Obama - Nearly 100% Staged Photo Propaganda - AP Calls Out Media To End This

reply to post by GreyGoo


You seem to be a person interested in the truth, So I have a little gift for you and everyone else here. Something that no one, maybe even the news, has not sought. I have Santiago Lyon's entire speech transcript. You can download and save a copy all for yourself if you wish and you can also share it with others.

If you go to my first link, it will bring up a search at the APME for Santiago Lyon. The top one should be the one in my below quote unless this changes.

APME Search For Santiago Lyon

...Remarks by Associated Press VP & Director of Photography, Santiago Lyon at APME conference in Indianapolis, Oct 30, 2013.

If you click on that top search result, it will bring up a word doc for the contents of what Santiago said at the Indianapolis conference. Then you can download a copy of his words yourself. It is called WH_ACCESS_REMARKS.docx Or you can click this second link which will take you directly to the download.

LInk To Word Document - Santiago Lyon's Conference Speech Concerning AP Access To Obama

On Mr. Obama’s first day in the Oval Office, an historic occasion, media outlets pressed for - but were denied access to the President at his desk.

Instead the White House released an official photo. This marked a trend that has been in place ever since.

How about budget negotiations? Everyone looks relaxed and friendly in this official image but we later learned from sources that the atmosphere was tense and unfriendly.

Is this propaganda?

We used to have access to these sorts of meetings and more. Much more.

But no longer.

Here's a good source cpj.org...
The press isn't happy with their access.

“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.

www.theguardian.com...

Only ten people in American history have been charged with espionage for leaking classified information, seven of them under Barack Obama.

colddeadhands

elouina
reply to post by Mon1k3r

 

edit on 10-11-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

While the foot on the desk might be disrespectful, I am more concerned with the symbolization of holding a gun in his right hand! If this is a staged photo then what exactly is the message being sent?

Many saw the disrespect in his putting his foot on the desk and if you want to look for a deeper meaning, it was a message to the Muslim community that he has America under his foot! When I lived in Jeddah Saudi Arabia we were told prior to going there to NEVER show the sole of your foot to an Arab because it meant you are no better than the dirt I walk on, and that was the message when that one guy threw the shoe at Bush. It was an insult beyond comprehension for most here in the West, but everyone from the Middle East saw the insult for what it truly was.

Obama was groomed from childhood by one of the top communists, Frank Marshall Davis, he is following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and he is implementing Cloward - Piven strategy to overwhelm the system so that the government crumbles from within. Obama truly is crushing America and that was his goal and what that photo means.



Rules for Radicals was Dedicated to Lucifer "The First Radical"






I found this so I will add it to my response. What is happening in America was long planned and now achieved:

reply to post by elouina


I'd have to say Obama's 'officially sanctioned' press photos..ok, ok...the one's Obama has done and then hand out to the press corps..don't look communistic to me...they instead have always reminded me somehow of the images, similarly 'prepared in advance' by a certain Mr. Mussolini.

So not so much communist, but very fascist looking.
Have a look at some of the photos of Mussolini..Google 'em, they look very similar to the poses Obama likes to hand around of himself.

I suppose the question is then one of which is better, a communist or a fascist in the whitehouse?

Communism is happening before your very eyes, and yet so many here refuse to see this. Look Obama was exposed as a communist before any of this came up. Now you have even more proof. What more will it take? For the US to be totally in the grip of communism?

reply to post by elouina


I think you need to brush up on your communism. I don't recall one of it's tenets being that a leader must control the distribution of his photographs.

When people have to have portraits of Obama hanging in the classroom or their living room and there are huge statues or billboards of him then I'll start to be concerned. I think you're wildly exaggerating and being hysterical.

reply to post by colddeadhands


What this means , well Im sure you have seen this before
you know in those old westerns when the new sheriff comes to town, and the
business men or local owners are disgruntled with him shaking feathers
they come in and demand an answer
then he puts his foot on the table with his gun in his hand
and gives them a one liner and send em on their way !

