(06-30-2018, 03:54 AM)Amaterasu Solar Wrote: ...Just as an example, a friend of Mine lived down the block from a place where a hired hand,
who lived in a trailer on the property, took someOne hostage. The police were all over the
place, and My friend got some footage that only showed Them.
After a couple of hours, the guy let the hostage go and then used the propane tank to blow
Himself up.
My friend was CERTAIN His little town would be on the national news!
And yet.... The incident didn't even make the LOCAL news! No REAL stuff is reported on.
Only the manufactured plays sold to Us as "reality" are offered. And they all have agendas
attached....
I've mentioned these examples before, when I was working for a local newspaper.
My job was imagery manipulation due to digital colour being far-different from real ink-use.
I understand how a photograph can purvey much more than several paragraphs of bullsh*t and
how sometimes, for decency reasons, particular parts of a photograph can be taken out.
But that doesn't mean I agree with it.
...................
A Policeman and a Journalist would arrive at my desk in the evening with a suicide-note from somebody
who'd I'd assumed, recently took their own life. The Journalist would ask for a 'rag-out' part of the note
that would infer the dead person's reasons for the tragic action.
After scanning the whole note, I would raggedly cut around the desired section of the text, emphasise the
edges, put a faint shadowing behind the image to imply the image was a torn piece of paper and then save
the finished item to the Newsdesk.
The Police Officer then would take the real suicide note away and ask me to delete the copy.
Which he believed I did.
But the story placed in the article with the image -and the full reading of the suicide note were entirely
different. The chosen section always held a duel view, a written reason for the person's depression was
omitted or worded to infer something else.
...................
(My memory of the exact percentages is vague on this one!)
The Head of Graphic Design requested the output of a poster (it involves machinery placing layers of blue,
reed, yellow and black laminate onto large white card). The poster announced that 30-odd% of our paper's
readers were satisfied with it's content.
One would assume a survey was undertaken and that's how the number acquired.
Calling up the design up on my monitor, the Manager asked me if I felt the number was too low. I shrugged
my disinterest and answered it was sort of was.
He agreed and asked me to change it to around 47%!
Just like that, our approving readership had increased and a falsehood would become reality to anyone passing
a newsstand the next day.
It's based on the simple premise that newspapers don't lie because they've told us they don't.
...................
Tony Blair -the UK's Prime Minister at the time, was visiting our newspaper offices and the account published
in the paper the next day, was that he also discussed some problems with a local Union Leader.
The large photograph on the front page showed the two men in the same room and looking like they were posing
for pictures before getting down to the matters in-hand. The article explained all this but left out one vital part.
The two men were in the same room, just not at the same time!
The Union Leader wasn't cut out and pasted into the image with the Prime Minister, a whole half of the room was
because the magnolia-painted walls were all the same. A pragmatic view from someone who looked for short-cuts
in their job.
If one worked in the building, you wouldn't know, if you worked in the actual office, you might notice that a book-filled
cabinet had been moved. That brings it down to the employee changing the image, the Journalist requesting the
image, the Editor 'suggesting' the alteration and whoever the falsehood really benefitted.
................................................
The realities of behind what occurs are important.
The image is just done without any moral concerns by the employee creating the falsehood. He/she doesn't give a
crap as long as their money keeps coming and the bills get paid.
The Journalist doesn't care because it 'excites' the article and they're aware that today's front-page will be tomorrow's
fish-and-chip wrapper or lining the bottom of a bird cage. The Sub and Editors have columns to fill and as long as the
text isn't libel and the photograph doesn't show genitals, it should be good-to-go.
It comes down to knowing the difference and the media assuming that the reader/viewer doesn't have access to a
different perspective. They won't write about the realities in politics and governance because it's cutting off valuable
material to write about!
The deception is so easily done without any thought of where it will all eventually lead.
Who cares if Blair met the Union-guy...? But somewhere along the logistics of getting a Prime Minister to step into that
particular room and having the union delegate visit that office before Blair, an accepted narrative was formed.
The Jounalist gets nothing out of it. A 'celeb' story of an important political dignitary... that's the article right there.
The reader -if a member of that union, thinks his guy is doing his job and making an impact on those who lead the country.
The reader -not a member, browses the story and then turns the page to see if they recognise any of the names in
the Death Announcements or who's in court today.
But who thought of the idea that the public should think the Prime Minister met with a Union Leader?
Who instructed a small-town Editor to tell a Journalist to ask for two photographs to be merged into one?
The 'why' was no doubt, mixed in with the public relations bullsh*t, it's the 'how' that facinates me.
In a small newspaper and with a dwindling audience (they laid me off after 26 years!)... who thinks on that level and ponders
every variable?
Sorry for my ramblings!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.