posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:33 AM
First, let me say this is a long post, because it covers a broad subject I've been thinking about for a long time. Please try to stay within the
subject matter. But I know threads have a tendancy to evolve, and that I welcome. Please read on.
Do you enjoy movies? What kind? Action? Sci-fi? Fantasy? How many times have you seen CGI in a movie and marvelled at the realism, at how well it
blended in with its environment and live actors?
Do you watch the news? And how about live news? I know I like "live" news because it's not controlled, and thus anything could happen. Well, how do
we know it's "live"? Because the little animated icon in the corner of the screen says "live"? Or is it because the anchor says "We now have
Bufort Blunderbuns reporting live from Detroit.."?
While you're thinking about that, let's get hypothetical. Let's build a time machine. We're gonna go back to 1985.
Ok, now we're in 1985. We're gonna manipulate a few million people. How, you ask? Easy, with the media. See here, my VHS tape with various clips
from the new "War of the Worlds" movie. No shots of Tom Cruise in here...but there's plenty of clips of the "tripods" doing their thing. What's
the point, you ask?
We'll invent one.
Yeah, that scenario sounds silly. But, on a serious note, what happens if you're watching a mundane, "Live" broadcast on whatever network, and
something extraordinary happens onscreen? A high-profile assassination where the attacker is a Muslim? A black man being beaten by hooded klansmen? Or
even an invading army from our current enemy of the year?
Well, if this happened on "live" TV, it would have to be true, right? The general populace would think just that. "I seen it with my own
eyes!" they would insist. "Stinkin' Muslims'r invadin'. Kill 'em all, I says!"
So what stops this from happening? What keeps our government from absolutely controlling the media? What keeps realistic computer imagery,
these days so common and overused that it's taken the "special" out of "special effects", from being reported as news to sway the public in favor
of a specific goal or ideal?
There are a few logical conclusions. The first is that the government would have to break through the barrier presented by the press itself; although
networks are generally biased by their owner's personal ideals, most individual reporters are disdainful of government interference in their work. If
a country-wide crackdown were to take place, and the government to tell reporters they are no longer allowed to report the news, it's highly likely
that at least a few die-hard individuals would leak this and other relevant information wherever they could, mainly the internet, which leads into the
The internet is the second barrier, and represents within itself a spectrum of obstacles the government would face in this situation. If something
sensitive hits the internet, it's not likely to be recovered unseen, having been cloned and mirrored many times over before anyone can do anything
about it. What we do here at ATS is a good example of how this information would be seen and swapped.
But the third, and bleakest conclusion, is that nothing stops them, and they're already doing it to some degree. If an "independant" (read:
government setup) nobody-news-station catches a big, ground-breaking story that is sure to be big news, you can bet the other networks will mirror the
story and report on it as much as possible. It may or may not be later disproven, but the public has seen it. The damage is done.
And even if it is proven false later, maybe they wanted that way. Disinformation. Maybe it was just a little something to keep us occupied.
Maybe the NSA wiretapping really isn't a big deal to them.
To look at everything this way, watching the world around you and accepting all things within simultaneously as fact and lie, would lead to madness,
in my opinion. But how else would you get the news?
[edit on 5-9-2006 by Astygia]