I dont see it being disrespectful , Bill Clinton probably got wild with a chic on that desk
and busted a nut all over it !

colddeadhands

elouina
reply to post by Mon1k3r

 

edit on 10-11-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

While the foot on the desk might be disrespectful, I am more concerned with the symbolization of holding a gun in his right hand! If this is a staged photo then what exactly is the message being sent?

That is EXACTLY what I said to my wife when I first saw this photo. Hope whoever he's talking to got the point over the phone...

CornShucker

colddeadhands

elouina
reply to post by Mon1k3r

 

edit on 10-11-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

While the foot on the desk might be disrespectful, I am more concerned with the symbolization of holding a gun in his right hand! If this is a staged photo then what exactly is the message being sent?

That is EXACTLY what I said to my wife when I first saw this photo. Hope whoever he's talking to got the point over the phone...

Staged, remember? You have been deceived, he was not talking to anyone on the phone. A perfect example of propaganda. The pictures are made to tell a story that isn't true in a sense.

reply to post by Kram09


Then please do tell me where the practice of using strictly staged photos is commonplace for its leaders. Would this by chance be in countries that lie to their people with propaganda? And this is a good thing? Download a copy of Santiago's speech and read just how a staged photo affects wheat the people are seeing. Until Obama, the US used to be a country that represented freedom, including freedom of the press.

Just what will it take for the Obama lovers to stop blindly following him no matter what? What wrong in particular will be too much? Anything? Or will you follow him straight to the cliff if he leads you there?

Everything is propaganda in politics these days. Don't believe anything you see or hear, most likely you are given only 1 side of the story.

gentledissident
Here's a good source cpj.org...
The press isn't happy with their access.

“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.

www.theguardian.com...

Only ten people in American history have been charged with espionage for leaking classified information, seven of them under Barack Obama.

Now we're talking.

This is the real scandal about Obama and the press. He's singlehandedly launched the biggest assault on the free press and whistle-blowers in US history, which completely undermines the role of the press as the fourth estate (i.e watchdog of government).

The effect this has completely undermines Democracy by punishing those who try to create an informed public and for government to be held to account when they screw up, however it's still nothing to do with Communism.

I'd happily bet my life savings that whoever is in power next will not revoke these measures, it's sadly the way all politics is going.

Expose a major government scandal - good luck getting any official to provide your news organisation with a quote or interview on any topic in the near future. This causes career journalists to self censor as good luck getting hired by any newsdesk if you've caused a government boycott of your last proprietor.

Out of interest does the US have Super Injunctions? They've been introduced in the UK so it's illegal for anyone in the UK to report the fact that UK chemical company, Trafigura, knowingly dumped tonnes of toxic waste in the capital of the Ivory Coast a few years back.

The toxic waste killed 10,000+ civilians as it was airborne and turned to Sulphuric Acid on contact with water so it burnt out the eyes, noses, mouths, lungs and every single orifice of it's victims. The measures are so extreme it's illegal to even mention an injunction is in place or reveal any details at all just in case a reader manages to work out what you're alluding to.

This was a law lobbied for by major companies to protect their financial interests, such is Capitalism.

sapien82
reply to post by colddeadhands

 

What this means , well Im sure you have seen this before
you know in those old westerns when the new sheriff comes to town, and the
business men or local owners are disgruntled with him shaking feathers
they come in and demand an answer
then he puts his foot on the table with his gun in his hand
and gives them a one liner and send em on their way !

I dont see it being disrespectful , Bill Clinton probably got wild with a chic on that desk
and busted a nut all over it !

edit on 11-11-2013 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

100% correct. It was a technique taught by Leo Strauss whose favourite TV Show was 'Gunsmoke' because the goody always wore white, strode around like he owned the place and was always quicker on the draw than the bad guy. Strauss taught this to his group of students who would go on to become the neo-conservatives, including Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky, William Galston and others who invented the Cold War threat by claiming because the US could find no USSR weapons the USSR must have weapons so advanced they could not be detected by the US.

So I go to the AP photo archives just to check these "facts" and I get over a thousand pages when I put president obama in the search box. That's a lot of pictures for only two events.
Not a thousand pictures over a thousand pages of photos.

reply to post by bastion


You know, your comment has brought about an amusing thought. So what happens when the press is no longer concerned about retaining access to the White House? You know, when they realize that no one has really had access in the first place? I wonder if Obama has been putting the clamps on more and more. The more people he, "gets angry with", the less journalists get access. Maybe this is why the press is speaking out now?

