Fox News Caught Flashing McCain TV Subliminal

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Under the rotating logo, the clock shows 10:14. If the show open is as it says, and began at 10pm. How did 13 minutes vanish? I will tell you how. The "magic" of editing.

No. I'll tell you how: because thats not a 'show open' animation. If you watch, it says "RIGHT NOW", as in 'whats happening right now'. From watching the local FOX news affiliate here in Detroit, the "right now" edition is usually some quick run-through of current, top stories, such as a robbery, a murder or car accident (the typical Detroit news) that they didn't open the newscast with.

That isn't an opening animation. That's a 'back from commercial' animation, and those are short. This one was short and I don't see any indication that it was 'cut off'. I think that is the whole animation and they slipped that image of John McCain in there.

Thats how you lose 13 minutes. Other news stories and commercials.

Sorry. I don't think this was a mistake.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
That isn't an opening animation. That's a 'back from commercial' animation, and those are short.

Novus, that is an excellent point.

You may be correct that it is a "back from commercial break" segue, That explains the clock plus the male anchor says "Back now......blah...blah.... with an exclusive....blah...blah"

But I still think the two clips were edited in post-production. I respect your insight on this and hope others jump in.

regards . . . kk

[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
But I still think the two clips were edited in post-production.

Fair enough.

I just think it seems a little out of place is all. Just seems pointless from an animation standpoint. But then again, I'm not employed doing it.

I hardly think this animation is sinister or harmful in any way. It just seems a little childish to me if it is intentional.

Originally posted by Dr Love
On a side note but still on topic, I wonder if subliminal messages are the reason they're making everyone buy a digital TV. Maybe somehow the message shown on a digital TV gets through clearer. Just a thought.

Peace

starred and quoted . . . I've been suspicious about everyone converting to digital as well. Or may be we're just being paranoid. I never watch TV anymore for fear that i'm being brainwashed or something.

I only watch movie channels or DVDs. All that I have to worry about in movies is the insanely obvious product placement.

post by kinda kurious

This.

Originally posted by budski
The most damning piece of evidence for me, is this is fox.

That has to be a joke. I've never known you to sound this stupid and biased in reasoning.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
The John McCain picture is the only picture that appears. Any why are they showing that? What is relevant about that picture that it needs to be there?

...

If we can find the whole animation and there are other images in there, then fine. It'll make more sense.

Actually, look at it right before it cuts to the anchors (with the slow-mo cut). You'll notice that the Fox 5 logo and the blue around it is simply overlayed over a picture. That is, it shows through in more than that McCain spot. You can see his wife's hand, and some stuff to the left in an opening there.


I don't think you can really conclude anything, they probably just re-used an opening from another newscast to cut costs a little. But who knows, if it is something more, it's probably to build up familiarity for McCain.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Johnmike]

reply to post by Johnmike



And you're defending fox?



riiight - totally unbiassed journalism.

Hey budski buddy old pal, I thought you said the US election did not interest you?
Why the change of heart all of all sudden?

reply to post by Alxandro


It doesn't interest me as much as UK politics and elections, but as I was FSME for candidate advocacy for the US elections (forum has now been integrated) I had to take an interest - and it's quite interesting, although I'm having trouble getting my head around the whole super-delegate thing.
That just seems open to abuse.

Besides - this is more about media manipulation, and the MSM, particularly those nutters at fox.

Originally posted by budski
The pic is quite hard to see unless you slow it down - but it's there alright.

A real subliminal.

the youtube vid took me 3 times of watching the opening segment of the news for me to catch it finally. Is it even provable that it was put in deliberately for the purpose of a subliminal message? Fox would say no, of coarse. I'm just saying that we know it was obviously deliberately edited in. But how can we honestly know whether or not it was intended to be some kind of subliminal message? I mean you could say that about the color blue couldn't you since it's in the opening segment and was deliberately edited in. I agree that it seems like a subliminal message but was it honestly intentional. That part is unprovable isn't it?

-ChriS

Originally posted by Johnmike
post by kinda kurious

This.

Originally posted by budski
The most damning piece of evidence for me, is this is fox.

That has to be a joke. I've never known you to sound this stupid and biased in reasoning.

I did a flip when I read that. Guilt by association.

Amazing.:shk:

reply to post by jsobecky


Not sure what you mean by that.

Who are you having a go at THIS time?

