7-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Hi introvert,

If the media were simply reporting the facts objectively then why do they only list 5 out of 20 destinations? Why did they single out Europe and the middle East as destinations? If the remaining 15 cruises were (for example) all to the Caribbean or elsewhere then why was the headline not "Las Vegas Killer liked to cruise the Caribbean" (for example). Or simply (and this would be a more balanced, objective and fact-based headline) "Las Vegas Killer frequently went on cruise holidays". If the majority were to europe and the middle East then why not provide a comprehensive list of the destinations? (I have searched and have been unable to find a comprehensive list anywhere, only the repeated naming of the destinations already stated).

Other news outlets have carried the same story and have been even more explicit in attempting to draw the connection; one has capitalised the words "MIDDLE EAST" in their headline, some have skipped the European destination and the cruise part altogether and have gone with "Las Vegas Killer travelled to the middle east" and one has even included references to ISIS in their text.

Some may be more subtle than others with their implications (depending upon their target audience) but the thrust of the articles are basically the same.

I don't believe there is any 'conspiracy' here as such, beyond the media spinning and manipulating their target audiences and selling their stories and points of view, which is par for the course at this point.

Journalism today has very little to do with reporting the facts. I'm not sure there's a single article out there that is 100% objective and not presented in a specific way with a specific intent. I have a fundamental mistrust of the media which is based on a great deal of supporting evidence that strongly suggests that they should be viewed with suspicion and all 'news' should be dissected and critically analysed.

There has been multiple millions (I'm certain in fact; billions) spent over the years on understanding human behaviour, perception and thinking and how to influence it. This wasn't just for fun was it? They did not spend such significant sums to acquire this knowledge just for the heck of it, they did so so that it could be employed to their advantage. There is no other motivation that makes sense.

Much of that knowledge has become mainstream and is standard procedure for any business which involves itself in presenting information to the public.

I am not suggesting that all information is manipulated with nefarious intent. What I am certain of though is that the choices made in writing, editing and publishing are not made without careful consideration, without reason and without motive.

Individuals who occupy those positions spend a good many years learning about the psychology of their consumers, the techniques of influence and how to present information etc. They do not do this for nothing.


edit on 7-10-2017 by Indrasweb because: Poor spelling



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Sorry to double post but it just occurred to me that we might be able to have a bit of fun here.

So, we can see an example of the careful and subtle manipulation of information with a specific outcome in mind right here in this thread.

You responded to my post by quoting some of my initial post. The section of text you quoted was

"Las Vegas shooter took 20 cruises, some to foreign ports" Straight off the bat; why is this even remotely interesting or relevant at all if you're not trying to attach some significance to his travelling habits and the destinations he visited?"

And responded with:

"The investigators and the media alike are trying to get a look at the entire picture here and are looking in to every aspect they can on this guy. That is why it is relevant."

You selectively quoted my initial post and left out the following:

"Why not say "las vegas shooter took 20 trips to the supermarket?" Or "las vegas shooter took 20 trips to an Italian restaurant"?"

Now this may have been an unconscious decision or it may have been deliberate. Either way, this part is omitted because it undermines (not contradicts but lessens the impact of) your assertion that the media are attempting to simply present facts about the shooter in order to build a picture of who he is.

If this were the case then it would also be reasonable to write an article including such information as how frequently he visited certain outlets or ate certain types of food. I included that part because it draws attention to the fact that they felt there was something significant and important about his travel habits, over and above something as mundane as what he likes to eat for breakfast or where he buys his pyjamas, something significant enough to write an article about.

As you cannot make the assertion that they are simply painting a picture of him (fleshing out his chatacter if you will), deny that there is a specific undertone to the article and at the same time explain why they chose to write an article SPECIFICALLY highlighting where he had travelled to, whilst making a conscious decision not to report other information that may also be useful to establish an overall picture of who he was, that part of my post was left out from your response. Not because it disproves your argument in any way (it obviously doesn't) but that it impacts upon the overall solidity of it.

From your point of view it was not necessary to include that part of my post because you didn't want to address it, and instead wanted to focus on the bit that you feel you could present a counter point to in order to support your argument.

(Bonus points!: In addition, you also tied what the media are doing to what the investigators are doing;

"The investigators and the media alike are trying to get a look at the entire picture here.."

Implying that they are both doing the same thing and with the same intent. This lends credibility and ascribes noble intent to the media's actions by association with law enforcement. One would have to be particularly callous to cast aspersions upon the good intentions and hard work of the fine men and women tasked with dealing with such a tragedy as this! Perhaps a seemingly throwaway remark but one that acts upon the unconscious mind nevertheless).

Now, I am not suggesting that you did this because "illuminait chemtrails from Nibiru", but because you have an innate understanding of debating your point of view and presenting your arguments in such a way as to emphasise the validity of your assertions and to undermine the assertions of the opposing argument.

This is normal, it is something that people naturally do and seem instinctively to understand.

However, these are also techniques that have been studied, understood, refined and employed with great skill by the likes of the media and those with a vested interest in presenting certain points of view.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb


Now, I am not suggesting that you did this because "illuminait chemtrails from Nibiru", but because you have an innate understanding of debating your point of view and presenting your arguments in such a way as to emphasise the validity of your assertions and to undermine the assertions of the opposing argument.


That, or just argue, deflect, try to twist the conversation around to being about him (and then getting defensive about it)...anything at all but the topic he's trying to derail.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, I don't know anything about that. I inferred from the tone of your responses to one another that you have previous history, and perhaps there's no love lost between you two. I have no desire to criticise either yourself or introvert directly. I was just giving my own perspective on the topic at hand.

edit on 7-10-2017 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

No worries.

Great posts.



new topics




 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join