People ways put their feet up on furniture so my question is how did the furniture come to be due respect? It's a wooden desk. I am sure because I 've seen the pictures that he is not the first and I am willing to bet it will happening in the future.

AutumnWitch657
So I go to the AP photo archives just to check these "facts" and I get over a thousand pages when I put president obama in the search box. That's a lot of pictures for only two events.
Not a thousand pictures over a thousand pages of photos.

You know I have to do something else right now. But are you certain those are not the photos that were handed to the AP? Did you investigate the origins of those photos before wildly swinging your club?

reply to post by elouina


That's a very, very interesting question and certainly a plausible scenario in the next year or two if the press start working together to boycott official channels like AP are calling for - I don't know if you follow the Editor in question n Twitter, but from his feed it seems like the consensus of the replies from journalists are things have gone too far and this is the straw that's breaking the camel's back.

If it happened you'd have a completely free press (apart from the bias the proprietor wants) that could report on whatever it wanted without the intimidation and sanitation of present. It would likely lead to a press that's actually worthy of the name and if people engaged with it, then you'd have a government that is forced to work in the interests of the public as they'd be constantly too terrified about 'what happens if this gets out' to put a foot wrong.

However it could also cause a dramatic rise in 'oh dearism' - the effect the media exposing rampant corruption has on the public imagination where everyone is a bad guy with ulterior motives and even the good acts cause more harm (i.e Live Aid) so the public are left helpless and hopeless - to which the only response is 'oh dear'.

Tl;dr - It'd probably cause the first true democracy the world has seen. I'll give this the thought it deserves and try and come up with a more detailed account as I'm a massive nerd for this kind of thing.

reply to post by elouina

Then please do tell me where the practice of using strictly staged photos is commonplace for its leaders. Would this by chance be in countries that lie to their people with propaganda?

It could be any authoritarian or dictatorial country and not necessarily a communist one. Who said this was an exclusive trait of communist states?

I think we need something a little more concrete and substantive rather than your hysterics. But if you want to continue with your unfounded crusade and refuse to listen to anything that opposes your viewpoint then please continue.

Download a copy of Santiago's speech and read just how a staged photo affects wheat the people are seeing.

I don't need to download a speech of Santiago's (whoever he is) to know that thanks.

Until Obama, the US used to be a country that represented freedom, including freedom of the press.

Erm...no it didn't. If you think it was all rosy until Obama came along you need to read some history.

Just what will it take for the Obama lovers to stop blindly following him no matter what? What wrong in particular will be too much? Anything? Or will you follow him straight to the cliff if he leads you there?

I don't know if you're directing that at me or just speaking generally. Where did I say I was an "Obama lover"?

Anybody who unquestioningly displays adoration towards the President or any leader needs their head feeling.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


Truest post yet in this thread!

Excellent... there is very little to add!

reply to post by elouina


Ohhh... please!

Are you suggesting it is only under the current administration that we are seeing this level of PR/propaganda? This is exactly the same as every administration has ever done... that's "EVERY"... even your favorites that wrote your precious constitution... what?... you need a document to tell you how to think?... lol... it's as bad as religion!

The USA have been at the forefront of "propaganda" since cameras were invente... actually since the USA was "discovered(lol)"...

... It is exactly what the US "stands" for.

LOL

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


... and in India it is rude to interact with people or things with your left hand... it suggests that you are wiping your butt...

If you try to contextualize one sociological viewpoint with another, often misinterpretations and insults can be perceived... even if they're not actually there.

I've thrown a shoe because it was the only thing to throw at the time... I wasn't thinking of heinous insult at the time... I was thinking of hitting something with an object... it happened to be a shoe.

Perspective and context are key.

You may be right about a lot of things... but be careful when applying your particular viewpoint without trying to take into account everyone else's viewpoint... it is easy to pick and choose to paint whatever story you want.

With a little reworking of almost the exact same content you posted, a couple words here, an arbitrary linking there, and your post could suggest the complete opposite.