Just to repeat it again - this animation is not the opening animation to the news broadcast. It is an animation that is used when coming back from commercial, or an animation used mid-broadcast, similar to the "Breaking News" animation that is used to cut to another segment.

That does matter when trying to determine if this was intentional because an 'opening' animation would be longer than the clip shown in the OP. So if that was an opening clip, that means there could be more to the animation, which means there could be other images.

But its not an opening animation. Its a "RIGHT NOW" or "whats happening in the news 'right now'" animation. Those are very brief, as is the animation in the OP. Since they are much shorter, there is even less reason or excuse for putting images in to the animation, such as the John McCain image. Also, since those are shorter, I believe we have seen that animation in its entirety. Therefore, there are no other images in that animation OTHER THAN that John McCain image.

So then, at that point, you have to ask yourself: Why? Why is that image there? What purpose does it serve? And why does it only CLEARLY appear for a half second or less towards the very end of the animation?

Put aside your bias, put aside your political views and just ask yourself if you TRULY and LOGICALLY think that that image makes sense being right there in that animation for that extremely brief amount of time.

Does it seem normal? Or does it seem out of place?

reply to post by budski


No, I just try to use logic when evaluating things so I don't sound like a total jackass.

The people trying to defend FOX are hilarious.

FOX is not a news source, it isn't even a source of general knowledge. EVERYTHING it reports on and displays has some ulterior motive, be it political or simply what Murdoch wants displayed on that particular day.

FOX has clearly slandered Democrats in the past and made no secret of it's biased airtime supply for Republican propaganda. I've got no problem with them showing what they want, but when they claim to be 'fair and balanced', it makes them a fair target.

They are a source in the same category as the Weekly World News or Rense.

Before anyone says 'prove it'... watch Outfoxed then if you still think FOX is credible, you are beyond help.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by fooffstarr]

Hasn't really worked out too well for you johnmike...

Fox is a joke.

It's a bigger joke than Sky news - and that's run by murdoch.

He doesn't own fox as well does he?

From my outside point of view.....

Some of you would say that the elections are rigged and the person that is going to win already knows it....

In between 4 and 6 months ago (I am not sure of where, but it was in the news) Bush announced his support for McCain.

It is my opinion (and has been since I heard of Bush backing McCain) that Clinton and Obama are being played off against each other to the point where the winner will emerge damaged beyond repair when it comes to public opinion. A publicly damaged black man, or white woman up against McCain, that seems to be keeping a low profile and has the backing of the current american administration who fits the traditional idea of a president. I've come to this opinion through various news stories over time but I'm not in America so I guess its hard to see the complete picture.

Even so.....

If McCain loses I'll return to lurking forever.

ok while i agree that fox is conservative what about all the other news stations. they are all cleary more liberal. im not trying to say that fox is fair and balanced but tell me which station is? they are all far more left and if anything more open about it

Originally posted by seenitall
Even so.....

If McCain loses I'll return to lurking forever.

Why shut yourself up?

You should realize that McCain, Obama, and Clinton all belong to the same political elite class ruling the U.S. It doesn't really matter who wins, the U.S. government will grow larger and spend more money then it has.

The way American politics works is:

Pick person form corrupt party A that is beholden to the growth of the political-corporate system of government.

Pick person form corrupt party B that is beholden to the growth of the political-corporate system of government.

Choose.

They might have several different opinions on on what they see as "minor" issues but I can assure they are all interested in the increase of power and influence that the American government has over its own population and that of the world.

It really doesn't matter who Fox is for whether their bias is overt or not. The main thing is the main stream media all have a bias in favor for the same type of candidate. The bi-partisan structure of American politics makes everything convenient while giving the illusion of choice.

It's dishonest, as Jones usually is, that they label this story as "Fox News" rather than "Local Fox Affiliate's News Broadcast". Granted, this is the one from New York City.

If someone can show me more than just this one instance you have something. Otherwise it's a more or less innocous occurence in my opinion.

I think it's just more sensationalism by Alex Jones. Which is a shame because the guy can reach a lot of people. He just presents things so dishonestly sometimes it turns people off.

With that being said, and so I no one claims I'm sticking up for Fox News: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Dr Love
On a side note but still on topic, I wonder if subliminal messages are the reason they're making everyone buy a digital TV. Maybe somehow the message shown on a digital TV gets through clearer. Just a thought.

Peace

TV's capable of decoding a digitally encoded signal and converting it to an analog signal are not the same as a high resolution HDTV digital set.

People confuse the two digital technologies.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by clay2 baraka]