The media create fake imagery so the public do not have to see the graphic reality...

I was thinking about this yesterday and looked at some of the mainstream images in relation to Boston and then I went to another website and saw terrible graphic images and this website is not 'mainstream' and it occurred to me that the crisis actors and errors with photoshopped images are just a way of the media releasing/re enacting a situation that is too graphic for people to cope with, so they make it viewable.

There is no way the graphic imagery would be made available to the public, or for 'general viewing' or even 'parental guidance' categories... which is pretty much 'news category'. I also think this maybe a way of protecting the 'victims'...so some appear obvious 'media fakery' and leave doubts in our minds to the credibility of events but I feel that this is what happens so not to disturb us too much.

I am pretty sure we have all been shocked by live feed images, especially the live footage of Mumbai and various other world wide events... I for one, wish I had never seen them... the images linger and torment my mind.

why would msn create imagery? Because they cannot use the real images because those images are way too graphic and disturbing and of course would be censored... little kids may watch the news. Even when 911 occurred, schools had to counsel children and brought in a program to help kids deal with seeing People 'jumping out of the buildings to their death'. It was so in your face, everywhere that it was affecting kids.

And the end result is that People who are educated say, "omg that image is so not right"...and then they believe the entire event is a false flag...but I am leaning more towards this reason than false flag or 'it did not happen'.

just my .02c

Interesting theory,

Examples of this I can remember are the Freeway shooting suicide that happened in SO Ca a while ago, man killed himself with a gun on a freeway overpass, went out live on air. Another is the Mayor of a town that held a press conference and blew his brains out on live tv, ever since those two events TV news has been very cautious about what they show live on the Air.

Frankly, I take anything thats on the tv as Scripted, too much money involved in advertising and such for it not to be carefully controlled and regulated that includes the news.

reply to post by Thurisaz


If you look at people killed in war, you wouldnt support the wars.
There are a lot of sites that cater for gory imagery and videos, most people either dont want to see the reality of war or dont know where to look to see it.

MSM cant show bomb victims with their insides up a wall, their head half ripped off and their brains dripping down their front.....especially when its kids or babies., not only because the majority of people would feel ill, but seeing such things would make people more hesitant when the government says they need a war.

Very interesting theory!

I have to ask though if it were true that our media is softening our images, could that possibly be why so many Americans are always so eager for war? Most war torn countries see the blood and gore live multiple times throughout their lives. Maybe if the public doesn't see the consequences of the choice for war it will be easier to get them to support it. I am willing to bet money if they showed pictures of the injured children in some of those regions, injured by american drones every mother from hear to eternity would oppose any and every war.

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
reply to post by Thurisaz

 

If you look at people killed in war, you wouldnt support the wars.
There are a lot of sites that cater for gory imagery and videos, most people either dont want to see the reality of war or dont know where to look to see it.

MSM cant show bomb victims with their insides up a wall, their head half ripped off and their brains dripping down their front.....especially when its kids or babies., not only because the majority of people would feel ill, but seeing such things would make people more hesitant when the government says they need a war.

edit on 20-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)

Many argue that the turning point of the Veitnam war was exactly that, the media coverage of the war.

Public opinion turned thus causing the support of the war from government to wain, when the facts on the ground did not support the opinion that the war was being lost.

reply to post by benrl


Ive seen some really gruesome stuff in my time, thats why i cannot stand war.
Many dont want to look for fear of feeling ill, im a firm believer people should be shown the dead charred remains of babies, and all the other nasty stuff that happens in war.

The Boston bombing images are tame compared to a war zone...leg hanging off, pfffft its nothing. But this is about as gruesome as some people will look at.

The videos are worse, half alive people gargling their last breaths, people that look dead because of the severity of their injuries but writhing in pain screaming to be put out of their misery....war is pure evil!!!

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
reply to post by benrl

 

Ive seen some really gruesome stuff in my time, thats why i cannot stand war.
Many dont want to look for fear of feeling ill, im a firm believer people should be shown the dead charred remains of babies, and all the other nasty stuff that happens in war.

The Boston bombing images are tame compared to a war zone...leg hanging off, pfffft its nothing. But this is about as gruesome as some people will look at.

The videos are worse, half alive people gargling their last breaths, people that look dead because of the severity of their injuries but writhing in pain screaming to be put out of their misery....war is pure evil!!!

edit on 20-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)

I agree, that is why I am so adamantly against drone warfare, it cheapens the cost of waging war, it makes it easy to kill another human being, something that should never be easy.

We should all be forced to see the results of the wars our country wages in our names.

Sure theres the time lag in news broadcast or prerecorded even when breaking sometimes...

but its 2013 most ppl are getting their new off the rawest, latest pics vids & tweet links

Anyhoo, the guys bones sticking out were conical- that just can't be real, nobody's leg is a peg-leg unless they already an amputeee

Originally posted by tropic
Sure theres the time lag in news broadcast or prerecorded even when breaking sometimes...

but its 2013 most ppl are getting their new off the rawest, latest pics vids & tweet links

Anyhoo, the guys bones sticking out were conical- that just can't be real, nobody's leg is a peg-leg unless they already an amputeee

Clearly you have never looked at other bomb victims with their legs blown off.....i cant post images here, as they are too graphic, but if you like i can PM you multiple images of bomb victims with exactly the same injuries.

Or you can google "legs blown off" images and educate yourself and save me the time

Double post! oops

reply to post by tropic


Oh we've got an expert up in here!

Expert on legs being blown off are you?

reply to post by AmberLeaf

Or you can google "legs blown off" images and educate yourself and save me the time

They're all fake too of course.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

Or you can google "legs blown off" images and educate yourself and save me the time

They're all fake too of course.

lol yea of course i must have photoshopped them

If you look at websites such as liveleak they show the true horrors of the world,one of the most horrific things Ive seen was 2 Africans soaked in petrol and set alite,it was pretty bad but this is reality,seeing things like that have only benefited me by opening my eyes and not being wrapped up in cotton wool.

It has also desensitised me to a degree,i didnt even bat an eyelid over the boston bombing,in fact I don't even care. people are getting blown to bits every day or dying in horrible ways if you think this incident is bad you haven't seen anything.

reply to post by Thurisaz

I worked in commercials at old Channel 51 Ft. Lauderdale Fla in the 80's.Youre absolutely dead-on with this.

Its has been a very long time that the "media"...."tv" say....has edited....everything, everytime, everywhere...if only for timing scheduling and content...at least since the 60's...

It used to just be referred to as "airbrushing'. The real reasons...have always seemed suspicious and nefarious.at time....at least I thought so.

reply to post by Thurisaz


mr. owl, i understand your explanation for why msm would use crisis actors and recreated scenes. but wouldn't that go against the ethics of news reporting? if the use of crisis actors and recreated event scenes is so prevalent, wouldn't there be a bigger public outcry and/or existing crisis actors' guild to support the truth? i think having a critical mind and wanting to deconstruct our apparent reality are healthy and useful. aside from a few posts here and there on ats and other sites (we are not allowed to mention), can you point to other examples?

reply to post by Lawgiver


yes sure I will, I am trying to find some other info on another topic and as soon as I have that... I will come back. apologies if there is a delay. cheers.

wont be long

reply to post by mysterioustranger

thankyou for the imput. I understand that media has to be careful especially in the legal area also.


reply to post by amurphy245

yes I agree, we do get desensitized to it all but we have a responsibility (I believe) to the children who may be watching msn.

reply to post by AmberLeaf

yes sure some of them are tame in comparison to others. Thanks for sharing... there are some absolutely gruesome images. Don't you think they stay in your mind and even if you want to forget them... they just don't go away? I can cope with these things but I do feel we need to protect the minds of our children. cheers

reply to post by benrl


I agree. Media and the realities of war such as Vietnam was a definite turning point.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


yes again, I agree. I have stumbled upon some horrific websites, (none of which I would link here) and although it is truthful... msn could not whatsoever show those to the public.

reply to post by RagnarDanniskjold


yes good point you make and is noted with Amberleaf's reply also. It could also be why the msn do not show those images? Your right, if People saw the reality of a child's body strewn all over the road after a bomb had gone off... People (perhaps) may feel differently and just like public opinion with the Vietnam war, it could make a difference and perhaps that is what they (the powers that be) don't want?
thanks for your reply

reply to post by tropic


thanks for your imput. Your reply actually illustrates the point I was making...you are critical of the images that you have seen and doubt them as being real. Well, there are other images online that show the real thing and I will not link it here. msn has to soften the reality. It does not mean 'it did not happen'

reply to post by Lawgiver


I was going to provide you with other examples and actually spent time on it, for eg, Rodney King riots etc but feel it is unnecessary... there are so many on msn, even the Sandy Hook shooting... I can't/won't post websites/links that show the actual horrors of those events. We were shocked enough to have to watch the live footage of the chap being pulled from his truck and beaten to death. cheers

Originally posted by Lawgiver
reply to post by Thurisaz

 

mr. owl, i understand your explanation for why msm would use crisis actors and recreated scenes. but wouldn't that go against the ethics of news reporting? if the use of crisis actors and recreated event scenes is so prevalent, wouldn't there be a bigger public outcry and/or existing crisis actors' guild to support the truth? i think having a critical mind and wanting to deconstruct our apparent reality are healthy and useful. aside from a few posts here and there on ats and other sites (we are not allowed to mention), can you point to other examples?

Ethics? In reporters? Thing of the past. When they are ready to lay your life open to the bone, with no care if they are getting the facts or just public opinion, ethics in journalism is long dead.

reply to post by Thurisaz

Thanks Thurisaz: Over the years Ive watched everything in the editing room get cut-down, cut-out, sped-up, slowed down, added to and taken from. Things go like a 1:42 piece on a shooting get cut into a 61 sec piece to allow in a commercial about dish soap...and this is done for everything to fit. Commercials to
programs...programs to fit in commercials, and news pieces hacked to in between both.

More to the point...Ive always suspected the gov can get in there to the network or station heads, who get to the program director...who get to the producers...who gets to an engineering supervisor...who get to the...you get it.
Things have been like this for a very very long time.

I do think our society got wise 20-30 years ago when the average person could go and use programs like Powerpoint to "edit" our home movies...then we thought about TPTB...and we all sighed a collective..."HMMMMMMMMM. Oh-oh...!"

Thanx again.....MS